#1 cleantech news, reviews, & analysis site in the world. Support our work today. The future is now.


Agriculture

Published on April 30th, 2019 | by The Beam

0

Meating Emission Targets

April 30th, 2019 by  


This article was published in The Beam #8 — Subscribe now for more on the topic.

With the global agriculture sector responsible for up to a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, what we eat can be the single biggest factor in determining our individual carbon footprint. Livestock takes up 83% of farmland and is responsible for more than half of all agricultural emissions, but produces just 18% of our calories and 37% of protein. Livestock production is highly inefficient, and uses vast amounts of energy, land and water, drives deforestation, habitat destruction, and species loss. If you thought it couldn’t look much worse, it is one of the fastest growing sectors globally.

Pieter Aertsen

It is essential that production methods must become more sustainable, but there is a clear limit to how much this approach can reduce impacts. Ultimately, if we’re serious about reducing our impact on the planet, we need to change our consumption habits. In Europe, that means cutting our consumption of meat and dairy in half by 2050 just to stay within a safe space.

How did we get here?

As the global population has expanded, our wallets and our waistlines have grown too. With more cash in our pockets, diets have shifted to include more refined sugars, fats, oils, and importantly, meat. Although meat consumption has plateaued in the developed world, it sits at highly unsustainable levels, with implications for our health and links to numerous chronic diseases. In the developing world meat consumption continues to skyrocket, meaning a global trend leading to emissions completely incompatible with the Paris Agreement’s 2°C goal.

Mooving the norm

Meat consumption is deep-rooted in Western culture, connected to high social status, prestige, and masculinity. However, meat’s societal role is changing, as the ethical and nutritional foundation of a meat-based diet are increasingly questioned, particularly among millennials. As such, reduced meat consumption is a trend being witnessed across many parts of Europe, and businesses are constantly innovating new alternatives, such as Impossible Burger’s plant-based “meat” that looks, feels, tastes, and smells like ground beef.

Price, taste, quality, and health often trump any concerns of climate impact when making choices about what we eat. In general, consumers are not equipped with adequate knowledge and information to make informed choices. Even when we are, the habitual daily process of eating is becomes automatic, leading to a disconnect between our values and our actions. Price is also a significant factor for many, with a perception that a healthy and sustainable diet is more expensive (although in reality non-meat alternatives are often cheaper per gram of protein).

Photo: Richard Gatley

How to meat our targets?

To effectively tackle climate change, we all must act. Consumers and business are starting to take steps in the right direction, but are meeting barriers outlined above. From public smoking bans and taxation on alcohol, to subsidies for electric vehicles and renewable energy, there is a strong precedent for governments to regulate for and incentivize decision-making that reduces harm to its citizens. On meat consumption however, they remain silent, creating a cycle of inertia, where inaction leads to low public awareness, entrenching it as a low policy priority.

And so, we ask: how can government policy help consumers to make more sustainable dietary choices, and ultimately reduce emissions from the agricultural sector?

The first step is to provide reliable information through campaigns, education and labeling. As we become more informed on the issue, analysis suggests that we are more likely to take action personally, as well as to support further government intervention. Utilizing health co-benefits in the messaging can also strengthen the case and reach new audiences, as health is a more relatable concept for many. As such, information campaigns on a ‘healthy and sustainable diet’ could prove an effective spearhead to this policy effort, and research indicates that this policy shouldn’t meet much political opposition.

However, information alone is not enough, as a gap emerges between consumers’ principles and our actions. To change the norm and break habits, a more holistic approach is needed. Government must start to lead by example, supporting first-mover businesses and increasing meat-free options in schools, hospitals, and public offices. Nudging like this does change behavior, but to achieve meaningful reductions in emissions, a financial (dis)incentive, i.e. a tax on meat, may well be necessary. Tobacco, sugar, and carbon all set a precedent for governments introducing policy that informs, nudges and taxes us away from damaging levels of consumption — meat must follow suit.

The curious case of Denmark

In Denmark each person gobbles down a staggering 81kgs of meat every year, and yet 55% of the meat-loving nation agree that politicians should introduce policy to reduce the climate impact of food consumption. Support is particularly strong among millennials, indicating a nascent change in attitude towards notable public demand for action.

The Danish government marked its first step on this journey with the announcement of climate labeling of food in its recent climate plan. However, a proposal for a meat tax by the green party, ‘The Alternative’, continues to be shot down by the political mainstream. Many opponents of the tax cite the risk of worsening social inequality, but there is a clear lack of political willpower to think creatively and avert such risks through smart and equitable ways of distributing tax revenues and offsetting the problems caused by meat consumption.

Ultimately, if governments fail to take holistic action on reducing meat consumption, we will overshoot 2°C. But as public support grows, policymakers should enact bold and ambitious plans by helping consumers to make better choices. Not to do so would be a missed opportunity to scrape the carbon off our plates.

By Nic Craig, an interdisciplinary climate, energy and sustainability researcher who bridges science and policy, with a focus on the Nordic and Arctic regions. He currently works for Climate KIC and Polar Research and Policy Initiative, and is completing a Climate Change MSc at the University of Copenhagen.

This article was featured in The Beam #8, subscribe to The Beam for more.

Read more from The Beam.

 
 





Tags:


About the Author

The Beam Magazine is a quarterly print publication that takes a modern perspective on the energy transition. From Berlin we report about the people, companies and organizations that shape our sustainable energy future around the world. The team is headed by journalist Anne-Sophie Garrigou and designer Dimitris Gkikas. The Beam works with a network of experts and contributors to cover topics from technology to art, from policy to sustainability, from VCs to cleantech start ups. Our language is energy transition and that's spoken everywhere. The Beam is already being distributed in most countries in Europe, but also in Niger, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Japan, Chile and the United States. And this is just the beginning. So stay tuned for future development and follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Medium.



Back to Top ↑