Low carb and how we are winning the fight against climate change

Not everyone can stand Al Gore or any talk about global warming. But if you do, then consider checking out this new TED talk.

Low carb and the environment

A few things are worth considering as a low-carb fan. Low carb is often claimed to be environmentally unsustainable due to an emphasis on meat, especially from cows (and their methane release). This is wrong for two reasons:

1. Low-carb, high-fat diets are not supposed to be high in meat (protein) at all. They are moderate in protein and it’s even possible to eat a vegetarian version. There’s certainly no need to eat cows at all.

2. Methane from animals is part of a carbon cycle. It is relatively rapidly broken down to carbon dioxide that is taken up by plants again. Net effect = no new added carbon to the atmosphere. This is very different from burning fossil fuels, which adds carbon to the atmosphere for millions if not hundreds of millions of years.

We could get rid of (kill) every cow on the planet and it would only delay global warming by a few years, if even that. Then the same thing would happen anyway.

What we should worry about is not animals passing gas, but the burning of fossil fuels. This is what Al Gore and any other experts without other agenda focuses on.

Winning against global warming

The exciting part of Gore’s talk is that we will eventually win the fight against climate change. It’s inevitable as renewable energy sources like sun and wind energy (and batteries) are rapidly becoming cheaper and better. Pretty soon they will be cheaper than burning fossil fuels – and then they will become the default energy source for the planet.

Add electric cars and other transportation – also coming up fast – and we have solved global warming.

It will happen. We will win. The only remaining question is this: how much will we mess up our planet before it happens? How hot will it get? It matters a great deal for our children.


  1. John
    Geez. Don't go there. AG has been caught lying through his teeth about AGW.
    The climate has never been constant and the tiny amount of co2 that we added has no measurable effect whatsoever. In fact, more co2 means more plant life. Without co2 life as we know it would be totally impossible.
    The planet has spent more time frozen in ice ages than it has been warm.
    Just adapt, keep the planet clean and enjoy its resources.
    The socalled fight against climate is a hoax, next to the low fat diets.
    Reply: #10
  2. tz
    You now believe the government paid scientists and science? Next thing you'll be saying is grains and statins are good. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for full coverage including climategate - the emails, the denial of "the pause", and how bad the "science" is. I'm saying to judge for yourself, just like you are asking everyone to judge whether it is carbs or calories. Doesn't "a calorie is a calorie" make more sense? "Just eat fewer calories than you burn"? Sounds good but you know it is wrong. If you look at the actual record (including meadows paved with asphalt) you don't find warming. And you are closer to Greenland than I - it was green and they farmed and herded - the Medieval warm period. It got cooler when we started burning witches, but we recently stopped and it may be warmer.
  3. Marian SC
    I understand the good intention of this post. But I have to laugh at how Al Gore just has to insert himself during each Presidental election cycle, somehow. ?
  4. 1 comment removed
  5. Tor H
    In the beginning Al Gore invented Anthropogenic Global Warming.............:P
  6. Mike S
    I'm currently reading the book "Defending Beef" by Nicolette Hahn Niman. Cattle are not the problem, they are the solution. I recommend reading about work done be Allan Savory and farmer Joel Salatan.
  7. Jared Bradford
    All Gore looks like he needs a LCHF diet.
  8. Tor H
    Oh and finally we have proof there's life on Mars.
    Has to be lots of farting lifestock up there:


  9. Apicius
    Don't kid yourself. Al Gore is in it for the money. His talks and presence in the media are designed to favour his investment company. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/gore-sees-sustainab...
  10. Pierre
    I can't believe people with normal brain fall in this huge scam to milk the populace in order to enrich the 0,001% !

    AG is the man who predicted in 2006 that the north pole would be completely free of ice by summer 2016. We will see if that happen! I bet that will not be the case.

    His carbon footprint:


    AG personal wealth:


  11. Charles
    Here we go again! Elite scientists + elite politicians = propaganda not good science. The entire AGW message reminds me very much what scientists, politicians and crony cpitalists did over the past 50 years to cause the obesity / type 2 diabetes epidemic. True science is being stifled by the climate alarmists with likely the same dire consequences especially the poor in the third world.
  12. Bob Johnston
    I've found the scientific circumstances behind nutrition/diet to be incredibly similar to global warming/climatology. Nutrition has Ancel Keys, climatology has Michael Mann. Nutrition recommendations are based upon terrible observational studies, ditto global warming (it's actually impossible to run RCTs on CO2/global warming - there's only one earth). Nutrition has made many industries wealthy by pushing bad science, ditto climatology research/green energy/environmental groups. People believe the conventional wisdom behind nutrition because the mass media has its head up its butt, ditto global warming.

    Most of the low carbers I know are also skeptical of the claims made by global warming alarmists simply because they know just how wrong the "experts" have it on nutrition, once you come to the realization that the science is crap in one field (and been that way for 50 years) it's not too difficult a leap to question the experts in another.

  13. Eric
    Stick with HFLC and not the AGW or anti beef.
    Eggs, beef, butter are better than sugar cane and grains for human diet let alone grass and forage
  14. RS
  15. Rossen
    Well, in the late 70-ies - early-80-ies it was "the new Ice Age"...
  16. Pierre
    Antarctica gaining more ice than losing – NASA


  17. Art Ford
    You really should not raise a science topic, such as climate change an/or global warming, if your reasoning is void of empirical evidence and a validated scientific hypothesis. Spouting anti-science nonsense does not help your credibility as a scientific source for nutrition advice.

    Fwiw, humans can't stop climate change. Climate change is a continuous earthly process that has always existed and will continue to be. It produces both good and bad, depending on your given human viewpoint.

    Let's review some basic real-world facts: we can't stop wars; we can't stop terrorism; we can't stop poverty; we can't stop hunger; we can't illegal drug use; we can't stop the Mideast crisis; we can't stop evolution; we can't even stop potholes from forming in roads; we can't stop the absurd refugee influx; we can't stop the every few years major financial crisis; we can't stop Americans from watching stupid reality TV shows; and, we certainly can't stop climate change.

    But you can stop uttering Gore's anti-science nonsense about a subject you apparently know little about.

    As far as "This is what Al Gore and any other experts without other agenda focuses on" - as former tennis star John McEnroe would say, "you cannot be serious!"

    Politically driven elites like Al Gore don't have an agenda? Hellooo......$$$$$$$$, ya think?

    Let's put this into this blog's realm: Should we now believe that nutrition and health experts like Ancel Keys or Walter Willet or the U.S. Department of Agriculture are/were agenda-less? Really? And now Al Gore and other "experts" spewing irrational fears with climate doomsday-cult prophecies don't have an agenda?

    As a daily reader of your blog, for me at least, you've now raised issues as to your nutrition advice and its scientific integrity. Sadly, it confirms my prior decision not to become a paying member - reliance on anecdotal evidence and "expert" opinions is not science, nor always the best health advice.

  18. RS
    An inconvenient truth: ‘Climate change industry’ now a $1.5 trillion global business:
  19. Eva
    AG is pretty optimistic. If the USA has cancelled, and are in the process of phasing out coal powered plants, you'd think there would have been a lot more hoopla around it in news media. Or have I missed something?
  20. Rena
    You lost some credibility with me. Climate change science is bad science; they omit data that doesn't support their thesis just as Keyes did.
  21. tipp
    När man hänvisar till Al Gore beträffande AGW så är jag beredd att säga upp abonnemanget på Kostdoktorn. En person, Al Gore, som bygger enorma hus, något när stranden, flyger omkring i privatjetplan, tar hutlöst betalt för sina "föreläsningar", inte vågar ta en diskussion med en påläst motståndare och vilkens film inte får visas på sina håll utan medföljande tillrättaläggande av lögnerna i filmen är omöjlig att hänvisa till om man vill bli trodd.
    I Sverige har vi en agronom, Rockström, som är utnämnd till professor i miljövetenskap (utan att ha studerat det svulstiga området) och regeringens klimatexpert!!! När den här agronomen till och med fördömer korna så vet man att inte tillägnat sig mycket lärdom.
    El Niño värmer upp världen ett par år, sedan kan det bli som solforskarna säger; vi går mot 2-3-4 kallare decennier. Då hoppas jag att vi har kärnkraften kvar och att man vågar värma upp stora växthus med kylvattnet därifrån för odling av grönsaker, för ett temperaturfall i världen kommer att göra all mat mycket dyrare och svårare att få tag i. (Kylvattnet har ingen kontakt med reaktorn och är därför inte radioaktivt). Övergång till sol- och vindenergi innebär att man måste ha kvar/bygga kol- och gaskraft eftersom solen inte lyser och vinden inte blåser många dagar. Vi måste kort och gott betala två energisystem för att vara säkra på att få ström till våra hushållsmaskiner. Och ingen privat vill satsa på det därför det blir inte lönsamt utan stora subventioner och alla subventioner kommer från skattebetalarna. Elbilar kan bli bra inne i städerna, men inte för dem med växlande eller långa körningar. Elbilar är inte till för en levande landsbygd.
  22. Dan
    Please cancel my membership!
    Reply: #24
  23. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    It's already cancelled.
  24. Tim
    This is hard to believe...government regulations which result from pseudo-science are why we're in this dietary mess. And some people want more of it...gluttons for punishment, I guess.
  25. Alan
    What everyone else said - don't even go there!
  26. buzzerd
    This is funny. Eating a vegetarian diet causes FAR more flatulence. Therefore more carbon gases. Also the amount of hydrocarbons burned up for tractors and etc to harvest plants is insane compared to letting animals graze and using electricity in slaughterhouses.
    I also find it amusing how people here are reacting! For instance, HFLC works when looking at either the empirical chemistry OR at the calorie math. We win no matter which model of losing weight you side with.
    The same with climate change. Whether you believe that it's excessive animal flatulence, burned hydrocarbons, or that global warming isn't really a concern at all... HFLC wins. Hands down!
  27. Cedric Chin
    Low carb also means eating less food, and less processed food. Consuming less resources should do its part to help the environment!
  28. Cassieoz
    Tired of hearing how renewables and batteries are going to save us all without any discussion of the limits to supplies of rare earths or the difficulties of disposing of spent batteries.

    PS ruminants generally burp methane, rather than fart it.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts