Climate change: where is the beef?
Author: Jerri-Lynn Scofield, he has served as a securities lawyer and derivatives trader.She is currently writing a book about textile craftsmen.
Taking climate change mitigation seriously means asking companies that benefit from selling accelerated products to clean up their actions.
This necessity is not limited to fossil fuel companies.
Another source is also important: beef production. Beef may account for about a quarter of food-related emissions, and these emissions themselves account for about a third of total greenhouse gas emissions.
Although there is controversy about whether certain beef production can be designed in a sustainable way, there is no dispute that the current large-scale industrialized beef farming system is not the case. (I will let the supporters of each position discuss it in the comments. Those who are interested in these issues can articulate their arguments better than me. So please do. I always learn a lot from these debates. )
Consider a recent article about McDonald’s, Hold beef tightly: McDonald’s avoids bold measures that must be taken to reduce emissions, Which provides detailed information about the emissions generated by the company’s activities:
Every year, McDonald’s buys up to 1.9 billion pounds Put beef into patties to make millions of happy meals, quarter pounds, Big Macs, triple cheeseburgers, and other popular beef sandwiches available around the world.
The surprising amount of meat requires the company and its suppliers to be slaughtered in the north 7 million head of cattleAccording to some estimates, this has brought a huge price to the environment: more than 53m metric tons McDonald’s production of greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 exceeds the emissions of several European countries.
Beef is particularly problematic because dairy cows release large amounts of methane in their hiccups and manure, which is a potent greenhouse gas.The amount of feed, water, and land a cow needs to produce a pound of meat Much higher This increases their carbon footprint compared to other animals. Raising cattle has brought a “multi-dimensional burden” to the earth, [Gidon Eshel, an environmental and urban studies research professor at Bard College] Said that because this industry also pollutes, consumes water and Stimulate deforestation.
The Guardian’s article—not a paywall—is well worth reading because it discusses McDonald’s shameless use of gimmicks, such as public relations and greenwashing, to convince the public—especially those who don’t want to follow mathematics—the company sincerely Pursue important sustainable development goals. But this is not the case, and the necessary measures have not been taken to substantially reduce emissions.
What the company needs to do is implement major menu changes. Now, this does not necessarily mean that McDonald’s completely abandons the sale of beef burgers—in fact, it does not mean that it abandons the meat trade. However, instead of selling larger and better beef packaging at lower prices, McDonald’s needs to charge more at lower prices so that their prices reflect the true cost of beef production. Other things the company can do: provide more plant-based options, as Burger King and White Castle do; promote smaller burgers; and provide more chicken and other options instead of beef.
I dare say, why not stop selling beef completely? Or at least consider such a move. In fact, McDonald’s has already done this in certain markets. Take India as an example, where the company avoids beef altogether. The wider promotion of its Indian approach would represent a meaningful shift.
When traveling in India, I myself have eaten more than a few McDonald’s meals. In fact, in the past fifteen years or so, I may have eaten more Indian McDonald’s food than Americans. Please note that I never choose to dine at McDonald’s myself. There are always better and tastier local options. always.
However, in the process of researching my textile books, I visited many Indian producers in the smallest villages and urban environments in the country. Many of them think that all Americans despise spicy food. This is definitely not the case in my case. They believe that when we are on the road, we will look for what they think is the taste of our home and push it to any McDonald’s we can find. Mickey D’s food is relatively expensive for everyone except the urban elites in India. I understand what my Indian host must sacrifice to treat me to a meal they think I will like. Therefore, when they launched the equivalent of the local Happy Meal, I responded enthusiastically to the owner’s intention to invite me to dinner at McDonald’s-never revealing my true view of the food.
McDonald’s has a long way to go in formulating sustainable development policies, and these policies provide more than just an opportunity to address climate change—again.
We have run out of time and roads, and boldly announced plans to provide timid reality will no longer be enough. When will our government recognize this fact and take action? anything.
Three supermarket chains abandon Brazilian beef due to deforestation issues
Earlier this week-Wednesday-the British “Financial Times” published a report on Brazilian beef, which tilted in a completely different direction. Seeing it, I am cautiously optimistic. I don’t know much about Brazilian beef, so I will pay close attention to reports in the Financial Times. Supermarkets sell Brazilian beef products related to deforestationAccording to reports, three European supermarket chains have stopped selling Brazilian beef due to deforestation issues. This move represents a step to flesh out the anti-deforestation initiative following the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow last month:
European supermarket chains J Sainsbury, Carrefour and Ahold Delhaize will stop selling several Brazilian meat products because investigations have found that they have caused the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.
Since the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow last month, there has been increasing pressure to stop deforestation.
This has led more than 100 countries to commit to ending meat production supported by livestock raised on lands where rainforest and savannah have been cleared by 2030-a major source of carbon emissions.
Brazil’s current beef exports are roughly twice that of the world runner-ups Australia and the United States:
As the world’s largest beef exporter, Brazil’s meat processing industry has long faced scrutiny of its supply chain and its impact on climate change. Sainsbury’s, the second largest supermarket chain in the UK, the Belgian store of French retailer Carrefour, and part of the largest Dutch chain Albert Heijn and Ahold Delhaize, were made after investigations by environmental activist Mighty Earth and the non-governmental organization Repórter, Brazil, in the week Four publication.
The report highlights the risk of contamination of the supply chain from processed meat. Cows from deforested areas are sent to suppliers for fattening, and eventually slaughtered by processors such as JBS, Marfrig and Minerva. This meat eventually appeared in European supermarkets as products, such as beef jerky, corned beef and premium cuts.
The FT account lists the details of what each chain decides to do. Corporate buyers, such as these supermarket chains, can act quickly when they want, especially in this case, when they are faced with evidence, they cannot ignore the form of reporting.
The results of the COP26 summit in Glasgow are very disheartening. Despite the imminent climate crisis, the government either cannot — and will not — take action. Therefore, private initiatives such as supermarkets are the best initiatives currently available. Is this enough to alleviate our future climate change? No chance. But this is what we currently have.
This seems to be better than the smoky advertised by McDonald’s.A company that is large enough and has potential can open a new path if it wants to