Feeding the World - GUE/NGLold.guengl.eu/uploads/_old_cms_files/Feeding_the_World.pdfFeeding the World Under the Climate Threat 6 7 Feeding the World Under the Climate Threat Though

Feeding the WorldUnder the Climate Threat

�

Feeding the World Under the Climate Threat

Frontpage photo: ©European Community

On 12-13 November 2008, the European United Left/Nordic Green Left Group (GUE/NGL) in the European Parliament or-ganised a conference, ‘Feeding the World under the Climate Threat’. We were privileged to hear from some of Europe’s leading experts and stakeholders in the field, people who have made enormous advances in researching the impacts of livestock production on climate change, and people active in the business of biofuels, both advocates and critics.

Our distinguished guests were Dr John Powles (UK), De-partment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Tom Wassenaar (The Netherlands), the Euro-pean Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Stefan Wirsenius (Sweden), Chalmers University of Technology, Joyce D’Silva (UK), Compassion in World Farming, Robert Bailey (UK), Oxfam, Jakob Lagercrantz (Sweden), The Swedish Associa-tion of Green Motorists, Lena Norgren (Sweden), BioAlcohol Fuel Foundation, and Amaranta Herrero (Spain), Corporate Europe Observatory.

The conference was particularly timely given the adoption of the Directive on Renewable Energy by the European Par-liament and the Council just one month later. The conference was a platform for an in-depth discussion on the issues of the indirect impacts of biofuels on land use and food produc-tion, and increasing emissions from livestock production.

Fighting climate change is undoubtedly the twenty-first century’s biggest challenge. Sustainable food production and consumption must be a part of the response. In 2007, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) presented ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’, a 400-page report with figures showing that the meat industry and livestock raising is re-sponsible for 18 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.

That is more than the worldwide impact of transport. Cli-mate change is also expected to lead to considerable de-mand for wheat, corn and other grains for biofuel produc-tion. This raises important questions: what are we going to

do with the world’s grain and what is the optimal way to use the world’s farmland? Is it rational that over a third of all grain harvested becomes fodder? This conference analysed these and many other questions and helped us formulate answers. We are very pleased to present this report in order to share this valuable information with you.

We would like to sincerely thank all the speakers, whose contributions helped us produce this report.

Jens HolmMEP, GUE/NGL GroupMember of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Introduction

Photo: Jann Lipka

Introduction 3Slavery, deforestation and climate change 4Biofuels - a way to save the car 6The environmental and social impacts of biofuels 8Benefits of biofuels 9Meateating intensifies climate change 10Using taxes to change eating habits 12Health benefits from reduced meat consumption 13Compassion in world farming 14Meat the Truth! - the movie 15

European United Left/Nordic Green Leftrue Wiertz 431047 BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 (0)2 284 26 83Fax: +32 (0)2 284 17 74www.guengl.eu

For more information about this publication, please contact:Lisa Ekstrand [email protected] GUE/NGL Publications Unit:Gay Kavanagh, Nathalie [email protected]

Text: Sara AhnborgDesign & layout: Marko WraménProofreading: Stephen GardnerPrinters: ArtePrint©2009 GUE/NGL

Contents


4 5


In 2020, at least 10 percent of the transport energy in the EU will have to come from biofuels. Pro-ducers of biofuels are expected to receive huge subsidies. But the promise of a sustainable and en-vironmentally-friendly fuel for the future has an ugly side: slavery, deforestation and even accelerated climate change.

It could be so beautiful. Robert Bailey, biofuel policy advisor at Oxfam, opens the conference with a photograph of a diesel engine in a village in Tanzania.

“At playtime at the local school, the teachers send the children out to gather detropha berries. They press the berries to make detropha oil and they use that oil to run this diesel engine. It generates enough electricity to power 40 lights in 40 households in the village.”

In addition, the diesel engine frees up time for the women of the village, so that they can earn money in the formal economy.

Unfortunately, this positive tale is an exception. Most of the world’s biofuel production looks completely differ-ent, and has completely different con-sequences to village women earning some extra money in the local market.

Appalling working conditionsAn example of the ugly side also comes from Tanzania. British company Sun Biofuels unfairly appropriated land for detropha plantations. As a result of in-formation being kept from them, and of misleading information, the villagers did not receive any compensation for their loss of land.

In Brazil, production of ethanol from sugar cane often involves appalling working conditions.

“In 2007, about 2,000 sugar cane plantation workers were freed by the Brazilian Ministry of Labour from inhu-

mane working conditions and condi-tions analogous to slavery,” Bailey says.

In Indonesia the plantation compa-nies routinely and systematically abuse small-scale palm oil producers.

Biofuels also drive up global food prices. Biofuel and food compete for the same land areas. The poorest – those living on less than a dollar a day – are the hardest hit.

Promises unfulfilledAlthough some of these problems are well-known, there is less awareness that biofuels might not even live up to the promises that are often made about them: enhanced fuel security and cli-mate change mitigation.

Firstly, using biofuels is an extreme-ly expensive way of tackling climate change, not least because of the huge subsidies.

”If we are worried about the environ-ment, really, we should look at plant-ing trees. If you use a hectare of land and plant trees on it, it’s a much more cost effective way of reducing carbon emissions than using that land to grow biofuels.”

One problem with biofuels is the cli-mate impact of changing land use. A study by a group of researchers from Minnesota* showed that the carbon debt from switching forest or grassland to production of biofuels would take decades or even centuries to pay back.

“Even with Brazilian sugar-cane etha-nol encroaching onto grasslands in Bra-zil, you need 17 years of production to pay back the carbon debt,” Bailey says.

Chopping down Brazilian Amazon rainforest to grow soya would incur a carbon debt that would take 320 years to pay back. Corn ethanol from US grassland and palm oil from Indonesian rainforest would both need a pay-back period of around 90 years.

Pushing up commodity prices“The real problem here is that this can happen indirectly. So the Commission’s proposal to deal with this is just to set a rule which says you can’t grow biofu-els on tropical peatland, rainforest, or grasslands, or wetlands.””But actually, using biofuels, as we’ve seen in the last couple of years, pushes up commodity prices, and this sends a

Slavery, deforestation and climate

signal to farmers all over the world to increase their production.”

When Europe makes biodiesel out of rape seed, it creates a hole in the Euro-pean edible oil market, which is com-pensated for by imports of palm oil.

“My real concern is that by spending all of this money on biofuels when we could be spending it on research into more promising technologies, we are just locking ourselves in to a future of the internal combustion engine which is hugely inefficient. We are creating dependencies within our economies from rape seed oil farmers, from corn farmers in the US.”

Policy captureAccording to Robert Bailey, the EU’s new biofuel policy is a classic example of policy capture by well-organised special-interest groups: agricultural and industrial lobbies.

“Unchecked biofuel production, which is certainly what is envisaged because the EU has no effective standards on the table, entails significant social costs and abuses of human rights,” he says.

Biofuel policies:The EU Biofuels Directive sets a non-

binding target of 5.75 per cent biofuels in the transport energy mix by 2010.

The EU Renewable Energy Direc-tive sets legally binding targets for each member state, in order to reach the overall EU target of 20 percent share of energy needs to be met from renewable sources by 2020, and 10 percent target of transport fuel needs to be met from renewables. Only ”sustainable” biofu-els will qualify for support and count towards the target, but the definition of sustainable is unclear and lacks criteria on social standards.

More info:Oxfam on biofuels: www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/agriculture/biofuels

About the speaker:Robert Bailey is the biofuels policy ad-visor at Oxfam. Oxfam International is a confederation of 13 NGO’s around the world. Its mission is ”a just world without poverty”. Oxfam has opera-tions in over 100 countries with over 3,000 partners.

*Study ”Land Clearing and the Bio-fuel Carbon Debt” by Fargione et al, in Science Journal, February 2008.

Biofuels can be made from, for instance, alcohol, gas or wood. Ex-cept for biomass fuels like wood, which can be burned directly where the energy is needed, there are two main ways of producing biofuels.

One is to grow crops high in sug-ar (e.g. sugar cane) or starch (e.g. corn/maize), and then to use yeast fermentation to produce ethyl alco-hol (ethanol). The second is to grow plants that contain high amounts of vegetable oil, such as oil palm or rape. These oils can be burned di-rectly in a diesel engine, or they can be chemically processed into fuels such as biodiesel.

The carbon balance of biofuels marks an improvement over fossil fuels. In principle the carbon diox-ide emitted from biofuels could be absorbed by the ongoing growing of biofuel crops, but this is not always the case and biofuels are not the ultimate weapon in tackling global heating.

Land clearance for biofuel crops can accelerate deforestation.

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity

Producing biofuel has its sides.


6 7


Though biofuels are associated with many risks and disadvantages, they still offer a way of making ve-hicles more sustainable. But only if combined with other measures. Jakob Lagercranz, from Swedish pro-car NGO ‘Green Motorists’ explains how.

”We, the Green Motorists, like cars but we think cars shouldn’t be around with-out major environmental improvements. We need to make improvements much more quickly when it comes to green motoring”, Jakob Lagercranz says.

Green Motorists advocate a three-part approach:• promote better technologies, such as fuel efficiency• promote biofuels, while respecting social, ethical and environment criteria

• cut car use to a minimumThe last strategy is the most impor-

tant, Lagercranz says:"We use the car far too often in our

day to day lives. If we don't reduce the use of the cars, then we don't deserve to use them at all."

According to the Green Motorists, there are many ways of reducing car use: walking, bicycling or using public transport.

Make your choiceAnother important aspect is the choice of car.

In Sweden, for example, people tend to buy cars that are much bigger than they actually need. Even though the country is doing well when it comes to using biofuels – four percent of Swedish cars run on biofuels – Swedish cars are high fuel consumers.

"There is no point having an SUV

on ethanol, because it consumes too much. Now, obviously, a lot of men of a certain age are not going to buy the smallest engines.”

“But just by choosing the smallest engine size in each class, we can save 18 percent of fuel consumption. If you go down a step when you are choos-ing your car, you can save a further 10 percent”, Lagercranz argues.

Driving more effectively and keeping cars maintained and serviced can save additional fuel.

Keep up the pressureTo speed up research and production of better cars, comsumer pressure is cru-cial. The introduction of eco-labelled fuels would help consumers make the right choices. There are already some initiatives underway:

Swedish ethanol producer Sekab has developed the Verified Sustainable Eth-

Biofuels - a way to save the car

Liquid petroleum gas is a cheaper and more eco-friendly fuel for cars.

Photo: FordonsGas Sverige A

B/Nils-O

lof Sjödén

anol Initiative together with Brazilian ethanol producers.

Last year a bio-methane became the first fuel ever to be awarded the Nordic Svanen (swan) ecolabel.

"I don't think that the (labelling scheme's) environmental criteria are tough enough, but it's a first step", La-gercranz says.

"In the space of one generation, we have to move the world from being de-pendent on oil to being free from oil.

That's a considerable challenge. You can't resolve it in just one way. I don't want to say that biofuels are bad or they're wonderful. I want to have them as a part of a package for the future."

More info: Green Motorists: www.gronabilister.se Sustainable Ethanol Initiative:www.hallbaretanol.se

About the speaker:Jakob Lagercranz is chairman of the board of The Swedish Association of

Green Motorists (Gröna Bilister). The association was founded in 1994 and its aims are to "make road transport more friendly to the environment, and to promote public transport and bicycling as alternatives, particularly in urban areas.”

Climate change, or global warming, is a change in the climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions alter the composition of the global atmosphere, and strengthen the natural greenhouse effect. This enhanced greenhouse ef-fect leads to, among other things, higher temperatures, ris-ing sea levels and more unstable weather.

Fossil fuels are the single biggest source of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide is also released when trees are cut down and not replaced (deforestation). Additionally, massive herds of livestock emit methane, as do rice farms and waste dumps. Other sources of green-house gases are fertilizers and long-lived gases such as CFCs, HFCs and PFCs (used in air conditioning and refrig-eration).

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity

Use public transport when you can.


8 9


Despite the problems with biofu-els, there are still many reasons to keep using them. The possibility to combine them with standard fuels using hybrid techniques, and great reductions in carbon dioxide emis-sions are two of them.

“We are going to have to reduce our emissions of fossil carbon dioxide by 90 percent. Ethanol exists today. Why not exploit it?” Lena Nordgren, CEO of Bio-Alcohol Fuel Foundation (Baff) says.

“It can be produced in a sustainable way on a large scale, but we have to be active to make sure that it becomes even more sustainable than it is at the moment.”

Don’t ignore the positivesProblems such as working conditions that are little better than slavery, defores-tation and child labour have to be elimi-nated. But, according to Nordgren, bio-fuels promise too much to be ignored.

One example is improvements in biofuels technology, making it possible to use cellulose as a raw material for ethanol. In Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, a pi-lot project has been established, which

uses fibres from sugar cane and cellu-lose from forestry to produce ethanol.

If these new technologies work, they could significantly increase productiv-ity. The amount of ethanol produced from one hectare of sugar cane could be increased from 8,000 litres to 12,000 litres annually.

Few modifications neededTwo other advantages of ethanol are that is can be used in hybrid engines and, as it is a liquid, existing infrastruc-ture can be simply adapted to carry it. Today’s engines would only need mi-nor modifications to be able to run on ethanol. Furthermore:

“There are great possibilities for de-

veloping countries. Ethanol can be produced locally or globally. Let’s not forget that many of the countries that might be able to develop biofuels are the same countries who are going to be affected hardest and first by climate change. This product can help the do-mestic market, but also could be ex-ported to other parts of the world.”

More info: BAFF www.baff.info

About the speaker:Lena Nordgren is the CEO of Baff, BioAlcohol Fuel Foundation. Baff is a knowledge and information-led organi-sation involved in sustainable transport projects around the globe.

...and the other side of the coin

Cellulose from forestry can be used to produce methanol.

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity

Fossil fuels could be gas, coal or oil. They were formed over hundreds of millions of years from the fossilized remains of dead plants and animals. Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources because they take millions of years to form, and reserves are being used much faster than new ones are being created.

Burning of fossil fuels also releases carbon dioxide too fast for the planet to absorb. Burning coal, oil and natural gas releases each year billions of tons of carbon dioxide, as well as large amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, that would otherwise have remained hidden in the ground.

Biofuels – as we know them today – are an immense threat to local environments, to the workers pro-ducing them and – paradoxically – to the climate.

”In addition to the big climate change challenge, we are also facing the great-est extinction of species that human beings have ever seen, as well as the fastest rates of soil erosion,” says Ama-ranta Herrero from the campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory.

The increasing production of biofu-els is one of the contributing factors to these environmental changes.

Sugar cane ethanol from Brazil has the best energy balance and has been widely promoted, but its production is associated with many social and envi-ronmental problems.

”Sugar cane is grown as a mono-crop*, predominantly in southern and central Brazil, as well as in parts of Asia and Africa. It relies on large quantities of inputs, particularly fertilizers,” Her-rero explains.

In addition to this, sugar cane is of-ten cultivated on land where formerly soya was grown. As a result, sugar cane plantations push soya plantations into the rain forest, indirectly causing defor-estation.

Fertilizers increase emissionsNitrogen from fertilizers can accelerate the nitrogen cycle in sugar cane regions and consequently increase emissions of nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is a green-house gas that is about 300 times stron-ger than carbon dioxide.

”It is amazing that in the entire agro-fuel climate change debate, none of the policymakers go back to the question of what the main cause is of greenhouse gas emissions. All attention is focused on growing crops to run cars. Of course global transport is a major producer of greenhouse gases, accounting for 14

percent of all emissions, but if we have a look at the picture, agriculture itself is responsible for exactly the same pro-portion of greenhouse gas emissions. If you add to that the emissions from changing land use, one can conclude that agriculture, and especially the in-dustrial agricultural model, is responsi-ble for more greenhouse gas emissions than transport,” Herrero says.

Dirty businessMoreover, cultivation of sugar cane of-ten involves inhumane working condi-tions.

”The working day in a sugar cane plantation consists of 8-12 hours of cutting and carrying sugar cane stalks while inhaling dust and smoke from the burned residue. In addition, working conditions, such as provision of clean water, restrooms, and food-storage fa-cilities are usually absent in sugar cane fields.”

Many cane cutters are hired under false promises of a good salary and de-cent living conditions. They end up in the sugar cane fields with semi-slavery working conditions.

In 2007, about 2,000 sugar cane

plantation workers were freed by the Brazilian Ministry of Labour from inhu-mane working conditions and condi-tions analogous to slavery.

”The European Union’s 10 percent mandatory biofuels target for 2020 will lead to a major expansion of agrofuels and therefore will intensify their unin-tentional side-effects. It is necessary to include whole life cycle analysis and land use change in energy calculations. Sustainability criteria under a manda-tory target, and without monitoring and control mechanisms, would just be gre-enwashing.”

About the speaker:Amaranta Herrero works for the Cor-porate Europe Observatory. CEO is a European research and campaign group monitoring the threats to democracy, equity, social justice and the environ-ment posed by the economic and po-litical power of corporations and their lobby groups.

*Monocropping is the agricultural prac-tice of growing the same crop year after year on the same land, without crop rotation.

The dark side of biofuels...It’s not as simple as it might seem.

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity


10 11


Reforming transport and energy systems are not enough to combat climate change. It will also be nec-essary to change our eating habits. Although forgotten in the debate, meat production is one of the main causes of climate change.

Globally, about 26 percent of the land is used for pasture, with little scope for expansion. A third of the earth’s culti-vable land is used for growing animal feed. In the EU the proportion is even higher at about 50 percent.

Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emis-sions are increasing at a faster rate than the IPCC worst case scenario, while an-imal product markets thrive in emerg-ing economies. Production of meat and dairy products requires huge amounts of resources.

To assess the impact of this sector on the climate, it is necessary to look at the whole life cycle: from feed production to the breeding of animals to slaughter-ing, processing and transport.

Such an assessment shows that live-stock represents nine percent of the CO2 emissions caused by human activ-ity, as well as 37 percent of the methane emissions and 65 percent of the nitrous oxide emissions.

Livestock produce huge emissions”All in all, livestock causes 18 percent of human-caused greenhouse gases emissions”, says Tom Wassenaar, from the European Commission’s Joint Re-search Centre.

There are three levels at which we could reduce the impact of livestock on climate change: the farm level, the sys-tem level and the consumer level.

”There are a large number of things we can do at farm level. One is the old technology of bio-digestion, biogas, which is known classically for its po-tential for producing some level of en-ergy. This is now being advocated as a means to mitigate methane emissions.”

At the system level, possible actions could include a greenhouse gas tax and promotion of more climate-friendly production methods.

Inefficient use of resources”A common argument from industry is that the rise in demand for meat needs to be met and we need to use grassland biomass which only ruminants (like cows and sheep) can convert into high quality food.””This is only partially true. It does in-deed produce high quality food, but at the same time it represents an extreme-ly inefficient use of resources.”

Reduce the impact of livestock

Options on the consumer level could be education, carbon labelling and price incentives.

”We face the need to increase our food production, which is clearly the case,” says Wassenaar.

”We know that terrestrial biomass due to climate change may decrease. It may not be sufficient. We may need to set priorities and look at the other bio-mass uses.”

Equal standards should be appliedAccording to last year’s State of Food and Agriculture report published by the Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations “Given that most environmental impacts of biofu-els are indistinguishable from those of increased agricultural production in general, it could be argued that equal standards should be applied across the board.”

”That may be a bit idealistic, but again in the paradigm shift, that’s the way we should look. The European Emission Trading System, the largest worldwide so far, does not consider agriculture eligible. This could possibly change,” Wassenaar says.

Should livestock contribute?”To conclude, there is scope for agri-culture, and particularly the livestock sector, to contribute to our 20 percent greenhouse gas cut by 2020 goal.” ”The question is, should it?”

More info:Livestock's Long Shadow: www.fao.org.docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

Global Carbon Project: www.global-carbonproject.org

About the speaker:Tom Wassenaar works at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. He is one of the authors of the book ”Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environ-mental Issues and Options” (2006).

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity


12 13


If we want to tackle climate change, meat consumption will have to de-crease radically in high-income countries. A modified, balanced and vegetable-based diet will lead to mayor health benefits, both in richer and poorer countries.

To achieve the necessary carbon di-oxide emission cuts, we need to halve average per capita emissions. High-income countries will need to reduce their emissions proportionately so that low and middle-income countries have room to develop. EU emissions will need to fall by 80 percent.

Livestock production is a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, more so than transport.

”Of course business will not be as usual. It’s just impossible to imagine that we can continue in the way we have gone recently. Until now, wealth has been taken to mean, amongst other things, an ability to eat more meat,” says John Powles, researcher at the University of Cambridge.

This connection needs to be changed.

Reduce meat consumptionOn average, daily meat consumption is about 100 grammes a day, ranging from 30 grammes in Africa to a bit more than 220 grammes in developed countries. One goal could be at least to prevent

an increase in meat production. In order to allow people in developing countries to eat more, and for a world population that will be 40 percent larg-er than today, the global average needs to be around 90 grammes per person per day.

Many health benefitis”There is no doubt that such a change would be quite radical. It is only imag-inable in the context of a very profound change in public consciousness about the need to change our way of life in order to avoid the worst possible con-sequences of climate change.

One of the things that might make it more feasible is that there will be po-

tential co-benefits both for the current high consum-ers and the current low consumers,” Powles says.

A m o n g the benefits, n u m e r o u s health advan-tages can be expected.

• High-income countries could ex-pect a reduction in heart disease, while low-income countries, as they become wealthier, may experience some in-crease in heart disease risk.

• For countering stroke risk, it ap-pears that animal protein is protective. Some increase in meat consumption in low-income countries could be expect-ed to reduce stroke risk.

• The connection between colorec-tal cancer and red meat is fairly clear. A reduction in red meat consumption could lower the risk of colorectal can-cer. Similarly, increased red meat con-sumption will increase the risk.

• Higher consumption of dairy prod-ucts in low-income countries is likely to reduce the risk of children's growth being stunted.

• An overall change in diet, towards one that is higher in plant products, might reduce obesity in rich countries.

About the speaker:Dr. John Powles is an epidemiologist and public health physician at the Uni-versity of Cambridge, UK. The presen-tation is based on a paper called ”Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health”, which John Pow-les and three collegues published in the medical journal The Lancet in 2007.

Eating less meat is good for you

Greens (and reds, if they are vegetables) are healthier.

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity

Source: Stern (2006)

Global greenhouse gas emissions (2000)

There are big differences between foods when it comes to how much greenhouse gas they produce. Tax-ation could be one way of pushing consumers towards more climate-friendly food.

“Agriculture accounts for about 25 to 30 percent of total greenhouse gas emis-sions from human activities, which is about double the emissions from trans-portation. But so far, agricultural green-house gas emissions have more or less been exempted from policy measures”, says Stefan Wirsenius, researcher at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden.

“If we’re going to impose more strin-gent climate policies, we have to accept CO2 emissions costs that are much higher than today. Climate taxes on food could be an idea in the context where we have accepted much higher CO2 emissions costs.”

Cows are the big emittersProduction of beef can actually emit about 10 times more greenhouse gas than production of chicken. Compared with beans on a protein-content basis, the difference is a factor of 100. Vegan food is practically greenhouse gas neu-tral. About 25 percent of the green-house gas emissions from agriculture in the EU comes from beef production, and 30 percent from milk production. Some of these emissions could be re-duced. It is for example possible to modify fertilizers and improve manure-storage facilities.

But both for milk and beef, the main single source (up to 50 percent) of greenhouse gas is methane, coming from the intestines of cows. Since this is due to cows’ digestive systems, it is very hard to reduce this figure.

Change habits, not technology“What we chose to eat will be the de-termining factor for how large the emis-

sions will be that we will have from ag-riculture. Changing food patterns thus offers much greater reduction potential than trying to implement new technol-ogy.””If we substitute beef with pork, we actually decrease emissions by 80 per-cent. I don’t think switching from beef to pork is a big sacrifice. I can live with that. I can also live with switching to chicken which cuts emissions by 90 percent. And if you like vegetables, switching to beans practically erases emissions.”

Tax food after emissionsKnowing this, policymakers should look for ways of steering consumers’ food choices. Experience has shown that information campaigns are rarely successful. Economic instruments, such as taxes, should be considered.

Since the technical potential for re-ducing emissions is rather small and it is possible to substitute beef with less-emitting food, consumption taxes would be a good idea.

“We should tax only food produced from animals, and it should be taxed in proportion to the greenhouse gas emis-sions produced per unit. This would mean that beef should attract a tax about six times higher than chicken.

A change from beef to pork or chick-en would also lead to reduced need for land. More land could then be used for bio-energy production.

About the speakerDr. Stefan Wirsenius is a researcher in the Department of Energy and Environ-ment, at Chalmers University of Tech-nology, Sweden.

Using tax to change eating habits

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity

Beef production emitts much more green-house gas than vegetable growing.

Power 24%

Industry 14%

Other energy-related 5%

Waste 3%

Agriculture 14%

Buildings 8%

Transport 14%

ENERGYEMISSIONS

NON-ENERGYEMISSIONS

Livestock produc-tion (including feed production) accounts for approx. half of all ”non-energy”emissions

Total emissions in 2000: 42 GtCO2e

Energy emissions are mostly CO2 (some non-CO2 in industry and other energy related).Non-energy emissions are CO2 (land use) and non-CO2 (agticulture and waste).

Land use 18%


14 15


Valve for the water network. Extension of water network in Jericho city. EW-WB-028.

When people get richer, they eat more meat. Increased meat con-sumption could have disastrous consequences in developing coun-tries, both for the environment and for people’s health.

“India is traditionally a vegetarian country, but changing lifestyles, and increased meat consumption and the spread of fast food chains, is leading to a huge growth in meat and dairy pro-duction”, says Joyce D’Silva from UK charity Compassion in World Farming.

“In China, where there is now a huge burgeoning urban middle class, they all want to eat meat just like people in the west do. Again, huge growth.”

The United Nations Food and Ag-riculture Organisation (FAO) expects the world demand for meat to increase from 229 million tons per year in 1999 to 465 million tons in 2050.

“Over a third of cereals and 90 per-cent of soya are grown primarily for animal feed, not as food for humans. This is a huge ethical issue as there is also pressure on land from biofuels,” D’Silva says.

Producing beef is not effectiveIn Brazil, more than half of the tropical savannah region Cerrado, which covers 21 percent of the country, was between 1970 and 2005 turned over to produc-tion of beef cattle or soy for animal feed. The whole Cerrado eco-system could be gone by 2030.

Using land for producing protein from beef is the least effective way of getting proteins.

Soya is the most effective. From one hectare of land, you could either get 22 kilos of beef protein or 399 kilos of soya protein (Source: US Department of Agriculture). Milk and eggs are about four times more effective in this respect than beef, with 80 kilos of protein per hectare. All meats on average produce about 50 kilos of proteins per hectare.

Enormous amounts of waterMeat production also consumes vast amounts of water. Between 1995 and 2025 the FAO estimates that there will be a 71 percent increase in water con-sumption for livestock production. By 2025, 64 percent of humanity will be living in areas afflicted by water short-ages. Livestock accounts for 23 percent of total water use.

Basic water requirements, such as cleaning and cooking, for each person

Compassion in world farming

Producing meat requires enormous amounts of water, in many places a scarce commodity.

Photo: ©Europ

ean Com

munity

Meat the Truth is a documentary about climate change, made by the Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation and presented by Marianne Thieme (Dutch Party for the Animals).

Although previous films about climate change have convincingly succeeded in drawing public attention to the issue of global warming, they have repeat-edly ignored one of the most impor-tant causes of climate change: intensive livestock production.

Meat the Truth draws attention to this by demonstrating that livestock farming globally generates greater volumes of greenhouse gas than all cars, lorries, trains, boats and aircraft added together.

Meat the Truth was screened in connection with the conference.

More info:www.meatthetruth.nl

Meat the Truth! - the movie

amounts to around 50 litres a day, or 18,250 litres annually.

“That’s almost exactly the same as the amount of water for one kilo of meat, which could be up to 20,000 litres. For one person for one year and one kilo of meat. Not every day for a year, just one kilo of meat. I found that really shocking. It raises all sorts of ques-tions about ethics and social justice,” D’Silva says.

In addition to environmental damage and the competition between humans and cattle for resources, escalating meat production also has other effects in the developing world.

Small-scale farmers are being re-placed by industrial farmers. This de-velopment drives the former farmers off their land, often to new lives in the slums.

Slavery not uncommon“One of the shocking things that turned up when I was doing my research for this presentation was that 62 percent

of enterprises on the Brazilian labour ministry’s dirty list of slave labour are Amazon ranches. In 2007, 73 percent of Brazilian meat exports came from

slaughterhouses that bought cattle from ranches that operate using slave labour,” D’Silva says.

Low animal welfare stan-dards are an-other problem with factory

farming.“Broiler chickens grow so fast that

many of them, 26 percent according to a UK government study, go lame before they get to their slaughter weight.”

Animal health issuesThe popular black and white Holstein cows produce so much milk that they suffer from health problems such as lameness and mastitis. Sows give birth in narrow crates where they can’t even turn around. Most laying hens are still kept in battery cages.

Keeping thousands of animals in one

place also increases the risk that new diseases will develop, which could be spread to humans.

More info: • Compassion in World Farming : www.ciwf.org• The Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations:www.fao.org• International Assessment of Agricul-tural Knowledge, Science and Technol-ogy for Development:www.agassessment.org• The World Bank: http://web.world-bank.org/ =>Topics => Agriculture & Rural Development => Topics => Live-stock and Animal Resources• Friends of the Earth, Brazil:www.amigosdaterra.org.br/english/• WWF: http://www.panda.org/ search for ”livestock”

About the speaker:Joyce D’Silva works for Compassion in World Farming, a specialist farm animal welfare charity based in the UK. Its vi-sion is a world where farm animals are treated with compassion and respect and where cruel factory farming has ended.

Meat consumption(kilos of meat/person/year

1961 2001

USA 89 124

Europe 56 89

China 4 54

Japan 8 42

Brazil 28 79Source: FAO

“Please eat less meat - meat is a very carbon intensive commodity”

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Nobel Peace Prize 2007”

On 12-13 November 2008, the European United Left/Nordic Green Left Group (GUE/NGL) in the European Parliament organised a conference, ‘Feeding the World under the Climate Threat’.

Fighting climate change is undoubtedly the twenty-first century’s biggest challenge. Sustainable food produc-tion and consumption as well as the choice of energy sources must be parts of the response.

The conference was a platform for an in-depth discus-sion on the issues of the indirect impacts of biofuels on land use and food production, and increasing emissions from livestock production.

Among the speakers were some of Europe’s leading ex-perts and stakeholders in the field. With this report we want to share this valuable information with you.

ABOUT GUE/NGL

The GUE/NGL (European United Left/Nordic Green Left) Group has forty-one members from the following parties:

AKEL (Cyprus), Bloco de Esquerda (Portugal), DIE LINKE. (Germany), Folkebevægelsen mod EU (Denmark), Izquier-da Unida (IU - Spain), Kommunistiko Komma Elladas (KKE - Greece), Komunistická strana Cech a Moravy (KSCM - Czech Republic), Parti Communiste Français (PCF - France), Partido Comunista Português (PCP - Portugal), Partido dei

Comunisti italiani (PdCI - Italy), Partido della Rifondazione Comunista (PRC - Italy), Rassemblement Démocratique pour la Martinique (RDM - France), Sinn Féin (SF - Ireland), Socialistische Partij (SP - Netherlands), Synaspismos (Syn - Greece), Vänsterpartiet (V- Sweden), Vasemmistoliitto (VAS - Finland).

Feeding the World under the Climate Threat

Documents

Feeding the World - GUE/NGLold.guengl.eu/uploads/_old_cms_files/Feeding_the_World.pdfFeeding the World Under the Climate Threat 6 7 Feeding the World Under the Climate Threat Though