Fossil fuels should be left in the ground and farming animals should be stopped to prevent climate breakdown. Thanks to the power of the two industries, the aims are not mentioned. None of them have appeared in any of the declaration from the summits.
The sectors aren't mentioned much. Every final agreement produced by the summits has been worked through by me. Only six of them contain fossil fuels. One hint of using less overall is that the others propose only to improve efficiency, which, as we have known since the 19th century, can often increase fossil fuel use. They don't suggest getting less. Fossil fuels will be used if they are removed from the ground.
The other omission is very stark. There are only three agreements that mention livestock, and all of them propose management. There is no mention of reduction. Nuclear non-proliferation negotiators decided not to discuss bombs. If you won't discuss it, you can't address it.
The call to stop farming animals should be used the same way as the call to leave fossil fuels in the ground. It's rarely heard. Between 16.5% and 28% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock farming. This issue has been neglected badly, and the wide range of these figures shows that. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's official figure is clearly incorrect. Few attempts have been made to update it despite the fact that everyone in the field knows it.
UN experts want a crack down on net zero pledges.
This is more than all the world's transport emissions. It is growing quickly. Global meat consumption increased by more than 50% in the 20 years. If we want to avoid more than 1.5C of global warming, greenhouse gases from livestock farming could use half the world's entire carbon budget.
An analysis by Our World in Data shows that food production will bust the global carbon budget if greenhouse gas pollution is eliminated today. Animal farming accounts for over half of the greenhouse gases from the food system.
We now know that the heating impact of methane is rising. Methane is the world's greatest source of methane. At last year's climate summit, there was no mention of it.
The governments have looked away from these issues. According to an analysis by Chatham House, only 12 countries name emissions from farm animals in their official climate commitments. The world's greatest cause of habitat destruction and wildlife loss is animal farming and only Costa Rica and Ethiopia mention it.
What is the cause of this silence? There are a number of reasons. The cultural power of the livestock sector is greater than that of the economy. Our connection to food is more important than our connection to energy. Fossil fuel is consumed far away. As long as the lights are on, we don't think about where the electricity comes from. We feel a lot about the food we eat. The false claims of the livestock industry have barely been challenged in the media.
A scandal broke last week about an academic centre at the University of California, Davis, which turned out to be funded by livestock lobby groups. The impact of livestock farming has been downplayed by it.
There are other aspects of the problem. The tactics used by tobacco companies have been used by livestock corporations. The false claim that pasture-fed meat farming sequesters more greenhouse gases than it releases is one of the most effective greenwashings.
Grass-fed meat is the most damaging component of our diet due to its huge land requirement, greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon and ecological opportunity costs. There is no empirical evidence that carbon storage in grazed land can compensate for the greenhouse gases produced by livestock.
The paper found that if permanent livestock pasture were returned to the wild, it would draw down over a billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In England, the transition from grassland to forestland would increase the soil carbon stock by 25 tonnes of carbon perhectare.
We have become energy-sufficient. A large number of people are doing the math on fossil fuel emissions. We need to know how much food we have. When you present data, your opponents usually respond with pictures of cows or sheep.
Aesthetics and elite tastes dominate popular food writing. According to famous authors, everyone should eat the food they like unless we have several planets and no space on any of them for wild environments. They would like us to use a Neolithic production system to feed a 21st century population.
We need to put these things aside, to understand the science, and press our governments to focus on the causes of the climate crisis. Neither of them have been mentioned so far.
George Monbiot is a writer.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
