This paper examines the climate commitments of the world’s 35 largest meat and dairy companies - summarised in this table - which together produce around 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture. It also compares the companies’ projected future emissions to the Paris climate commitments of the country in which each company is headquartered (while noting that the Paris Agreement does not view climate responsibility in these terms), and traces the political influence of the 10 largest US meat and dairy companies.

This report, from the US think tank The Breakthrough Institute, sets out policy options for the US government to decarbonise the economy despite a polarised political climate, focusing on the energy, transport and agriculture sectors.

In this BBC Future piece, Emily Kasriel uses a communication approach called “deep listening” to better understand how dairy farmers think about climate change. Kasriel describes deep listening: “I try to be completely present, using deep listening. I focus on their words, but also try to sense the meaning behind them to better understand their world view.” She talks to dairy farmers who hold varying views about the validity of climate science and the future of the sector.

According to this article from POLITICO, dairy farmers in West Africa are being undercut by exports of “fat-filled milk powder” from the European Union. This product is a blend of dairy whey left over from processes such as butter manufacture and vegetable fats such as palm oil. 

This report from US thinktank The Breakthrough Institute suggests federal policy pathways to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of dairy farming in the United States. It estimates the potential job creation and climate mitigation potential of each proposal and finds that, together, the policy proposals could save and create tens of thousands of jobs, while also reducing dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by tens of millions of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

This article argues that “super low carbon cows” (cows that emit lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than conventional cows with the help of breeding, technology or livestock management practices) can be thought of as a form of geoengineering. The author argues that the promise of “super low carbon cows” is being used by some corporations to position business as part of the solution to climate change, while neglecting to address factors such as lifestyle and market structures.

This paper from the Oxford Livestock, Environment and People (LEAP) programme examines the narratives that have - at different times and places - surrounded three scenarios about the future of milk and dairy: “more milk”, “better milk” and “less milk”. 

This report from the international non-profit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy examines the climate impacts of large dairy corporations. It finds that greenhouse gas emissions from the 13 largest dairy companies have increased by 11% over the last two years, alongside an 8% increase in milk production, and that none of these corporations has published plans to cut total emissions in their dairy supply chains. 

This working paper from the World Resources Institute compares the carbon footprint of dairy from 13 different countries and pork from 11 countries. It uses a carbon opportunity cost approach to carbon footprinting, i.e. it accounts for carbon that is not stored in vegetation or soils because the land is being used to produce dairy or pork.