As you ‘soy’, so you reap!
The case for radical policy change to meet COP26 targets
‘COP26’ is the current buzzword in social circles of environmental scientists, activists, enthusiasts, and any other person who cares about the biggest pandemic humankind is facing right now: climate catastrophe. After the Paris agreement in 2015 to limit the rise in global temperature to less than 1.5C, COP26 is our last attempt at redemption given that temperatures have already increased by 1.2C since the preindustrial era. An increase in 1.5C would still imply an increase in heat waves, droughts, floods and other disastrous effects of global heating. However, a cap of 1.5C could potentially alleviate adversities to some extent. To achieve this initial target, the global emissions need to come down by about 7% a year over the next decade, yet governments worldwide have not yet implemented the necessary mitigation policies effectively. As such, the present situation is dire and a lot is riding on COP26 and its aftermath. Although tackling the climate crisis involves multivariate and systemic change, one important aspect of policy intervention that is becoming increasingly recognised is the production and consumption of red meat.
“Global emissions need to come down by about 7% a year over the next decade”
Image credit: Unsplash
Global food production is responsible for more than one-third of the greenhouse gases. Of this, 57% is accounted for by meat production, including feed for livestock. Additionally, meat-based diets have added to the disease burden of non-communicable diseases like diabetes type II, coronary artery disease, and other infectious diseases. Over the last decade, daily meat consumption has decreased by 17% in the United Kingdom. Despite this substantial reduction, it falls short of the targeted 30% reduction for the next decade, as recommended by the National Food Strategy. It is worth noting that a 30% reduction is a modest goal; the need of the hour is an 89% reduction of beef consumption in the United Kingdom to stay within the environment framework limits. Moreover, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat consumption worldwide is set to increase by more than 70% by 2050. At this critical stage, population level control must supersede individual consumption choices: a policy which entails that there would be no supply of red meat to the consumers would be more beneficial than an individual forsaking red meat.
Image credit: World Resources Institute (original data sources referenced)
In this context, soybean cultivation to feed livestock (especially beef) for human consumption has become a matter of grave concern. There has been a global expansion in farmland usage for crop cultivation which causes deforestation. Soybean is a water-intensive crop and is adding to the burden of water scarcity, especially in countries like Brazil. Additionally, the carbon footprint of the soybean crop is quite high. The combined effect of all these fuels the climate crises in multiple strata. As we can see from the World Resources Institute’s chart below, the consumption of red meat is neither energy-efficient nor economically beneficial. Each gram of protein of red meat (beef, lamb, goat) produces an enormous amount of greenhouse gases and is expensive compared to plants or fish. Also, as per the chart below, a woman requires 46g of protein daily. If the protein is sourced from a combination of plants or fish it would be extremely environment friendly. This study in the United States suggests that if the agricultural land used to feed beef was reallocated to feed poultry, it would meet the protein and calorie needs of an additional 120–140 million people (approximately 40% of the US population).
Banning the production and consumption of red meat worldwide sounds extreme, right? However, throughout history, many things that were considered socially counter-intuitive eventually came to be understood as important, and social norms shifted to accommodate these changes. This concept is known as “the Overton window” and denotes the acceptability of a range of policies within a culture or society at a given point in time. Stringent policies like the red meat ban might seem atrocious now, but there is a possibility that for the sake of planetary health, it may be acceptable in the coming years. The direct and indirect impacts on human health are multifold. Hence, at this moment, population-level interventions to curb the progress of global heating and climate disaster would be more efficacious when compared to individual choices aimed at making sustainable decisions.
No matter how many billionaires zip-zap off to space, we know there is no planet B—yet! It is high time we move on from just debates and discussions to radical policy implementations to achieve the aimed targets; we can’t afford any further procrastination!