
Scientist reveals why we should quit or cut down on burgers to save the planet
Professor Paul Behrens of the University of Oxford claims people must cut down on meat and dairy to save the planet, and he argued that long–term climate change could make it impossible to grow food in one-third of current production areas.
The professor wrote on The Conversation: 'A shift to plant-rich diets in the UK would free an area almost the size of Scotland [30,000 square miles].'
Those of us who love chicken, pork, and beef shouldn't worry, though, as you could still enjoy your favorite meals.
Professor Behrens said: 'It's not even vegetarian, although it does include a more reasonable - and healthier - amount of meat and dairy.
'For example, it still includes a hamburger every fortnight.'
The professor explained that a shift to plant–rich diets would provide more space to grow crops and help curb rising food prices.
He cited research by agricultural economists that found one-third of food price increases in UK in 2023 resulted from climate change.
Other studies also predicted significant food price increases every year over the coming decade.
Consistent stress on the food system could even cause collapse, according to some experts, which could prompt civil unrest and lead to riots.
Professor Behrens said: 'This trajectory of climate-driven food price hikes - leading to social unrest and political decay - is not inevitable.
'The scientific consensus shows that the biggest opportunity we have for reducing food's environmental impacts across many countries is increasing the amount of plants we eat and reducing meat and dairy intake.'
A previous study, also carried out by academics at the University of Oxford, revealed that eating just 100g of meat per day - less than a single burger - created four times more greenhouse gases when compared to a vegan diet.
Peter Scarborough at Oxford's Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences said: 'Our dietary choices have a big impact on the planet. Our results, which use data from over 38,000 farms in over 100 countries, show that high meat diets have the biggest impact for many important environmental indicators, including climate change and biodiversity loss.
'Cutting down the amount of meat and dairy in your diet can make a big difference to your dietary footprint.'
Researchers performed computer modelling scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions up to the 22nd century using publicly available data from the UN.
Experts found that eliminating all animal agriculture in the next 15 years would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Animal agriculture contributed to global warming because of the methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon emissions of livestock together with their supply chains.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Can an AI chatbot of Dr Karl change climate sceptics' minds? He's willing to give it a try
There's arguably no face, voice or collection of exuberant, patterned shirts more recognisable than those belonging to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki. The bespectacled boffin has been answering curly listener questions about science, with characteristic excitement and passion, for more than 40 years. Despite a seemingly tireless work ethic, Kruszelnicki, now 77 years old, can't be everywhere all at once. Those questions now come in waves, across social media platforms at all hours of the day. 'Sometimes I get 300 requests a day on Twitter to answer an involved question about climate change,' Kruszelnicki says. Particularly on X (formerly Twitter), he says he would often engage with users who don't believe climate change is real or urgent. He hoped there might be a way to change the minds of this group of people, who he says have been bombarded by misinformation in places such as the Murdoch press for the past 30 years. After speaking with longtime friend and technology journalist Leigh Stark, the pair settled on an idea: an AI-powered Digital Dr Karl. Using a large language model (LLM), they're creating a chatbot designed to sound like Kruszelnicki that provides users with evidence, backed by trustworthy sources, that the climate crisis is caused by humans and is an urgent problem to solve. 'I cannot answer all the questions by myself and people want questions answered. The only way I can do it is develop this digital AI,' he says. Kruszelnicki's achievements as a science communicator are unparalleled: in Australia he's considered a National Living Treasure, he won the Unesco Kalinga prize, he wrote dozens of books and is the one and only Julius Sumner Miller Fellow at the University of Sydney, a position he has held since 1993. He believes AI can help convince those who don't believe in the severity and causes of the climate crisis – even if there are outstanding questions around the ethical use of AI, its training data, accuracy and its own environmental impacts. 'I think with climate change, we are at a stage where the perfect is the enemy of the good,' he says. 'We're certainly not going to become unethical or become like the forces of evil.' Digital Dr Karl runs on an open-source LLM developed by Mistral, a French company considered one of Europe's challengers to OpenAI and Google. To create Digital Dr Karl, Stark has taken Mistral's base model, then trained it on a corpus of Kruszelnicki's climate science resources acquired through his own research for his own books and writing on climate. It includes academic papers, consensus statements and original articles from publications including the New York Times, the Guardian and RenewEconomy to build out its knowledge, just like the real Kruszelnicki has. 'This is an AI that's been trained on the 40,000 PDFs I've gathered over the last 40 years,' he says. Stark says questions over copyright are valid, and he would like to ultimately have the chatbot trained exclusively on data, but says 'we're not at that point yet', emphasising 'this is beta, this is really early stuff' and the intent is to build something 'based solely on data'. Taking the Guardian through a demonstration of Digital Dr Karl, Stark reveals the AI interface is similar to ChatGPT, and users can type in a single query about climate change to kickstart a conversation. Stark types in 'climate change is a hoax' and the Digital Dr Karl replies a few seconds later in a stilted and tonally inconsistent recreation of Kruszelnicki's voice. It wants to know if we are suggesting climate change 'is a fabricated idea'. We are only able to answer yes or no. We respond yes, at which point the AI quotes Barack Obama on the effects of climate change. As the conversation continues, Digital Dr Karl displays data, such as graphs showing atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 170 years. But it also seems to mix metaphors and 'hallucinate' (the terminology used in AI research for 'make up') some of the numbers for atmospheric carbon dioxide rise. Stark describes the AI as both an 'alpha' and 'beta' version, and he is working to improve the AI voice, but expects Digital Dr Karl will release this in October. Kruszelnicki says he has already spent $20,000 of his own money since February to develop the AI: 'This is purely philanthropic – I do this because I see this as my duty, in return for 16 years of free university education that I received.' Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion Kruszelnicki plans to run his digital self for 100 days because 'it's a nice round number'. He will also deliver 100 TikToks, one a day, alongside the project and each one will push people to his Digital Dr Karl, Stark says. After 100 days, the pair will switch off their AI and 'work out what the fuck just happened'. At that juncture they will do a survey with the hope that the result is that 'more people are open-minded and believe in climate change', says Stark. Kruszelnicki says they're just 'trying to do the Mark 1' and will see what they find before deciding whether they go on to a Mark 2. There are some hints about what could happen. Mounting evidence – academic and anecdotal – suggests LLMs can influence emotion, opinion and belief. In September 2024, a study in the journal Science showed conversations with a chatbot could reduce participants' belief in their chosen conspiracy theory, including everything from the Kennedy assassination to the illuminati, by around 20% on average. The effect persisted for two months after the conversations took place. Thomas Costello, assistant professor of psychology at American University and lead author of the Science study, says the AI is persuasive because it can rapidly access and strategically deploy information in conversation. 'The back and forth is useful because [reasoned] dialogue and debate is excellent at surfacing the crux of disagreements and kicking the tyres of each side,' he says. Costello has also co-authored another study, yet to be peer-reviewed but available online, suggesting a similar effect is seen when AI models, tailored to respond to specific concerns from a user, address climate scepticism and inaction. One of the key elements though, is that these AI agents are not based on any real person, and to shape belief, users must be willing to engage in conversation. But even if Digital Dr Karl can change minds, it contains the same outstanding issues as other LLMs. Kruszelnicki and Stark hope to alleviate the concerns around AI's environmental impacts. 'We'll run the website entirely off solar panels and you don't need a lot of energy,' says Kruszelnicki. Stark says Digital Dr Karl is running off a very small amount of computer memory on a $12,000 Mac and it theoretically can run on renewables. 'If we can get several of these computers running off of a solar battery or basically solar panel and a large battery, then we can effectively run this on renewables.' However, with more users, Stark says scaling it could be a challenge – he expects up to 2,500 people will be accessing Digital Dr Karl at any time. 'We're going to be keeping an eye on it, on every response that it makes,' Kruszelnicki says. 'And if it goes bad, we'll pull the plug.'


Daily Mail
9 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Woman who claims she can 'connect with the dead' reveals terrifying reason why you should never have a mirror facing your bed
A woman who describes herself as a 'psychic medium' has warned that having a mirror facing the bed could bring 'unwanted spirits' into the home - but says there's a simple way for people to protect themselves. Leah, from the UK, who is known to her 51,500 TikTok followers as Psychic Leah, previously said that she has been able to 'see and connect with the dead' since she was 18 months old. In a stark warning, Leah told viewers: 'Do not have a mirror facing your bed.' She later added that this advice applies to all kinds of mirrors, including those that are found inside wardrobes. 'Mirrors are one of the main reasons why we have portals open in our home,' she said, explaining that they are the most common reason why she's called out to people's properties to 'cleanse their houses.' Leah does not doubt at all that a mirror facing the bed has the potential to wreak havoc in an otherwise happy home. She said: 'You will have unwanted spirits, you will have all types of spirits in your home - something low vibrational, typically an entity that isn't particularly nice.' The young woman, who also claims to be a 'paranormal investigator', added that universal nighttime complaints, such as 'restless sleep' and 'insomnia', could be the result of the position of a mirror in the bedroom. Leah claimed: 'If you're one of these who has a mirror facing your bed and since you've done that you've had restless sleep, [or] insomnia really bad, it's because of the energy that comes out of the mirror, especially if there's arguments within your home.' But it's not just those who have a mirror opposite the bed who are at risk, according to the self-described 'demonologist'. She said: 'Mirrors literally suck in energy and having a mirror facing a window is also another way of inviting unwanted spirits.' In a third warning, Leah advised against ever buying a second-hand mirror, stressing that, 'Whatever happened within that person's home - we don't know if it's negative, we don't know what's gone on there - that's coming into your home.' However, for those who are reluctant to start reconfiguring their bedroom, there is a simple solution, she claimed. Leah recommended covering the mirror with a cloth or a blanket as well as 'doing protection prayers' over it and 'saging it'. Covering it 'closes the mirror down, not allowing any spirits in or out,' she added in a comment beneath the clip. And, for those who have always had a mirror in one of these unfavourable positions but haven't suffered as a result, she had another message. Warning people not to be complacent, she said: 'Many people have a mirror in front of their bed for years and not have anything happen - but that's not to say it won't happen to you.' Viewers took to the comment section to share their thoughts on Leah's claims - and many were divided Leah's post attracted more than 2,000 comments, with a number of people identifying with her warnings. One person wrote: 'Don't get me started on this.... She's absolutely correct, I had a horrifying experience last year and it STILL keeps me awake at night, it's not a joke, remove mirrors from bedroom even near your bed. ' Another user added in the comment section: 'My nanny always said to NEVER have a mirror facing your bed!! 'If she ever went anywhere to stay for the night, she would take it down or cover it up! 'Also, you saying [that] about a second had mirror, I was given one that my dad got from an auction, the bad vibes and distortion that happened when you looked in it were wild! I got rid of it (safely) as soon as I could!' A third person appeared worried, writing: 'That has freaked me right out. How do I stop this please?' While a fourth shared a different approach, explaining: 'Having a mirror facing your bed is fine. Just do a cloaking blessing and you'll be fine.' Yet others seemed to have had no problems at all with the mirrors in their home, prompting one person to write: 'I don't know I've had a mirror facing my bed for literally years. Nothing weird has ever happened and I sleep great. Another user joked: 'I don't mind… No spirit could be as bad as any of my exes'. It comes after a seemingly normal photo of a group of friends on holiday was branded 'creepy' after people spotted a 'ghost ' hidden in the snap. A Reddit user who goes by the name CursedEmoji posted the snap online - saying their friend had sent them a picture of their trip to Chile. Upon first glance, it may seem as though there are a group of six people - four women and two men - posing for the snap while trekking in a forest. However, a less obvious, much darker looking face appeared to be lurking in the snap. After being shared online, people were quick to share how they were 'creeped out'. One wrote: 'Oof. That definitely made my heart jump when I finally found it.' Another penned: 'I thought it was about the top of a head behind the guy on the right. Oh yeah, I saw the witch too!' A third said: 'It was a completely normal picture before zooming in. It's a creepy picture with a very clear ghost face.' A fourth commented: 'Looks like someone's grandma is travelling with them,' while a fifth chimed in and added: 'Nah that actually scared me a bit.' However, others questioned whether the picture was real, with some theorising that it might've been a camera glitch or even Photoshop. One wrote: 'Creepy! Seems a little too good to be true, though.' Another penned: 'That's absolutely Reagan from the exorcist photoshopped in, things like this sadly dampen paranormal photography.' A third said: 'Looks photoshopped to me, just too obvious. I saw it pretty quickly.' A fourth commented: 'Looks like a digital error of some kind. Face looks similar to the dude on the left.'


Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Alan Turing Institute accused of ‘mismanagement of public funds'
Staff at the Alan Turing Institute (ATI) have filed a whistleblowing complaint with the charity watchdog, alleging the 'mismanagement of public funds' amid a 'crisis' at the publicly funded research institution. The ATI, which last year was handed £100m in taxpayer funding, was accused of a 'failure to deliver on its charitable mission' in the filing with the Charity Commission, The Telegraph understands. The complaint alleges that public cash and donations have been spent on 'wasted resources' with 'no accountability' over how funds have been deployed. Established in 2015 as Britain's leading centre of artificial intelligence (AI) research, the ATI has been in turmoil amid questions over its effectiveness and internal anger from staff. Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, stepped in last month, writing a letter to the chairman of the ATI demanding 'reform' and that it change its focus to defence. Mr Kyle told Doug Gurr, the former Amazon UK boss who is chairman of the ATI's board of trustees, it must 'evolve and adapt' and warned long-term funding for Turing would be tied to new objectives prioritising 'defence, national security and sovereign capabilities'. In the whistleblowing complaint, staff warned that the threat to funding 'could lead to the Institute's collapse'. It is understood that the Charity Commission is in the early stages of examining the claims. As part of the complaint, staff claim that the ATI has shifted its priorities away from its stated charitable purpose, which includes research into 'data-centric engineering, high performance computing and cyber security, to smart cities, health, the economy and data ethics'. Questions for the ATI The ATI, which is named after the Second World War code-breaker Alan Turing, has since scrapped or paused a number of initiatives under its public policy programme, including initiatives to study women and diversity in data science and AI bias. It is not the first time the ATI has faced questions over its direction. A report last month from British Progress, a think tank, claimed it had a 'fragmented and thinly spread research portfolio' that had drifted toward 'work rooted in social and political critique'. The uncertainty at the research lab has been accompanied by the exit of senior researchers and executives. Turing's chief technology officer, Jonathan Starck, left the ATI just nine months after being appointed, while two senior scientists – Andrew Duncan and Marc Deisenroth – both also left earlier this year after originally being asked to lead a series of 'grand challenges' for the organisation. The ATI has been in the process of cutting dozens of jobs, while it has been grappling with plunging morale among staff after ending a number of projects. It is understood that a separate whistleblowing complaint, sent to the UK Research and Innovation funding agency, about the ATI was the subject of an independent investigation, which found no concerns. A spokesman for the Alan Turing Institute said: 'We're shaping a new phase for the Turing, and this requires substantial organisational change to ensure we deliver on the promise and unique role of the UK's national institute for data science and AI. 'As we move forward, we're focused on delivering real-world impact across society's biggest challenges, including responding to the national need to double down on our work in defence, national security and sovereign capabilities.'