*[Enwl-eng] Warning: this burger fuels climate change
ENWL
|
No images? Click here  Here's a jolt for anyone who doubts or has forgotten just how urgent the climate crisis is: at present levels of greenhouse gas emissions, humanity has less than six years before global warming of 1.5°C is all but guaranteed according to a new study. Although there is no hard limit beyond which all is lost, scientists predict that a global temperature rise of 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average risks Earth's ability to soak up carbon and redistribute heat. As a result, the effects of climate change may become rapidly irreversible once the world passes 1.5°C. "Although we need systemic change, the climate is also in our hands," say Cambridge University geographers Oliver Taherzadeh and Benedict Probst. One of the most effective changes you can make is to your diet. While giving up high-emission food like meat might seem hard, researchers are proposing ways to help people eat less of it without them even noticing. You're reading the Imagine newsletter – a weekly synthesis of academic insight on solutions to climate change, brought to you by The Conversation. I'm Jack Marley, energy and environment editor. This week, we're looking at how to nudge meat off the menu. The global food system is complicated. Is a salad from a gas-powered greenhouse thousands of miles away really better for the climate than a locally reared joint of beef? According to the most comprehensive review of its kind, yes: regardless of where your food comes from, a vegan diet is still more environmentally friendly than an omnivorous one. Based at the University of Oxford, Michael Clark is a sustainability researcher while Keren Papier studies nutritional epidemiology. Using data on the meal choices of 55,000 people over two decades, the pair linked dietary choices to environmental impacts including climate change, water pollution and biodiversity loss. "Vegans in our study had just 25% of the dietary impact of high meat-eaters in terms of greenhouse gas emissions ... That’s because meat uses more land, which means more deforestation and less carbon stored in trees. It uses lots of fertiliser (usually produced from fossil fuels) to feed the plants that feed the animals. And because cows and other animals directly emit gases themselves," they say. "Even low meat diets had only about 70% of the impact across most environmental measures of high meat diets. This is important: you don’t have go full vegan or even vegetarian to make a big difference." Psychologists who study dietary choices have long argued that they face an uphill struggle in persuading people to eat less meat. That's because we tend to perceive eating meat as natural, normal, necessary, and nice, regardless of our reservations about animal welfare, health or the environment. Something similar was once true for smoking. One group of behavioural science researchers at Durham University recently trialled tactics used to publicise the harms of cigarettes on meat and found they could cut consumption. Jack Hughes, Mario Weick and Milica Vasiljevic asked 1,001 UK meat-eaters to choose from four options (meat, fish, vegetarian or vegan) for 20 different meals in an online questionnaire. When the meat option had a warning label similar to those found on cigarette packets below it, the number of people opting for it fell by 7-10%. The team found that labels warning of the climate consequences of meat farming were roughly as effective as those highlighting the human health and pandemic risks. An expensive taboo Advertising is another way tobacco companies once influenced consumer behaviour by obscuring the health risks of smoking. Peter Dietsch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Victoria, argues that bans on cigarette advertising should be extended to high-emission products like meat. "Governments around the world have pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, in an effort to meet the Paris Agreement goal to limit warming to 1.5°C," he says. "Yet, they tolerate advertising for activities that are clearly counterproductive to achieving this ambitious goal. This is akin to a drug rehabilitation centre putting up posters everywhere telling its patients how great it feels to take drugs." And would people buy so much meat if it weren't relatively cheap? Morten Fibieger Byskov, a postdoctoral researcher in international politics at the University of Warwick, is doubtful. "It’s a lot easier to go vegetarian when you have the money to eat what you like," he says. "In the global south, many have not benefited from industrialisation, while remaining in even more need of implementing measures to counter climate risks. Even in the more affluent countries of the global north, many people live in abject poverty and have to make tough choices as how to spend their limited resources." Meat is kept artificially inexpensive by generous injections of public money. Globally, every fifth dollar raised by taxes and transferred to farmers supports meat production according to an analysis of agricultural subsidies in 2022. Meanwhile, healthier and lower-emission crops are neglected. A meat tax could redress this imbalance and help reduce demand. But would people baulk at the prospect? It depends on how the money is ultimately spent say environmental economists Franziska Funke (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) and Linus Mattauch (University of Oxford): "Fortunately, research shows that it is still possible to win over the public with clever policy packaging. For example, survey data shows financing higher animal welfare standards and phasing out subsidies for environmentally harmful farming practices could sway public opinion on price interventions on meat products." "And let’s think of a different name for it. An animal welfare levy, or sustainable farming levy, might just work." - Jack Marley, Environment commissioning editor Would a climate warning label ruin your appetite for steak? Please let us know your thoughts by replying to this email. Plus, tell us the questions you'd like academics to answer about climate change. Was this email forwarded to you? Join the 20,000 people who get one email every week about the most important issue of our time. Subscribe to Imagine.  Climate labels similar to cigarette packet warnings could cut meat consumption – new research Labels highlighting the health and pandemic risks of meat were also effective.  Vegan diet has just 30% of the environmental impact of a high-meat diet, major study finds We studied 55,000 people’s diets and linked them to data on environmental impacts of food.  Meat tax: no UK politician is calling for one – but maybe they should Let's just call it something different.  Cigarette ads were banned decades ago. Let’s do the same for fossil fuels The number of people who die from climate change each year is roughly the same as the number of people who die from tobacco use.  The meat paradox: how your brain wrestles with the ethics of eating animals Psychologists have described a 'meat paradox' in the minds of meat-eating animal lovers.  Meat and dairy gobble up farming subsidies worldwide, which is bad for your health and the planet Vegetables, fruits and legumes are nutritious and sustainable – but subsidies overwhelmingly neglect them. Latest from The Conversation on climate change
|
------------- * ENWL * ------------
Ecological North West Line * St. Petersburg, Russia
Independent Environmental Net Service
Russian: ENWL (North West), ENWL-inf (FSU), ENWL-misc (any topics)
English: ENWL-eng (world information)
Send information to en...@enw.net.ru
Subscription,Moderator: en...@enw.net.ru
Archive: http://groups.google.com/group/enwl/
New digests see on https://ecodelo.org
(C) Please refer to exclusive articles of ENWL
-------------------------------------