Another Inconvenient Truth
Climate impact on farming will be terrible but let’s not forget other key factors
It has been a deeply unsettling week in terms of politics and climate change, especially if you believe America’s climate and environmental policies have far-reaching consequences.
I’m referring to the assassination attempt as well as the choice of a climate-denying, fossil-loving politician as running mate for a demagogue who is openly courting Big Oil. It’s horrifying to think that in a few months, they could have the power to bring all 8 billion of us closer to the abyss. Of course, they won’t be the first to bear the consequences.
What’s worse is that the choice was made just days after scientists said the world had experienced the warmest June on record and experts warned of climate change-induced yield losses pushing up food prices. I guess some people do live in a parallel universe.
With all that said, I think it’s important to ensure ‘climate change’ doesn’t become a convenient scapegoat for all the malaise of our current food systems. That’s what this issue is about.
Last week, I mentioned my appearance on Al-Jazeera’s Inside Story programme together with George Monbiot and Carin Smaller to discuss how climate change is affecting food prices. This week, I want to dwell a bit on one of the points I made.
To paraphrase myself (since I now have more time to make it sound nicer):
Sometimes it’s easier to blame climate change for the shocking state of global hunger and malnutrition and our food systems, because it’s much harder to talk about issues like persistent inequality, the concentration of power in the hands of a few conglomerates, agricultural policies that continue to prioritise productivity and efficiency over human and planetary health, and the vested interests blocking any meaningful action.
If we say extreme weather patterns are causing harvests to fail and food prices to go up, we MUST also talk about who and what is causing climate change. If we say hunger levels are rising, we MUST also talk about why people cannot access or afford the food. If we say multiple forms of malnutrition are increasing, we MUST also talk about why it is so difficult to eat healthily.
Climate change did not appear out of the blue. It is the result of years and years of consistent and persistent choices, made mostly for the benefit of private profits instead of public good. Discussions on how unpredictable weather affects our lives and food will only become more frequent and urgent, and we must make sure climate change doesn’t become a convenient scapegoat.
The New Merchants of Doubt
A few issues ago, I wrote about a groundbreaking WHO report on how four powerful industries - tobacco, alcohol, food and beverage (including meat), and fossil fuels - are driving ill-health and premature mortality across Europe and Central Asia. It was unequivocal in criticising the way these industries interfered in and influenced efforts to enact public interest regulation, shape scientific evidence and public discourse.
The WHO report had a case study on how Big Meat and its advocates lobbied to dilute and derail efforts on regulations that could jeopardise their profits. Just to recap: livestock represents a significant chunk (nearly 60% as of 2018) of agricultural emissions, which means rich countries need to reduce their excessive meat intake if we want to slash them. Food systems in general account for a third of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
A new report from Changing Markets Foundation called “The New Merchants of Doubt: How Big Meat and Dairy Avoid Climate Action” has exposed the influence and tactics of 22 of the biggest meat and dairy companies, including Arla, Tyson Foods, JBS, Fonterra, and Nestlé, and their powerful trade groups (hello, Copa-Cogeca, my old friend!).
It detailed “how the industry distracts us with the smokescreen of voluntary climate targets, environmentally friendly products, and seemingly ambitious investments in emissions reduction technologies, while behind the scenes, it mobilises significant resources to delay and derail progressive environmental legislation”.
They are receiving assistance from at least two leading PR companies - Edelman as well as Berman and Company - that helped write Big Oil and Big Tobacco’s corporate playbook over the last century, the report said.
The media is also failing to do its job properly, the report added. It cited an analysis that showed industrial meat production’s contribution to climate change makes up a tiny percentage of coverage and another that said journalists are engaging in “both sideism” that was so detrimental to early climate action.
Big Meat and Dairy companies are “masters of distraction”
Deploying marketing to portray their products as climate-friendly and natural
Using social media (TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and other channels) to present meat and dairy as healthier dietary choices for young consumers in already high-consuming countries (this includes the host of one of my favourite shows “Hot Ones”… gasp!)
Running misinformation campaigns against vegan diets and alternative proteins, calling them ultra-processed, unhealthy options
Not having any net zero targets or committing to weak ones, with the sole exception of Danone which has specific targets
Investing in research that suits their agenda particularly when it comes to methane. This translates into lobbying for GWP*, a new climate metric (see more here and here), and co-opting regenerative agriculture. Methane is a short-lived but key greenhouse gas (GHG) from livestock that is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide and usually accounts for the bulk of agricultural GHGs.
Big Meat and Dairy companies use “delay tactics” to slow down any regulation
Claiming they’re already taking voluntary action
Promoting techno-fixes such as feed additives to reduce methane emissions, but failing to scale them up when some show potential (check out pages 73-75)
Yet only 1% of their revenues go to R&D and they spend more on advertising than they do on low-carbon solutions
Any investment in alternative proteins is done with a view of growing an additional market and not as part of a transition towards more plant- and less-and-better animal products
But portray themselves as being a ‘diversified’ food or protein company, in the vein of BP and Total Energies who promote themselves as ‘diversified’ energy companies while continuing to invest nearly all of their business into oil and gas
Big Meat and Dairy companies “derail” any attempt to rein in their activities
Spending millions on political donations and direct and indirect lobbying to ensure industry influence and the highest level of access in the U.S. and EU, giving them an opportunity to sway legislation
In the case of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), almost $20 billion will fund activities to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture but without any strings attached
In Europe, weakening or stopping altogether environmental policies such as reducing the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides or regulating agricultural methane (the detailed list of policies on Pages 103 - 105 makes for a painful and infuriating read)
The firms analysed and the 25 key trade groups they’re members of have had close to 600 top-level meetings with the European Commission since November 2014
Setting up new groups “such as European Livestock Voice, which was behind several misinformation campaigns to derail legislation and to push the industry agenda” (another old friend)
Country-level findings
In New Zealand, despite agriculture producing nearly half of the country’s greenhouse gases, it “remains exempt from meaningful climate regulation”
In Australia, where the bulk of agricultural emissions come from methane, the industry raised threats to food security and food sovereignty to unsuccessfully pressure the government not to join the Global Methane Pledge
In the UK, the influence of farm lobby groups led to the promotion of “voluntary techno-fixes and biomethane digesters, often at the expense of smaller farms and comprehensive climate action”
In Brazil, the world’s largest beef exporter and home to three meat giants (BS, Marfrig and Minerva), the Bolsonaro government let big farmers and landowners have a field day by dismantling regulations, some of which may remain even with the return of Lula
In Italy, portraying cultivated meat as “fake” or “synthetic” and linking it to the “Great Reset” conspiracy theory, “painting it as a threat to Italian tradition and health” in the run-up to the controversial ban on cultivated meat
Further reading
The Full Report (over 250 pages)
Supermarkets Slow In Protein Transition
Another related piece of research landed this week, this time on the 15 largest European supermarket chains’ climate and protein transition ambitions. These include household names like Lidl, Aldi, Tesco, Carrefour, Auchan, Mercadona and Sainsbury’s.
It found that two thirds of the supermarkets are “failing” to transition to plant-rich diets and not doing enough to tackle emissions from meat and dairy products, which make up nearly half of the retailers’ Scope 3 emissions and represent the highest-emitting product categories.
Scope 3 emissions refer to those from the entire value chain, including upstream and downstream activities such as agriculture, food processing, food waste, and transport.
“A colossal 93% of a supermarket’s total emissions come from their ‘Scope 3’ emissions”, said Madre Brava, an advocacy start-up working on environmental issues which published the research.
The somewhat good news is that all retailers have a target in place or will set one by the end of this year to reduce emissions from the food they sell and five have made commitments to increase their sales of plant proteins.
Two industry leaders are Germany’s Lidl and the Netherlands’ Ahold Delhaize.
Lidl is committing to rebalance their animal and plant protein sales across all its 31 countries where it operates globally while Albert Heijn, Dutch supermarket chain owned by Ahold Delhaize, has already committed to rebalancing their protein sales to achieve a 60% plant / 40% animal protein split by 2030, according to Madre Brava.
Further reading
The Research (14 pages)
Thin’s Pickings
JD Vance and the Globalisation Set - System Change
Ann Petitfor knocked it out of the park again with this pithy piece on the establishment’s bafflement with how the anti-globalisation duo has the enthusiastic backing of libertarian billionaires who made their fortunes from globalisation.
She also has a great line on the Ambani wedding as celebrating “the link between globalised wealth and authoritarianism”.
Patrick Clarkin’s thought-provoking essay has nothing to do with climate change or food systems but everything to do with the moral outrage that so filled our lives these days and how (and when) that translates into actual violence.
Patrick is a biological anthropologist and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston.
Small investments in nutrition could make the world brainier - The Economist
An important piece about the need for better diets for expecting mothers and infants, an issue that not only has inter-generational impact but also affects a country’s development.
As always, have a good weekend, and please feel free to share this post and send tips and thoughts on mastodon @ThinInk@journa.host, my LinkedIn page, twitter @thinink, or via e-mail thin@thin-ink.net.