Animals
Animals on the Political Agenda
Canada lags behind many nations in animal protection laws and regulations. But changing public sentiment meant animal protection emerged as an election issue as Canadians went to the polls last month to elect a new federal government. For the first time, all five of the major national political parties had animal policies on their platforms, and representatives from three of them participated in the first ever national animal protection election debate. The event gave voters a chance to learn more about their various promises to improve animal protection laws and policies. The debate was sponsored by several organizations including Animal Justice, the Vancouver Humane Society and World Animal Protection.
Food
Never Mind Green Beer, Here Comes Green Whisky
Most distilleries in the highlands of Scotland use natural gas to fire their boilers but whisky makers on the Hebrides Islands use fuel oil and one of them is taking steps to become carbon neutral. The malt whisky maker Bruichladdich, is one of nine distilleries on the Isle of Islay that burn 15 million litres of oil a year. But this craft distiller is leading a revolution to use green hydrogen, wind power and possibly tidal power to be 100% green by 2025. Company chief Douglas Taylor says the strategy is to “think big, start small, but start today.” If they’re successful they could lead the whole island to reach net-zero. Whisky is the UK’s most valuable export, worth nearly £5 billion, and it supports 10,000 jobs in Scotland.
the Climate Crisis
Experts Urge Tougher Targets to Avert Global Health Crisis
Ahead of the upcoming COP26 Climate Summit, more than 200 medical journals have called on governments to act now to tackle the catastrophic harm to health from the climate crisis. Health experts from The BMJ, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and others say current targets to reduce emissions and conserve biodiversity are not enough. They warn of severe health impacts from extreme heat, destructive weather and degraded ecosystems, and urge leaders to redesign cities, transportation, the production and distribution of food, financial markets and health systems, to reduce air pollution, improve housing and diet, and build healthy, more resilient societies.
words of wisdom
“The argument ‘it has always been like this’ is not relevant if our choices destroy the environment, make animals suffer and are actually not good for us. We need to rethink our values and why we eat as we did in the Middle Ages.”
— Vildana Hrnjic, Team Leader (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Sentient Media’s Fellowship program
[We are seeing] … “a small preview of what is going to happen if we don’t stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We really need to do that or we are going to look back on this as the good old days.”
— Andrew Dessler, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M
perspective
The Significance of the UN Food Systems Summit
If you’re concerned about the climate crisis but are finding it a challenge to reduce the carbon footprint of your food, you’ll appreciate the magnitude of the task faced by participants in the UN Food Systems Summit trying to change food systems in 191 countries!
The first ever UN Food Systems Summit held in New York last month was never going to solve the problems with global food systems in two days, but it was the most comprehensive attempt to-date. The mere fact that discussions took place at this level offers significant hope.
Citizens around the world are experiencing the effects of the climate crisis whether it be wildfires, heat domes, droughts, hurricanes, floods or famine. And farmers around the world are struggling with drought, water shortages, heat waves, lower yields, crop failures, flooding and more. As people increasingly grasp the urgency of the situation, this should fire up policy makers to drive transformative change.
The Food Systems Summit came at a critical juncture in the run-up to the COP26 Climate Summit in November and the subsequent Biodiversity summits. It framed the challenge for global policy makers — to finally address the impact of global food systems on everything from the likelihood of future pandemics, the impact of diet-driven diseases and ill health, global food inequity and security, and as an amplifier to the climate crisis.
Science-based evidence continues to pile up and is becoming impossible to ignore. A new study in Nature Food shows that food systems emissions are much higher than previously thought, accounting for 35% of all global GHGs, 60% of which comes from meat, dairy and all animal farming. And unhealthy foods, agricultural emissions and pollution are linked to multiple health threats while three billion people deal with malnutrition.
Study after study says we can’t meet climate targets without changing ag and foods systems.
The 18 months of consultation leading up to the summit wisely cast a wide net that included 100,000 participants — including indigenous peoples who have a better track record of managing the environmental and biodiversity impacts of food production — to Big Food and Big Ag industries. Some industry groups were called out for trying to use the summit to advance their own interests but it is magical thinking to believe we can change complex global food systems overnight or without the players currently involved.
To make the necessary transformational changes as quickly as required, we need to have all players in the global food systems contributing to the solutions. For example, by putting more plant-based options on their menus Big Food has the scale and marketing muscle to accelerate the consumption of climate friendly foods.
Will the decision by McDonald’s to sell plant-based burgers in the UK at the same price as beef burgers have more of an impact on the climate crisis than convincing people to adopt a vegan diet? Of course.
That said, we must remain vigilant to empty claims of “sustainable production” and “greenwashing” that dress up the status quo. And we need to be wary of incremental steps such as farm biogas or seaweed animal feed additives to reduce methane. By seemingly offering an end game, such tactics serve only to distract. They can’t deliver results at the speed and scale required — low-methane meat will still emit 10x more than plant-based foods — and, in the meantime, they can impede transformative change.
The good news is, the summit produced hundreds of commitments from governments, civil society groups, businesses, farmers and more.
“This must be the moment when our global food systems undergo a “hard re-boot”. That means driving structural change; making tough decisions; and bringing diverse voices to the decision-making table,” said Achim Steiner, head of the UN Development Program. “Yet no single actor has sufficient power — on their own — to steer such a complex system in a new direction. This change needs to be sparked [and] driven at the country-level.”
Food system decisions have to be made by each government in each country. And businesses will make fundamental changes they otherwise wouldn’t choose if compelled by policy makers leading the way. Just look at the commitments to electric vehicles in Europe and the US. And people can force climate friendly changes by holding businesses and policymakers accountable, and voting with our wallets at the grocery store and at the ballot box.
Fast, large-scale structural change in global food systems is crucial to effectively address the climate crisis. But we need all the solutions — big and small — to get there. The Food Systems Summit was an encouraging start and offers hope for the future. Will its commitments translate into real action? We are running out of time.
nurture nature
Photo: Ossi Saarinen www.instagram.com/soosseli
The deeper dive
Your tax dollars at work. Which farm gets the bulk of government handouts? Photos: (l) Chris Robert on Unsplash; (r) greenpeace.org
Shifting Ag Subsidies Will Deliver a Greener Future
A startling new UN report highlights the massive damage being done to people and the planet by more than half a trillion dollars in government subsidies for agriculture and food systems. And it highlights how politicians are afraid to take on powerful vested interests protecting the status quo.
But there’s good news
New research shows there is more public support for climate-friendly food policies than politicians may believe, and it suggests ways to remake the food system. This should provide incentives for policy makers to drive real change.
First, let’s survey the damage
87% of the $540 billion in global agricultural subsidies is ‘harmful’ because it hurts people’s health, fuels the climate crisis and drives inequality by rewarding the wrong behaviour and the wrong players in the food system, according to the report. Agriculture contributes 35% of global GHG emissions, 70% of biodiversity loss and 80% of deforestation.
These government payments “are inefficient, distort food prices, hurt people's health, degrade the environment, and are often inequitable, putting big agri-business ahead of smallholder farmers, a large share of whom are women," the UN report said.
UN experts are calling for a global rethink and redistribution of agricultural subsidies to make them more environmentally sustainable and equitable.
For example, beef and dairy, the biggest sources of food-related GHG emissions – and typically produced in factory farms by large industrialized groups — receive the bulk of the subsidies.
The report recommends reducing support for the “outsized” meat and dairy industries in rich countries, as well as the monocultures and use of polluting chemical fertilizers/pesticides in lower-income countries, while increasing support for healthy foods such as vegetables and fruit, and small farm holdings.
“This report is a wake-up call for governments around the world to rethink agricultural support schemes to make them fit-for-purpose to transform our agri-food systems and contribute to the Four Betters: better nutrition, better production, better environment, and a better life,” said Qu Dongyu, Director-General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
Back to the good news
As we approach the landmark COP26 Climate Summit, politicians wary of pushback if they enact climate measures that impact the agri-food system, should draw courage from a new report. The Meat Atlas, from respected German NGO, Friends of the Earth, shows there is more public support for climate-friendly food policies than policy makers appear to believe.
Because many people already believe the climate is a reason to eat less beef and pork, governments have enough public support to reduce meat consumption. Source: The Meat Atlas.
A European Investment Bank survey (chart above) of 30,000 people in 30 countries shows that 78% (China), 65% (EU) and 54% (US) support reductions in red meat consumption to fight climate change. The survey also found that subsidies for meat substitutes and price breaks for plant-based diets are popular in China, Germany and the US.
A wide range of policy options were tested, from reducing subsidies for meat producers, (a 50% cut is popular), price breaks for plant-based diets and alternatives meats (very popular), a 15% tax on meat consumption (some support) to funding healthy food purchases for lower income families (very popular).
“If policymakers find the right measures and introduce them in the right order, it will stimulate the transition to a more sustainable future and help reduce political risks,” the report says.
saving ralph
You may remember our story on the animated short film Save Ralph (a rabbit) narrated by Ricky Gervais that was designed to draw attention to the cruel testing of cosmetics on animals. Well, Mexico just became the first country in North America — and the 41st nation in the world — to ban the practice. The new law also bans the manufacture, import and marketing of cosmetics tested on animals anywhere in the world. The victory is a result of years of campaigning by activists bolstered by the launch of Save Ralph which helped inspire 1.3 million petition signatures. Also, after 300,000 people joined the #SaveRalph campaign in Chile, a federal bill that would ban cosmetic testing passed the first stage of review by the Chilean Health Commission with bipartisan political support.
Photo: Andriyko Podilnyk on Unsplash
Good news
Photo: Jesse Gardner on Unsplash
Forestry Bonds
One of the knock-on effects of the ongoing wildfires in the western US is the impact on the security and quality of water supplies in California. So, companies that rely on water are taking an innovative approach and buying “green bonds” to fund forest restoration to help reduce their water risk.
Healthy forests hold and retain water, improve water quality, prevent flooding and regulate water flow for the smooth functioning of hydro electric power.
In California, about 70% of the water supply either starts or flows through national forests. Funding from green bonds will pay to thin and restore forests to make them more resilient to catastrophic wildfires.
Beverage, consumer goods, agricultural, and tech companies are all getting in on the act. For example, tech data centres which need water to cool their banks of computers are often in drought-prone locations.
To-date, the bonds have funded the restoration of 15,000 acres in the Tahoe National Forest and a second phase will target an additional 48,000 acres.
The Forest Resilience Bond was developed by Blue Forest Conservation in partnership with the World Resources Institute. The project is expected to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, protect water resources, avoid carbon emissions, create rural jobs and reduce pressure on public finances.
Another Push for Public Funding of Alt-Proteins
A non-partisan think-tank is calling on the British government to support alternative proteins, such as plant-based and lab-grown meats, as a way to battle the climate crisis.
The Social Market Foundation says the UK has already committed public funds and strategic support to net zero transition plans, such as offshore wind and electric vehicles, and asks for policymakers to take the same approach to alternative protein as a “non-intrusive first step” to reduce meat consumption in support of climate goals.
This Will Get People’s Attention
The Dutch government is working on a proposal to reduce livestock on farms by 30% to help reduce emissions of ammonia (it comes from manure), a nitrogen compound that contributes to greenhouse gases and pollutes air and water.
The plan originated from a 2019 court ruling that the government was breaking EU law by not doing enough to lower excess nitrogen levels in vulnerable natural environments. And, it’s an example of policymakers being forced to address the contribution of food and agriculture to the climate crisis.
The proposal is sure to be controversial as it includes options forcing some farmers to sell emissions rights or even their land to the state, although the latter is considered a last resort. The farming community is pushing back but environmentalists say it would be a big step forward in fighting the climate crisis.
Minimizing Methane
The US and the EU have agreed to reduce methane by at least 30% by 2030, as part of the Global Methane Pledge. (Methane is 80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period).
The agreement focuses on cutting methane from oil and gas production (#2 source) rather than from meat production and other forms of agriculture (#1 source) but it is a huge step in the right direction and may encourage more countries to sign up before the COP26 Climate Summit in November.
Data Points
Photo: Tim Matras on Unsplash
For context on the carbon footprint of beef, a recent study published in Nature Food shows that producing 1 kg of beef emits 70 kgs of greenhouse gases compared with producing 1 kg of wheat which emits 2.5 kgs of GHGs — or 28x less.
Twenty meat and dairy companies produce more GHG emissions than Britain, Germany or France, and are supported by billions of dollars from the financial industry, says a new report.
Global meat and dairy companies received almost US$500 billion from North American and European investment firms, banks, and pension funds from 2015-2020, according to environmental campaigners Friends of the Earth, and the European political foundation, Heinrich Böll Stiftung.
charting our path
A new report commissioned by the WWF shows the global benefits of reducing production and consumption. It also reveals that 39 million jobs could be created if governments reallocated just one year’s worth of subsidies that harm biodiversity.
The Halve Humanity’s Footprint on Nature to Safeguard our Future report shows how the $500 billion governments spend on harmful subsidies every year could be diverted into employment in sectors such as sustainable agriculture and sustainable infrastructure.
riveting reads
1. A new study released ahead of the COP26 Climate Summit finds that all generations care about the climate crisis and there's a broad base of support for action. (The Guardian)
Generational conflict over climate crisis is a myth, UK study finds
2. An in-depth piece on the consolidation of big US food and ag companies, their political influence, and how compliant policymakers and anti-trust legislation failed to hold the line. (The New Yorker)
Is It time to break up big ag?
3. This article covers the booming aquaculture industry, including the environmental impacts of farming fish on an industrial scale. Could it repeat the damage done by the livestock industry? (Wired)
The race to stop fish becoming the next factory farming nightmare
4. An in-depth piece that argues against lab-grown meat becoming economically viable as a mainstream source of food because the costs will be prohibitive. (The Counter)
Lab-grown meat is supposed to be inevitable. The science tells a different story.
5. A science-based rebuttal to the above article in The Counter.