World Bank’s climate plan: Pricier red meat and dairy, cheaper chicken and veggies ( www.politico.eu )

“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves,” a World Bank official said, as red meat and dairy drive CO2 emissions.

Cows and milk are out, chicken and broccoli are in — if the World Bank has its way, that is.

In a new paper, the international financial lender suggests repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost CO2-rich products like red meat and dairy for more climate-friendly options like poultry, fruits and vegetables. It's one of the most cost-effective ways to save the planet from climate change, the bank argues.

The politically touchy recommendation — sure to make certain conservatives and European countries apoplectic — is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers to cut climate-harming pollution from the agricultural and food sectors, which are responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

…

The paper comes at a diplomatically strategic moment, as countries signed on to the Paris Agreement — the global pact calling to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — prepare to update their climate plans by late 2025.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand. Eating lower down the trophic levels is energy efficient, and the energy level is proportional to environmental destruction, water use, and pollution. This is especially relevant if you have a large population to maintain (food security), which is the case for humans.

Eating up the world’s food web and the human trophic level | PNAS

Abstract

Trophic levels are critical for synthesizing species’ diets, depicting energy pathways, understanding food web dynamics and ecosystem functioning, and monitoring ecosystem health. Specifically, trophic levels describe the position of species in a food web, from primary producers to apex predators (range, 1–5). Small differences in trophic level can reflect large differences in diet. Although trophic levels are among the most basic information collected for animals in ecosystems, a human trophic level (HTL) has never been defined. Here, we find a global HTL of 2.21, i.e., the trophic level of anchoveta. This value has increased with time, consistent with the global trend toward diets higher in meat. National HTLs ranging between 2.04 and 2.57 reflect a broad diversity of diet, although cluster analysis of countries with similar dietary trends reveals only five major groups. We find significant links between socio-economic and environmental indicators and global dietary trends. We demonstrate that the HTL is a synthetic index to monitor human diets and provides a baseline to compare diets between countries.

This first estimate of HTL at 2.21, i.e., a trophic level similar to anchoveta and pigs, quantifies the position of humans in the food web and challenges the perception of humans as top predators (2). Humans dominate ecosystems through changes in land use, biogeochemical cycling, biodiversity, and climate (11, 13, 14). It is not sufficient to separate humans from analyses of ecosystem processes, because there are no remaining ecosystems outside of human influence (15). Thus, investigations of ecosystems, without accounting for the presence of humans, are incomplete (13). There is a variety of other ecological indicators based on trophic ecology theory or diets, e.g., the omnivory index, that may also prove useful in assessing the impact of humans in the functioning of ecosystems. However, a first estimate of an HTL gives us a basic tool that places humans as components of the ecosystem and assists in further comprehending energy pathways, the impact of human resource use, and the structure and functioning of ecosystems.

The global increase in HTL is consistent with the nutrition transition that is expected to continue for several decades (16, 17) from plant-based diets toward diets higher in meat and dairy consumption (18–22). This 0.15 increase in HTL from 1961 to 2009 is mainly due to the increased consumption of fat and meat (SI Appendix, Figs. S5–S8), as opposed to a shift toward the consumption of species with higher trophic levels. In fact, we find that the mean trophic level of terrestrial animals that are consumed by humans has only slightly increased (by 0.01 or 0.5%) due to the higher proportion of pork and poultry in the diet (SI Appendix, Fig. S11_A_), whereas that of marine animals has decreased markedly from 2.88 in 1961 to 2.69 in 2009 (SI Appendix, Fig. S11_B_). This decline in the trophic levels of marine food items in human diets is consistent with the global decline in the mean trophic level of marine fisheries catches. This decline has been related to the consequences of fishing pressures on marine predators (23), although changes in the characteristics of fisheries over time may also influence this trend (24).

The global convergence in HTL is consistent with the convergence in diet structure between countries with diverse levels of development (18, 19), and in agreement with previous studies of the FAO (17, 25). Globalization and economic development facilitate the access to diverse foodstuffs and can enhance the rate of this convergence (18, 26). For India, China, and countries in groups 1–3, HTLs are low and rising. With economic growth, these countries are gaining the ability to support the human preference for high meat diets (18, 19, 26). For countries in group 4, the nutrition transition has reached a point where health problems associated with high fat and meat diets (i.e., high HTLs) have led to changes in policy and government-run education programs that encourage these populations to shift to more plant-based diets [i.e., lower their HTL; SI Appendix, Figs. S4–S8 (18, 20, 22)]. Similarly, countries with high initial HTLs (i.e., group 5) show decreasing trends with time (Fig. 3). For Scandinavian countries, this decline is due to government policies promoting healthier diets (18, 22). For example, in 2011, Sweden consumed historically high levels of meat due to low market prices, leading the Swedish government into discussions of a Pigovian tax to reduce this consumption (27). Changes in diet in Mauritania (decreased meat and dairy consumption) and Mongolia (increased proportion of vegetables) are linked to increased urbanization and economic development and decreased nomadism.

cordlesslamp ,

I'll stop eating red meat and using plastic straws when there's no private jets and yachts.

stirner ,
@stirner@lemmy.ml avatar

Or just fight back against private jet overusage and giants like Exxon?

Tattorack ,
@Tattorack@lemmy.world avatar

How about heavily carbon taxing the rich cunts, hmm?

You know, instead of another bullshit scheme to offset the responsibility of climate change to the majority of the population with the least control over it?

Apeman42 ,
@Apeman42@lemmy.world avatar

Why do I feel like we're only going to get the first half?

coffee_with_cream ,

Crazy how enthusiastic everyone here is about some rich guy telling us what we are allowed to eat.

He probably flies private and eats a steak every day.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d191c966-0cbd-4477-bbd7-2eb464b40fd7.png

While that needs to stop entirely, the 1%' carbon footprint (yes, it applies to them too, this is what everyone here is actually pointing out) sums up to about 15% of global GHG emissions at the consumption level. Huge, but they are few, they aren't "masses".

We need GHG emissions to drop at least 100% (to 0%) and then we need to remove carbon (so that's negative emissions) to get closer to the safer atmospheric CO2.

coffee_with_cream ,

Hey, I have re read your comment a few times. Important info, but unsure how it relates to my comment. Rich people don't contribute that much to C02? So they can tell me how to live my life?

Not to mention other things besides C02. Methane, garbage, water use

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Hey, I have re read your comment a few times. Important info, but unsure how it relates to my comment. Rich people don’t contribute that much to C02?

There are 2 necessary changes as layers in this context:

  1. There are also studies that show the GHGs for "rich people's investments". This is important because they are in the way of necessary adaptation and mitigation. We can't do anything meaningful about climate and biosphere because that would require ending profiteering from planetary destruction, it would require decommodification.

  2. Rich people's consumption is excessive for anything. Not just their carbon footprint, but their ecological footprint. But they are a small minority, especially the richest. Being a small minority means that if they lose their... wealth and become wage workers, that's going mean only a decrease of 15% GHGs. This 15% is not meaningful to avert ruining the planet's surface. We need more than 100% (zero emissions and then removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). This means that EVERYONE has to participate, which also means that we need cooperation. And you don't have cooperation in a capitalist class society with all this "rat race" going on, you can't, we're literally all enemies (competitors) in this game.

So they can tell me how to live my life?

That's one side of it, yes. To have any meaningful action, all sides of economic activity have to change, we need decreases in production (supply), but also in demand (consumption). If only production decreases, the demand side goes nuts and there's hyperinflation and other problems. If only demand decreases (unlikely), the production side, which is owned by rich people, may decide to force and coerce an increase in demand somehow, as has been happening at least since the end of WW2.

Here, a game: https://play.half.earth/

qyron ,

"red meat"

What does this expression even means nowadays?

Beef should be expensive. It should return to what it was thirty or forty back: a luxury item. Nobody needs to eat a steak every day.

But is pork still - or again? - red meat? It had been disqualified as such some time back.

Bring on cheaper vegetables, please. I'm seeing cabbage peak at €2,19. Poultry is on average €2,29, peak on the €2,69. It's borderline as expensive to make a pot of quality soup than to make a roast chicken.

Blackmist ,

Cheaper veg means either more subsidies or more slavery. Check out the greenhouses outside Almeria. You can see that place from space, and it's chock full of African workers in 40C+ heat making a pittance.

I think meat benefits from corn being pretty much automated on a giant scale. Most veg needs workers to harvest it, and a lot of it rots quickly once picked.

qyron ,

You raise a good point and ending slavery should be a top concern.

I'm in Portugal, and we've had a few cases of slavery and abused foreign workers here as well, which is shameful for us as a nation, but we have many good examples of good practices where applying technology improved production, lowered waste, turned out better product for the consumer and allowed for less use of hand labour but with higher salaries.

The starting investment is high but the subsidies you mention could/should be converted into low or zero interest, long term loans and the money recirculated towards more improvements in the sector.

Greenhouses do consume immense ammounts of fertilizers but water is better manageable under those conditions than sowing corn, which is well known for being a syphon for water and agro chemicals, and usually leaves the soils destroyed after a few years of intense farming.

Any change for a better model done will a step forward. Cattle, as it is raised today, I don't find it sustainable.

buzz86us ,

Lately it has been reversed.. Chicken prices have been more than pork.. Even on the chicken quarters I normally get. I'm hoping once lab grown is scaled that we'll be able to get steaks cheap.

graymess ,

As a vegetarian who's been excited for lab grown meat since I'd heard of the concept a decade ago, I wouldn't hold your breath. It's looking like one of those things that sounds great on paper, but isn't viable at larger scale.

SanndyTheManndy ,

No subsidies for anything actively harming the environment.

NickwithaC ,
@NickwithaC@lemmy.world avatar

So no subsidies at all then.

Even wind and solar are detrimental to the areas of land queried for the elements to make them.

SanndyTheManndy ,

The net harm to the environment is lower because of them.

NickwithaC ,
@NickwithaC@lemmy.world avatar

Net harm is not what you said though.

Excrubulent ,
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

Wow, you sure are a Technical Genius

What if I told you that television shows were dangerous? It's true. In the year 2000, four out of every five injuries occurred in a home that owned a VHS copy of Robocop III. Someone might say, "That's compelling Robocorrelation, but that data alone does not suggest Robocausation." Fine. But maybe your first instinct was to say, "Robocop III is a movie, not a TV show, you fucking dumbass." If so, then congratulations, idiot, you're a Technical Genius. You're smart enough to spot a technicality, but too dumb to know everyone else did too and it was light years away from the point. You're the kind of person who tells your doctor, "Um, it's Chief Chirpa?" when he tells you that getting the Wicket doll out of your asshole will require surgery. "And, um," you'll add, "it's an action figure? Maybe you should have gone to a non-stupid medical school."

https://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-people-planet-are-all-donald-trump

GoodEye8 ,

I would think that's implied. Almost every activity where you're creating something can be considered harmful because you can't create something from nothing.

If we take the stance that we should consider harm in absolute, then whatever support you might be getting should be cut off because we individually are the most harmful being on the planet. It wouldn't matter if you cut yourself off from society, build a little cottage in the woods and live a frugal lifestyle, the absolute harm is still many times higher than any other non-human living being on the planet could have. The good it would do doesn't matter because we're only looking at harm.

In what way does it benefit the discussion to talk about harm in absolute? Because from my perspective it has no benefits, it just comes across as a contrarian copout.

Honytawk ,

They are replacing much worse systems

3volver ,

I agree, let's end subsidies for the industries that are fucking up the climate. Fuck all the weak snowflakes who don't want to change their meat consumption. How hard is it to not eat beef? Not hard, people are just weak. So hit them in the wallet then, if that's what it takes.

evranch ,

Even as a rancher (native prairie, low input) I agree beef is way too cheap. Well, it was, now it's starting to be more appropriately priced.

Considering everything from the labour involved in raising it ethically to the nutritional value, the consumer pays very little for beef for what they're getting. Even if it means people eat less beef, the price should go up. It would also favour small farmers like me who would rather raise less cows sustainably on grass than overgraze chasing high volume sales.

rusticus ,

How about a carbon tax?

Siegfried ,

Everything should have a carbon tax. Someone once told me, "but who would pay for that tax?" Implying that we will be the ones to pay it. Thats the freaking idea.

rusticus ,

There seems to be an awareness void concerning the concept of who uses the most carbon and the creative non regressive ways in which those taxes can be distributed. I’m sure that’s a coincidence though…

Naz ,

The rich have problems paying just their regular owed taxes, nothing even exceptional; they draft legislation to lower their own tax rates while keeping taxes on labor the same.

Why is capital gains taxed at a lower rate than income? Is sitting on a pile of money and watching it grow somehow more noble than sweating and hard work?

I think a carbon tax is necessary but I think getting the responsible parties in our industrial world to actually pay it, would be extremely difficult. You'd never see such bipartisan cooperation in various governments until someone threatens the subsidies for the liquid black gold.

Phil_in_here ,

Carbon taxes need a caveat that prices cannot change due to the tax. Otherwise it's just another way for big business to profit.

"We had to raise our prices because of the carbon tax!"

"But the tax is 8% and your prices have gone up 20%"

shrugs "Dunno. Carbon tax."

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

The impossible love of fossil fuel companies for carbon taxes - ScienceDirect

Economists agree that carbon taxes are the most effective solution for climate change mitigation. But where do fossil fuel companies stand on carbon taxes? I analyse how the 100 largest oil and gas companies communicate on carbon taxes. Surprisingly, I find that 54% of companies that have a policy on carbon taxes support them (78% for the 50 largest). This is puzzling as an effective carbon tax should reduce the revenues and reserve value of fossil fuel companies. To understand this paradox, I offer non-mutually exclusive reasons why fossil fuel companies might support carbon taxes. Oil and gas companies could use a carbon tax to get rid of the competition from coal, create a level playing field and remove regulatory uncertainty. Or they think that these taxes will not affect them because demand for oil and gas is inelastic or that international coordination will fail and lead to leakages. Finally, it could be that this is simply a communication exercise. A carbon tax helps them shift the responsibility from fossil fuel companies to customers, voters and elected officials.

bestagon ,

The problem with that is the rich still get to enjoy it and the rich live in excess. It would make more sense although logistically nonsensical to keep the price the same but only the poorest are allowed access to it

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

Why would that make any more sense?

Larry ,

It wouldn't make sense because, as you've pointed out, it would be nonsensical

Mrs_deWinter ,

I understand the frustration about the injustice behind it, but it's missing the point. Justice should never be the reason to support something thats so harmful to our environment. Imagine giving a private jet to every economically disadvantaged person in the name of equality - we'd be fucking ourselves over big time. Meat is actually a luxury product that's only kept affordable based on some of the most environmentally destructive tools of capitalism.

It sucks that luxury products exist. It sucks that ultra rich people exist, but it's the unfortunate fact of our times. Overturning this system is a seperate fight. And eating red meat won't win it.

FunnyUsername ,
@FunnyUsername@lemmy.world avatar

They need to open up more Popeye's

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Oh look, more suggestions. Im sure it'll work this time.

Camzing ,

Red meat for the rich, white meat for the poor.

capital ,

We need to reduce animal consumption across the board.

Rich people get stuff that the normals don’t. This isn’t new.

vividspecter ,

You could also make it more equitable by implementing a carbon tax and returning some of it in the form of cash payments to the poor, or investments in infrastructure that benefit the poor the most (health care, public and active transport, welfare).

capital ,

I’ve heard of that. I think I’ve heard it called “carbon dividend” or something to that effect.

I’m totally for it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • tech
  • kbinEarth
  • testing
  • interstellar
  • wanderlust
  • All magazines
    •