The World Bank’s cautious approach to tackling meat emissions may help to rethink food subsidies
The World Bank has recently stepped into the heated debate on meat consumption and its impact on climate change with a cautious yet pivotal new report.
The report urges governments in wealthy nations to shift subsidies away from high-emission foods like beef and lamb and instead promote lower-emission alternatives. However, the Bank stops short of advocating for a global shift towards veganism or even reducing meat consumption altogether, reflecting the political sensitivities surrounding dietary changes.
For years, scientific consensus has highlighted the significant climate benefits of plant-based diets over those heavy in meat and dairy. Yet, both governments and international bodies have traditionally shied away from directly urging the public to consume fewer animal products. This reluctance stems from the emotive nature of diet and food, particularly in Western nations, where any policy suggesting changes to eating habits is often met with resistance and disinformation campaigns. Opponents of climate action have seized on these sentiments, falsely claiming that environmental policies will force drastic changes, such as banning hamburgers or imposing taxes on steaks.
Subscribe to the hussh newsletter
Rethinking Food Subsidies
The World Bank’s latest publication, "Recipe for a Livable Planet," presents a series of recommendations for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production. Among these is a call for wealthier nations to reallocate subsidies from high-emission foods to those with a lower environmental footprint. By doing so, the report argues, the real cost of carbon-intensive foods could be revealed, potentially making lower-emission foods more financially accessible and attractive to consumers.
One of the report's authors, William Sutton, who leads the World Bank's climate-smart agriculture initiative, emphasises that some current subsidies, such as providing cheap or free land for livestock grazing, are environmentally detrimental. For example, in the United States, livestock can graze on public lands at significantly reduced rates, effectively subsidising beef and dairy production at the expense of the environment.
Sutton argues that if meat prices were adjusted to reflect their environmental impact, consumers would see a price increase of 20-60%. This, he suggests, would encourage a shift in consumer behaviour, allowing people to make more informed choices between high-emission and low-emission food options.
Balancing Recommendations with Choice
Despite these recommendations, the World Bank is careful not to dictate dietary choices. "We're not here to prescribe what people should or shouldn’t eat," Sutton explains. Instead, the Bank's approach is to present various options and let individuals decide how they want to reduce their carbon footprint.
The report highlights the stark contrast between high-emission foods, like red meat and dairy, and lower-emission options, such as poultry and plant-based proteins. While poultry is less carbon-intensive than red meat, it is still more polluting than plant-based alternatives. Sutton acknowledges that a more sustainable diet does not necessarily require eliminating meat; it could involve choosing chicken or pork over beef or lamb or even incorporating more plant-based proteins like soy and beans.
Greenpeace EU's Sini Eräjää agrees that promoting vegetarianism or veganism might seem too radical for many, but she warns that encouraging even moderate meat consumption, such as chicken, sends the wrong message. "We should first and foremost promote plant-based diets," she asserts, pointing out the environmental and health benefits of such a shift.
Environmental experts like Paul Behrens from Leiden University echo these concerns, highlighting that poultry farms, while less intensive than beef production, still contribute significantly to environmental degradation. Poultry feed production, for instance, is linked to deforestation and loss of biodiversity, while poultry farming itself can drive zoonotic diseases and contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
Navigating Political Sensitivities
The World Bank’s cautious stance on diet contrasts sharply with the more direct criticisms from other environmental groups. Historical accounts suggest that international organisations like the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) have avoided outright criticism of meat consumption due to political sensitivities. Some former FAO officials have alleged that their attempts to spotlight the environmental impact of livestock were censored, and the agency has been accused of downplaying the benefits of reducing meat and dairy consumption in its reports.
Political and public sensitivities are further complicated by disinformation campaigns. For instance, in the United States, right-wing media have spread false claims that government policies will restrict meat consumption, feeding public fears and backlash against environmental policies. In Australia, misinformation has circulated suggesting that joining international climate agreements would lead to taxes on meat and end the nation’s barbecue culture.
Edward Davey, an advisor at the Food and Land Use Coalition, suggests that many governments avoid discussions on diet and climate due to fear of political fallout. "Governments are hesitant to appear as though they're dictating what people should eat," he says. Davey points out that in high-income countries, dietary choices are closely linked to cultural identity, making any suggestion of change politically sensitive.
Focus on High-Income Countries
Both Sutton and Davey stress that the conversation around reducing meat consumption primarily concerns wealthier nations. On average, residents in high-income countries consume three times more meat, seafood, eggs, and dairy than those in regions like South Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa. In many low-income areas, increasing access to animal protein can be crucial for nutrition and health, particularly where malnutrition remains a significant issue.
This disparity in consumption patterns underscores the need for tailored approaches to food policy. In wealthier countries, reducing meat consumption can benefit both health and the climate. Meanwhile, in poorer regions, ensuring adequate access to animal protein remains a priority for public health.
Shifting the Narrative
Despite the challenges, there is a growing recognition that diet changes can significantly impact the climate crisis. Campaigners like Greenpeace EU’s Eräjää argue that promoting plant-based diets and reducing meat consumption should be part of a broader strategy to combat climate change and protect biodiversity. "We need to change our food systems fundamentally," she says, "starting with what we put on our plates."
David Powell, a researcher at Climate Outreach, adds that the debate should move beyond climate arguments alone. "What people eat is deeply personal and tied to their identity," he notes. "For most, climate arguments won’t be enough to change their diet." Instead, Powell suggests framing the benefits of eating less meat in terms of health and well-being, making it a more positive and less confrontational conversation.
A Global Challenge with Local Solutions
The World Bank’s cautious foray into the meat emissions debate reflects a broader tension in global climate policy: balancing the need for urgent action with respect for cultural norms and economic realities. While the Bank’s recommendations are a step towards recognising the significant impact of food systems on climate change, they also highlight the complex web of political, economic, and cultural factors that shape global food policies.
As the world grapples with the realities of climate change, finding ways to align public policy with environmental goals without alienating key stakeholders will be crucial. The shift towards more sustainable diets is not just about reducing emissions but about fostering a global culture of sustainability that respects both human and planetary health.
Ultimately, reducing the environmental impact of our diets is a collective challenge that requires cooperation from all sectors of society. Whether through rethinking subsidies, promoting plant-based options, or simply encouraging more mindful consumption, every step counts in the journey towards a more sustainable future.