The @NYTmag reports on a groundbreaking five-year investigation by @ian_urbina that exposes the fishing industry's devastating environmental and human costs. But something vital is missing from this sweeping exposé. cc: @jakesilverstein @jeanniechoi @jessicalustig @Fish_Feel

In an in-depth article about how marine heatwaves are transforming Europe’s oceans, @Reuters reports on dramatic changes to the populations of marine animals, including octopi and shellfish. @palewire @JessopReuters @KateAbnett - In your future coverage, can you please acknowledge that these animals are individuals whose lives are being profoundly altered by climate change instead of treating them as mere catches or commodities for humans. cc: @aagalloni @Fish_Feel

In an article about beef’s enormous climate footprint, @billmckibben of the @NewYorker makes an important point that environmental reporting often misses: replacing #beef with #chicken may reduce emissions, but it means many more animals being killed. That's because chickens are so much smaller than cows. Too often, stories about reducing meat consumption measure progress solely in carbon emissions, land use and dollars. A transition that benefits the climate but results in billions more sentient animals being bred and slaughtered shouldn't automatically be portrayed as progress. Balanced journalism considers the impact of our food choices on the animals too. #NewYorker @michaelluo @RPFischer - Thank you for bringing them into the conversation.