The current devastating conflict in Ukraine has understandably distracted media and political attention from climate change and related issues. With attention focused on the war, the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published last month, received less attention than it would normally, but for those who did find time to catch up on the findings from this authoritative study, the news was grim.
The report concluded that climate change has already caused “substantial damages and [...] irreversible losses” to ecosystems and that more frequent extreme weather and climate events have exposed millions to acute food insecurity and reduced water security. Looking ahead, it warned that half to three quarters of the global population could be exposed to “life-threatening climatic conditions” due to extreme heat and humidity by 2100.
The IPCC authors also highlighted the likelihood that climate change “will increasingly put pressure on food production and access, especially in vulnerable regions”. The top line message was that the world has “a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all”.
Of course, there are links to be drawn between the war in Ukraine and climate change. The conflict has dramatically underlined the imperative to shift to cleaner energy sources, not just to reduce emissions, but to dilute the influence of oil and gas on geopolitics. This has given a much-needed boost to the drive to wean the world off fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy.
And it’s true that fossil fuel use is a huge driver of greenhouse gas emissions, whether from heating and electricity generation, transport, or industrial processes. The world has an enormous amount to gain from shifting away from dirty fuels, and this is largely reflected in countries’ national climate plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), submitted as part of the UN climate talks.
However, recent analysis by the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, in partnership with Climate Focus and Solidaridad, reveals that most governments are largely overlooking another source of huge potential emissions savings: food systems transformation. Food production, processing, distribution, consumption and waste account for nearly a third of total global greenhouse gas emissions. And yet most countries’ NDCs fail to address these issues systematically or comprehensively, and as a result they are set to miss the opportunity for significant emissions reductions, alongside a range of related benefits for health, the environment and the economy.
Conservative estimates suggest that changing the way we produce and consume food could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 10.3 billion tons a year. This is slightly more than the combined emissions from global transport and residential energy use in 2019, and is equivalent to at least 20% of the cut needed by 2050 to prevent catastrophic climate change. To put it another way, without transformation of the industrialized food systems, it will be impossible to keep global warming below the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees.
There are multiple ways in which food systems around the world could be reformed to make them more climate friendly, while also improving diets and nutrition, advancing animal welfare, and supporting nature and sustainable livelihoods. They include shifting away from industrial scale production which uses lots of fertilizer and degrades the environment, directing public subsidies towards ecologically beneficial forms of farming, healthy food, and resilient livelihoods and communities, and promoting nutritious, sustainable, whole-food diets adapted to local ecosystems and contexts. The mix of reforms will be different in each place, but our analysis shows that across the board, countries are missing this chance.
Of the fourteen NDCs that we analyzed in detail (Bangladesh, Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, France, Germany, Kenya, Senegal, Spain, South Africa, the UK, the US, and Vanuatu) none fully accounted for emissions from food imports, particularly those linked to deforestation and the destruction of nature and ecosystems, in spite of pledges made at the UN climate meeting in Glasgow last year to end and reverse deforestation by 2030. Similarly, none of the plans assessed include specific measures to promote healthy and sustainable diets.
Germany was the only country we looked at that committed to move away from harmful subsidies that prop up intensive agricultural practices and contribute to higher emissions, while France was the only country whose NDC included comprehensive measures to reduce food loss and waste. China passed an anti-food-waste law last April, accompanied by a large-scale “clear your plate” campaign but this is not reflected in its NDC, showing how in many cases this is, in part, a question of a lack of coordination and coherence with other policies.
Of all the countries we looked at, Colombia, Senegal, and Kenya had the most ambitious measures in place to promote agroecological and regenerative locally led agriculture practices.
Our analysis demonstrates where the opportunities lie at a country level, but also includes generally applicable lessons for how countries can incorporate inclusive food systems transformation into their emissions-reduction plans and reap the associated health and societal benefits. It gives governments and other actors a toolkit to use food systems reform to drive significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions, as well as other health, environmental and social gains.
All parties to the UN climate talks have been encouraged to submit revised NDCs ahead of the next global meeting, COP27, in Egypt in November 2022. They have to do so by 2025 at the latest. With food systems transformation offering such accessible wins, with clear co-benefits including health and sustainable livelihoods, there is no good reason not to pursue this course. And with climate impacts accelerating and the window for meaningful action closing, there is no time to lose.
Patty Fong is a program director for climate, health and wellbeing at Global Alliance for the Future of Food.
The views and opinions expressed in this opinion section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the editorial positions of Caixin Media.
If you would like to write an opinion for Caixin Global, please send your ideas or finished opinions to our email: opinionen@caixin.com
Get our weekly free Must-Read newsletter.
