The EU adopted a new climate change resolution on 4 February. The report, titled 2050: The future begins today – Recommendations for the EU’s future integrated policy on climate change was drafted by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change and makes many recommendations regarding how to tackle climate change. The report recommended a reduction in meat consumption, however, the EU removed the recommendation before adopting the final text.

Considering the livestock industry is responsible for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions, what does this decision to remove the call for a reduction in meat consumption tell us about the EU’s real committment to tackling climate change? It seems that in reality, it’s more important to keep the livestock industry happy than to make real progress in the fight against catastrophic climate change.

A comparision of the proposed text and the amended adopted text is very revealing. Some of the key points, some of which remain unchanged, are below.

–

Agriculture and livestock breeding

Proposed
“…the increased consumption of meat and fish have had an impact on climate change as well as other environmental consequences, and may lead to conflicts about how best to use land and resources in order to reduce hunger in the world”

Adopted text
Statement removed.

Proposed
“…the widespread cultivation of feedstuffs for livestock production contributes substantially to the total greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture”

Adopted text
Unchanged.

Guiding political ideas - Agriculture and livestock breeding

Proposed
“Recognises that the cultivation of cereals and soya as feed for livestock is responsible for substantial greenhouse gas emissions; recalls the report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” issued by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in November 2006, which states that the livestock industry is responsible for 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions; considers that a switch from intensive livestock production to extensive sustainable systems should be encouraged while total meat consumption also needs to be reduced, in particular in industrialised countries”

Adopted
“Recognises that the cultivation of cereals and soya as feed for livestock is responsible for substantial greenhouse gas emissions; recalls the report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” issued by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in November 2006, which states that the livestock industry is responsible for 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions”

Guiding Political Ideas - Education, training, reporting, labelling and awareness-raising

Proposed
“Considers that citizens should be made more aware of the fact that a reduction in the production and consumption of meat and dairy products would decrease greenhouse gas emissions as well as reduce the risks of certain cancers, heart disease and obesity”

Adopted
Statement removed.

The tabled report closed with an Explanatory Statement covering the 22 topics of the final report, one of which is ‘agriculture and livestock breeding’, of which it states:-

“Climate change confronts agriculture in Europe and the world with several challenges of equal magnitude. Agriculture needs first of all to reduce its own emissions and develop adaptation strategies to changing climatic conditions. As a producer of biomass and materials for biofuels it supplies the essential raw materials for emerging sources of energy. At the same time sufficient food must be produced to feed the world’s still growing population. In this context, livestock production in particular plays a crucial role: the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) predicts an increase in meat production from 229 million tonnes at present to 465 million tonnes in 2050, and for milk production from 580 to 1043 million tonnes. This means that the livestock rearing sector will be growing faster than any other sector of the agriculture industry. At the same time, all along the value chain, livestock production is responsible for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions and thus produces more greenhouse gases than the transport sector!”

The adopted text included important points regarding individual responsibility; the need for consumers to change their habits and lifestyles, and not merely by changing light bulbs and turning the tap off while brushing your teeth:-

“… it will not be possible to achieve genuinely sustainable consumption and use of raw materials in all areas of society without a change of thinking and behaviour, for which new models of consumption and lifestyles must be developed”

“… climate change is regarded as a very serious problem by a large majority of respondents in Europe, but whereas many complain of a lack of information and personal initiatives to counteract global warming tend to be confined to fairly simple measures such as waste sorting or lower energy and water consumption which do not call for any drastic changes in daily life”

“…a more sustainable lifestyle will not be possible without the contribution of the economy, science, the media, organised civil society and the citizens”

–

It’s easy to blame governments and corporations for the wrongs of this world, but the truth is that we can all make ethical choices ourselves, and change the world as individuals. If governments and corporations will not lead the pursuit of a better world at the pace at which it is needed, as decades of campaigning has showed, let us lead.

–

Read more about…

This week the Committee on Climate Change, advisors to the government, released a new report titled ‘Building a Low-Carbon Economy - The UK’s Contribution to Tackling Climate Change’.

The section on agriculture is an interesting read. They have printed a chart which clearly shows the most carbon intensive foods - of course meat, eggs and milk are the main culprits. They point out the potential, and challenges, in changing consumer behaviour to foods that are less carbon intensive. However, they also suggest:-

Selecting animals with particular traits for breeding, in order to improve the efficiency of milk and beef production or fertility. The impact of selection both reduces the number of animals required to produce a fixed level of output, and decreases the finishing period of animals, therefore reducing emissions per unit of output.

Increased use of additives named ionophores that increase productivity and decrease methane production. These are currently banned in the EU but are routinely used as growth promoters in some non-EU countries.

I don’t fancy their chances of introducing a substance banned in the EU, and find it hard to imagine that there is any more scope for continued selective breeding in the fast growing, mutant farm animals who we have already over bred and who are suffering horribly as a consequence. These are animals, not machines, there is a limit.

So this leaves the reduction in consumption. There is some hope, they do state that they ‘recognise that this [reducing consumption] is an important area to consider going forward, and intend that it will form our future work programme.’  They also point out during the chapter that ‘agricultural non-CO2 emissions have decreased by 18% over the period 1990-2006… reduction in agriculture is largely attributable to decreasing livestock numbers…’

It seems environmental organisations are slowly and reluctantly turning their attention to consumption. Only be changing the choices we make, on a mass scale, can we really make a difference. People are suffering because of climate change today and every day there are more, if we change our consumption, we have a chance of stopping this.

Barry O’Neil, president of the World Organisation for Animal Health said recently that livestock farmers need access to genetically modified crops if they are to keep up with the demands for meat.

He spoke at a meeting in London last week and acknowledged that the increased demand for food from a world population expected to rise by 50% by 2020 was of serious concern to farmers.  Already a third of crops are grown for animal feed, so there needs to be a new solution.

“I think we are entering a new phase, dominated by environmental issues, climate change and rising demand. By 2050 we will need twice as much food, produced from less land and with less water and more pressures around environmental sustainability. These are real challenges we need to get our heads around, and I think we need GM crops to help us” he said.

Jim McLaren, president of National Farmers Union Scotland, is also pressing for more GM foods. He believes that one of the most significant ways of stabilising and reducing feed costs is the relaxation of EU strict rules on the import of GM crops - mainly soya and maize, from the US.

Whilst many consumers oppose GM crops, few realise they are already eating animals fed on GM feeds anyway, since almost all soy grown in Argentina and the US has been modified, and the same is rapidly becoming so in Brazil. The soy is imported to feed chickens, cattle, and pigs prior to slaughter. Currently there is no mandatory requirement for shops to label meat produced from GM-fed animals.

Around 60% of the maize and 30% of the soya used in animal feed by dairy and pig farmers is GM. This means that most of the non-organic milk, dairy products and pork being sold in the UK is from GM-fed animals. (33)

Giant biotech multinationals and livestock farmers are using the rise in demand for food as an excuse to push GM. Let’s all make more efficient use of the world’s food by eating it ourselves instead of to animals: go vegan.