This is part 6 of my steady series on deep adaptation, degrowth, and MMT. I wrote earlier in this series that major changes in the composition of output and consumption patterns are needed if we are to move forward towards a sustainable future. This requires more than reducing material production and consumption. We must fundamentally change the way we think about materiality. Today’s topic is about consumption, but a specific form – our food and diet. As some readers may know, there is ongoing debate around the globe as to whether vegetarian/vegan diets are more sustainable than traditional meat-based diets. Big food companies vehemently reject any notion that the “meat” industry is damaging the environment. As with anything challenging a profit-seeking company, there is a massive misinformation smokescreen to prevent any fundamental change. However, new research shows that by ditching meat products from our diets, we could achieve substantial reductions in carbon emissions, and the gains disproportionately favor the wealthiest countries. I have long argued that I find fundamental contradictions in those who espouse green credentials and advocate dramatic behavioral shifts to combat climate change, while at the same time eating meat. Recent research supports this contention. So environmentalists, ditch the steak and chicken, get on your bike, head to the greengrocer, and start cooking plants.
In 1971, American writer Frances Moore Lappé published— Diet for a Small Planet – For the first time detailing how our dietary choices affect our natural environment and impact global food security.
She advocates a vegetarian diet and sees beef cattle production as “a protein factory in reverse.”
Food activism in that period was linked to all the other “movements” going on at the time – the civil rights movement in the US, anti-imperialist protests including against the Vietnam War, women’s rights, etc.
I was just starting college around that time, and these debates were all interconnected.
The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 and produced the groundbreaking report – growth limit (1972) – together with “Diets for a Small Planet” were two highly influential interventions in the environmental sustainability and growth debates that linked in an integrated way the food we produce and eat.
Long ago, Diet for a Small Planet taught us that world hunger is not because of global food shortages, but because of the type of food produced and how it is distributed.
She believes that shifting to a plant-based diet and ditching cattle, among other things, will solve the global food problem.
These interventions also gave birth to the natural food movement and are linked to the problems created by “big food” capitalism in terms of harming human health and destroying the natural environment.
Of course, like all these new ideas that challenge the status quo dominated by profit-seeking companies that often suppress research on the damage their products do to make more money, there has been a major pushback from the food industry.
Furthermore, our perception of food sustainability has not fundamentally changed.
15 June 2021, Australian Climate Council Article – Agriculture’s contribution to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions – express:
While the burning of coal, oil and natural gas is the main source of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and therefore the main reason why the effects of climate change worsen…
In Australia, ‘agriculture’ is responsible for around 13 per cent of our annual greenhouse gas emissions. By weight, about half (or 42%) of agricultural sector emissions are methane. Much of this is methane produced by cattle and other livestock due to the fermentation of plant matter in their stomachs…
Another separate source of emissions related to agriculture is land cleared for pasture and pasture.
Last year (January 10, 2022), a new study was published in the journal Nature—— Dietary changes in high-income countries alone could deliver huge double climate dividends – Offer “thoughtful” (sorry). This article is only accessible through a library subscription.
We know that:
1. “Agriculture is key to determining the rate and depth of climate change. Current food system emissions alone may not be able to limit warming to 1.5 °C or even 2 °C above pre-industrial levels”.
2. There are now numerous scientific studies confirming that “dietary changes, for one, have been found to be a practical and effective strategy” to “limit climate change”.
3. “The global food system is responsible for… 26% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Agricultural production, particularly animal-derived products and land-use change, account for the largest proportion of these emissions”.
4. The global distribution of these impacts is also an issue – “products of animal origin account for 70% of food system emissions in high-income countries, but only 22% in low- and middle-income countries.”
5. The authors speculate that “dietary changes in high-income countries may have the potential to substantially reduce global agricultural emissions—a potential climate ‘dividend’.”
We know that:
Given the land-demanding and emissions-intensive nature of livestock, shifting away from animal product consumption to increase carbon sequestration through land conservation and reduce emissions in the food system itself offers the greatest opportunity.
The data are convincing.
Switching to a vegetarian diet reduces carbon emissions, they found, “more than half of the increase in global carbon sequestration occurred in just four countries: the United States (26.3%, 25.85 GtCO2e), Australia (13.5%, 13.28 GtCO2e), Germany (7.7%, 7.55 GtCO2e ) and France (7.6%, 7.45 GtCO2e), combined”.
GtCO2e is gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Closer to home:
Dietary changes in Australia would have the greatest per capita carbon gain, sequestering 574.90 Mg CO2e (6.7 times the average for all high-income countries)
These benefits will come from a combination of moving away from animal products and restoring native pastures and forests.
Figure 2 in the article summarizes the data, which I reproduce here.
It shows the “potential carbon sequestration” benefits and “potential greenhouse gas emission reductions” for food types.
Switching from meat products to plant-based proteins will have huge environmental benefits.
Impacts vary by country due to differences in ‘beef production system size’ and dairy consumption size.
Where to start?
Research shows that moving away from meat consumption will:
1. “For the benefit of the global environment and human health in high-income countries.”
2. “Lands spared by dietary changes will expand opportunities to implement natural climate solutions, such as regeneration of natural forests, arguably the most effective natural climate solution in most parts of the world.”
But how do we get there?
The authors suggest a number of policy interventions that could help drive the needed transformation.
They are particularly aware that this shift could adversely affect low-income communities, which consume higher proportions of “unhealthy foods high in saturated fat, sugar, or starch,” because nutritious foods are more expensive to produce and purchase.
This question is not limited to this question.
The required behavioral shifts are often biased against low-income communities, which is why they are often resisted.
This has been a traditional issue for the green political community, which is keen to stop deforestation of the rainforest but rarely offers dependent communities another way to maintain their material security (i.e. jobs).
Governments will have to provide income support to ensure low-income communities can fully participate in the shift away from meat products and cheap fatty, sugary products.
The authors also point out that the government already provides substantial subsidies to large food companies, which undermines environmental sustainability.
They write:
Instead, these subsidies can be redirected around environmentally sustainable farming practices and healthy diets.
A related topic related to my research in Japan is the issue of food waste, which also causes environmental damage.
In addition to supporting low-income communities to make necessary changes, the authors rightly point out that governments need to support local producers, especially those in poorer countries targeting export markets.
Such a shift would create “massive social upheaval”, which is the challenge for the de-growth agenda – how to ensure that the “cost” is fairly borne without compromising the need for “rapid and profound change”.
in conclusion
These investments in people and communities will be essential.
The understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) disproves all the nonsense that this transition is economically prohibitive.
Any currency-issuing government can “fund” these changes.
The real challenge is convincing hardcore meat eaters that their days of pursuing this diet are numbered.
Even without resistance, the behavioral changes involved are quite complex.
But these shifts, in my view, are essential if we are to move towards a “de-growth” world.
There are many things that are out of individual control.
But what we say is entirely within our discretion.
In my opinion, the only way out is to give up meat products.
Enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2023 William Mitchell. all rights reserved.
