Apr. 28th, 2025
Hey team, and welcome back to one5c! I won’t linger because we have a ton of great stuff for y’all this late-April Monday: toilet paper troubles for Amazon, a sharp new electric pickup, and a reason to hang on to those protest signs. And we’ve got a real gem from Audrey about the persistent problems with cow digestion—it’s after the, uh, digest. —Corinne
WHAT WE’RE INTO THIS WEEK
By Sara Kiley Watson and Joe Brown
Cause for optimism
An electric pickup you might actually be able to afford
American pickup trucks are huge. Electric American pickup trucks are huge and cost as much as German luxury cars. That could change, if upstart-automaker Slate can get the vehicles it unveiled last week on the road. Some prototypes are already out in the world, and the company says that its $20,000 (after tax incentives) two-seat rides should start showing up in driveways and Home Depot parking lots next year. Slate’s truck is about the size of a 1980s Toyota pickup; it sports a 5-foot bed, a 150-mile range (you can opt for a bigger battery), and a no-frills interior. No frills as in crank windows and only one screen, which spends most of its time as a speedometer. Want GPS? Use your phone; there’s a holder. Want music? Use your phone. You get the idea. If this sounds like the electric hauler you’ve been waiting for, Slate is taking preorders.
Action alert
Survey says: Keep protesting
On Earth Day, hundreds of protests and marches exploded across the globe, such as the All Out on Earth Day mobilization that included participants from the Sunrise Movement, Climate Power, Third Act Unitarian Universalists, and the NAACP. Almost as energizing as seeing thousands take to the streets, however, is a fresh reminder that protesting works: A new review in the journal Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences unpacks the influence climate change activism has. The authors found that it can move the needle on public opinion and media coverage; it’s also likely to increase votership for climate-minded candidates and spur politicians to actually talk about the issue, though to a lesser degree. Demonstrations and protests are happening all the time: If you need help finding a group to hop in near you, the Sunrise Movement and 350.org have super handy guides.
Study guide
Connecting the dots on climate damage
According to a study published last week in Nature, 11 of the world’s largest-emitting corporations (which include ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and Saudi Aramco) have caused $28 trillion worth of damage to the planet. In context, that’s around the value of all goods and services produced in the United States last year. While this statistic is dizzying, it has a silver lining: The methodology the authors used makes direct links between individual companies and the extreme heat the globe experienced from 1991 to 2020. For example, they found that pollution from Chevron alone has warmed the Earth by 0.045 degrees Fahrenheit. Findings like these can bolster lawsuits and policies that send the bill to major corporations for their climate impacts, including Vermont’s historic polluter-pays law that requires fossil fuel companies to cover damages from extreme weather events in the state.
Accountability check
A new lawsuit calls out Amazon’s crappy toilet paper
Toilet paper is one of the most curious climate cases. The average person blows through 141 rolls of the stuff a year, most of which contributes to deforestation because the paper comes from freshly cut trees. There are some options that are considerably less terrible for the planet than the stuff made from logged trees, but according to a new class-action lawsuit, Amazon Basics Paper Products are definitely not among them. The plaintiffs allege that the company failed to disclose that the products are made from wood harvested via questionable methods like clear-cutting. On top of that, they say that Amazon misled shoppers by plopping an unqualified Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) badge on said products to state that its paper comes from responsibly managed forests that “provide environmental, social and economic benefits.” If you’re looking for a toilet paper product that does the job and isn’t crappy for the planet, check out our pick for the best recycled toilet paper.
GREENWATCH
The promise—and problems—of ‘methane-free’ cattle
By Audrey Chan
Cows are a heavyweight in the climate conversation. The livestock industry makes up almost 15% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, two-thirds of which comes from bovines raised for beef and dairy.
A big reason? The digestive process in ruminants like cows, sheep, and goats, known as enteric fermentation. Cows have a multichambered stomach, and one compartment is home to microbes that break down tough plant matter. This causes cows to burp—a lot. Every year, one bovine can belch 220 pounds of methane, and the whole global herd produces around 30% of the world’s human-made methane—more than the energy sector, waste, and biomass burning. Methane doesn’t stick around in the atmosphere as long as CO2, but over 20 years, it traps over 80 times the heat.
With four years left to hit the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, global leaders agree that cutting back on methane is a make-or-break opportunity. But with Americans demanding more meat than ever and becoming increasingly hesitant to give it up, researchers are turning to science in hopes of creating climate-smart cattle. But is it enough? Let’s get into it.
What a low-methane cow could look like
Researchers and companies have increasingly embraced the idea of low-methane cows, experimenting with solutions from masks to methane-inhibiting feed additives. One oft-discussed way involves bromoform, a compound found in seaweed like Asparagopsis and sugar kelp, which disrupts cows’ digestive systems. Such naturally derived additives have varying levels of success, gaining support from fast food giants like Chipotle and billionaires like Bill Gates. Synthetic additives like Bovaer claim to reduce methane emissions in dairy cows by 30% and 45% in beef cattle on average. In April, a study published in the Journal of Dairy Science found flaxseed and pea protein can help cut cows’ methane output.
A methane-free cow could also start at the genetic level. Some scientists have floated vaccines that target the emitting bacteria in cow guts or selectively breeding lower-emitting livestock. And there’s no dearth of money for those keen to find a clean-burping bovine. The Bezos Earth Fund announced $19 million in funding toward both developments in April.
Potential––or potential greenwashing?
LWith all this going on, where’s the methane-free beef? There are two major issues. First off, these technologies don’t completely nix the potent gas. Ermias Kebreab, professor and Sesnon Endowed Chair in the Department of Animal Science at UC Davis, expects methane reductions of 20% to 30% at scale using technologies like Bovaer or seaweed-based additives—potentially more with genetic improvements. Still, there’s no data on the books yet to show that these interventions don’t affect animal health, productivity, or the environment through residues or emissions trade-offs. There’s also the challenge of getting enough vaccines and/or additives to places like Brazil, China, and the European Union, which trail closely behind the U.S. as top beef producers. “Deploying these solutions in low- and middle-income countries is challenging due to cost, access, and regulatory hurdles,” he says. “But the impact could be transformative.”
Burps are also just one part of the equation when it comes to livestock’s climate footprint. Critics point to the trade’s sprawling supply chain: Land-clearing for cattle feed and farming drives at least 40% of tropical deforestation and the energy efficiency of beef sits at a mere 1.9% (meaning 98.1% of cattle feed inputs are lost when they’re turned into animal products). “Mitigating methane emissions alone won’t offset the broader climate impacts of land-use change,” Kebreab says. “If low-methane cattle are raised in systems that still drive deforestation or rely on high-impact feeds like soy from cleared tropical land, the net environmental gain may be minimal or even negative.”
The best path is not either/or
For Kebreab, methane mitigation must be part of a broader strategy that includes stopping deforestation, improving efficiency, and adopting sustainable land management. But another key component is making the public aware of beef’s impact so that they can make informed decisions—including eating less of it.
According to a study published earlier this year in Food Policy, consumers preferred low-methane beef products once they were made aware of the difference. But, to dig deeper, American adults who are open to dietary change could axe their food-based emissions by 40% if they traded beef for plant-based proteins.
Big Beef doesn’t want folks to know that. Instead, giants like Tyson Foods are playing into dreams of “green beef.” They market products as “climate-smart” to boost sales despite lacking data to support such claims and face lawsuits for misleading consumers.
While we’re waiting for these emerging solutions to scale, the most immediate, results-guaranteed way to shrink our food-related methane footprint is simple: reduce our demand for beef and dairy products. “The best path is not either/or, but both: shifting diets and transforming production to meet nutritional needs within planetary boundaries,” Kebreab says.
MIC-DROP CLIMATE STAT
73%
The portion of Americans who are concerned that their electricity and gas bills will increase this year, according to a survey from Ipsos. Efficiency-proofing can help, and our guide can get you started.
Copyright © 2025 one5c. All rights reserved.
Logo design by Claudia De Almeida
Questions? Feedback? Contact the editors at one5c@one5c.com.
Our mailing address is:
3112 Windsor Rd, Ste A-391, Austin, TX 78703