One consequence, among many, is that livestock production now contributes nearly 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, even more than the transportation sector. “There’s no way it would be possible to achieve our objectives if we’re not making some serious changes in the way the system functions.”. But Kuyek argues they’ll never reduce production voluntarily — and that improvements to productivity and efficiencies won’t do the trick, either. Both intensive (industrial) and non-intensive (traditional) forms of meat production result in the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs). If the growth of the global meat and dairy industry continues as projected, by 2050, the livestock sector as a whole could contribute 80% of the planet’s annual greenhouse gas budget (set by the 2015 Paris climate agreement). Estimated global greenhouse gas emission (GHG) targets to keep within a 1.5°C rise in temperature compared to emissions from global meat and dairy … So for the first time ever, we have estimated corporate emissions from livestock, using the most comprehensive methodology created to date by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). But when the researchers checked the company’s numbers against a system established by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), they found that JBS’s estimates came in at just 3% of the independent evaluation. These small producers are the backbone of food systems that can arrest and address climate change. The point remains: The industrial livestock and dairy corporations are contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Here are our full terms & conditions. According to the EPA, burning fossil fuels for industry, electricity, and transportation comprises the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. JBS, the largest livestock producer in the world, claims its calculations include the entire supply chain. Big meat and dairy are causing more harm to the planet than you think…. In Bonn, the big meat and dairy companies are also likely to spend much time and money talking about efficiency, while expanding production. Calculations aside, Kuyek says the report illuminates an existential problem in meat and dairy production: These companies envision a world where per-capita consumption continues to rise. It is time to stop the dairy and meat giants from destroying the climate and shift our support to making our small farmers, herders and ranchers resilient, Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 11.55 EST. Chu lumped the greenhouse gas emissions from meat and dairy with other agricultural practices, such as fertilizer, and land-use changes, such as deforestation and soil disruption. Standard text message rates apply. You are always free to easily unsubscribe at any time. To opt-out of ever having your info sold to 3rd parties under any circumstances, click here. A study released on July 18, 2018, found that the world’s top five meat and dairy producers combined — Brazil’s JBS, New Zealand’s Fonterra, Dairy Farmers of America, Tyson Foods, and Cargill — emit more greenhouse gases than Exxon-Mobil, Shell, or BP. The Tysons of the world shouldn’t be trusted to pursue unfettered growth and meaningful emissions reductions in equal measure, the authors argue. As the Food and Environment Reporting Network’s (FERN) Leah Douglas reported in May, the country’s largest dairy co-op is discussing the possibility of coming out in support of supply management. These supply-chain emissions can account for 80 to 90% of the total energy it takes to put a bottle of milk on the shelf. But the production of meat has large environmental impacts – increasing greenhouse gas emissions, agricultural land and freshwater use. Infographic: 19 Foods You Can Regrow from Scraps, How to Wash Vegetables and Fruits to Remove Pesticides, Vinegar Facts: What is It — And How to Use it for Your Health. Few meat and dairy companies calculate or publish their climate emissions. Though it was largely dismissed as an outdated policy for many years, support for supply management may be edging its way back into the mainstream. New research shows that together, the world’s top five meat and dairy corporations are responsible for more annual greenhouse gas emissions than ExxonMobil, Shell, or BP. The good news is that there are many opportunities within the sector to limit climate change by reducing emissions. “There should be really a clear directive and policies and regulations that create a food system in which there is production of enough meat to eat — moderate consumption levels for everyone. He calls it a “pretty fair system,” adding that governments could consider environmental goals when setting quotas for milk and dairy. They would also condemn the 600 million small-scale farmers and 200 million herders who depend on livestock for their livelihoods and who do feed billions of people every day with moderate amounts of meat, dairy and eggs. An oft-used comparison is that globally, animal agriculture is responsible for a larger proportion of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (14-18%) than transportation (13.5% id you know that three meat companies – JBS, Cargill and Tyson – are estimated to have emitted more greenhouse gases last year than all of France and nearly as much as some of the biggest oil companies like Exxon, BP and Shell? Chu lumped the greenhouse gas emissions from meat and dairy with other agricultural practices, such as fertilizer, and land-use changes, such as … “We have a major problem in the growth strategies of these companies — emphasis on exports and overproduction,” he says. By contrast, Greenpeace estimates global per-capita meat consumption actually has to fall to 35 pounds per person by 2050 to meet goals set by the Paris Climate Agreement, which the United States withdrew from in August of 2017.