When the Stade de France in Paris is filled to capacity, it holds 81,400 people. You would then need another 2,484 to reach the number of badge-wearing participants at last year’s UN COP28 climate change conference in Dubai. This illustrates the sheer size of what was the world’s most important climate-focused event in 2023. 

But it also begs the question, do these annual ‘mega-gatherings’ actually deliver anything? 

One thing is abundantly clear: despite almost three decades of COPs and ballooning attendance, our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, and the world continues to warm. 

Process hijacking purpose  

My colleagues and I at Clim-Eat – the think-and-do-tank for food and climate that I founded in 2021 – recently published a paper examining the efficacy of COP summits, specifically in relation to food and agriculture. We found several failures. 

Firstly, negotiations on food and agriculture have moved at a snail’s pace over the past 17 years. In spite of numerous meetings, workshops, submissions and decisions, there has been literally no real-world impact as a result.  

Secondly, the trend of COP host countries – known as Presidencies – launching special initiatives on specific issues of interest has achieved little. These initiatives receive plenty of media attention when announced but amount to little more than virtue signalling. 

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late

For example, at the launch of COP21’s 4p1000 Initiative, France’s then-Minister of Agriculture said it could reconcile aims of food security and the fight against climate change. Today, the initiative has yet to report anything on the positive climate action it sought to create.  

The same goes for Morocco’s COP22 initiative on Adaptation in African Agriculture. It no longer mentions its ambitious target of raising $30 billion to support farmers – presumably because it hasn’t been reached. There are plenty of other examples of special initiatives being quietly ushered out of the spotlight.  

Unwarranted optimism

Let’s remember that COP negotiations first recognised agriculture as the key to solving climate change in 2006. It then took six years to agree on the next steps. Then, only in 2022, 16 years after the initial point, did the negotiations agree that “socioeconomic and food security dimensions are critical when dealing with climate change in agriculture and food systems.” Sixteen years to build a sentence to combat a third of global emissions.  

This suggests there’s little reason to be optimistic about the Emirates Declaration on Food and Agriculture, a special initiative launched at last year’s COP28. Signed by 159 countries, it called for action to adapt food systems to climate change, but the summit’s official negotiations on food and agriculture failed to acknowledge the declaration or reflect its priorities. The declaration itself is a creative collection of various adjectives and adverbs, reaffirmations and goals to ‘strengthen’ commitments. And six months after its launch, it is not clear whether it has led to anything at all; placing faith in its outcomes is utterly fanciful. 

The path forward

This cycle of the UNFCCC and COP Presidencies applauding special initiatives in the short term without holding countries responsible in the long term has to stop. The hamster wheel of inaction continues to spin.  

But we can slow it down and perhaps get off the wheel altogether. To do this, my colleagues and I concluded that the UN needs to: 

• Reform the UNFCCC process to prioritise measurable results and impacts, shifting its role to that of a watchdog ensuring action from all actors rather than merely organising large, costly meetings. 
• Make COPs leaner and less frequent/hold them every other year, reducing participant numbers and focusing on productive meetings. 
• Increase transparency regarding the financial costs of COPs, participation and emissions, to hold the UN accountable. 

Implementing these recommendations will not be easy. It means changing entrenched ways and tackling entrenched interests. There will be push-back.  

But as the UN’s mid-year climate talks begin in Bonn this week, observe the promises made with little follow-through, the unwarranted yet celebratory atmosphere filling the air – largely destined to be forgotten. Notice that when the clapping has stopped, and the initiators are no longer in the spotlight, they will slink back into the shadows, waiting to resurface onto the next grand stage at COP29 in Azerbaijan.  

The post The great COP food systems illusion: UN climate talks deliver no real-world action appeared first on Climate Home News.

Yearly, we produce five billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from crop and livestock production.

From seed to mouth, it can be easy to forget how much in terms of production goes into our food. So here’s a couple of things you may not already know about the carbon footprint of your favourite dishes.

1. Sandwich fillers

Chicken isn’t the most carbon-intensive meat, but it may come as a surprise to know that some of our favourite veggies have an equally poor carbon record.

Researchers from the University of Manchester recently calculated the carbon footprint of ingredients in British sandwiches. For sandwich eaters, cutting out tomatoes from a classic BLT (bacon, lettuce, and tomato) may be better for the environment.

Natural gas and electricity are used for the heating and lighting of greenhouses for tomatoes in the UK, contributing to their high carbon footprint. A 2009 report by the WWF found that in the UK, tomato, pepper, and cucumber production is worse for the environment than chicken and turkey.

2. Tofu of us consider everything

Demand for soy is driving deforestation, but think again before you put all the blame onto tofu eaters or the vegan movement. Around 70% of the global soy production is fed directly to livestock.

Beef racks up to 105kg of Co2e per 100g, while tofu produces less than 3.5kg. Trying to feed all those cows has meant that the expansion in soy has led to deforestation and the decline in other valuable ecosystems that store carbon. The Cerrado, a savanna ecoregion of Brazil, has lost half of its natural vegetation to soybean plantations.

One study found that deforestation related to soy production in Brazil is responsible for 29% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

Microplastics in the Azores (Photo: Creative Commons)

3. Something fishy about that

Maybe not strictly carbon footprint related, but microplastics, tiny pieces ranging from 5 millimetres down to 100 nanometers in diameter, are everywhere and a recent article from the World Economic Forum suggested that they have been found in a range of foods from fish to honey, chicken, and beer.

Besides polluting seas and oceans, microplastics are swallowed by fish and other marine creatures and enter our system when we eat seafood. Land animals also consume microplastics, although, unlike with fish, we tend not to eat their digestive systems.

4. Organic isn’t always better

Organic food has an image of health and sustainability but is not necessarily better for the climate than non-organic food. One study published in Environmental Research Letters found exactly that in June 2017.

“Organic systems require 25 to 110% more land use, use 15% less energy, and have 37% higher eutrophication potential than conventional systems per unit of food,” the study found. “In addition, organic and conventional systems did not significantly differ in their greenhouse gas emissions or acidification potential”.

Beetroot burger (Photo: George N)

5. Bleeding burgers

There are a variety of reasons why someone would consider going vegetarian, with studies suggesting that going vegetarian “can cut your carbon footprint in half”. While some vegetarians may miss the flavour of meat, we can’t be certain how many miss being reminded that that’s what they’re eating.

Now, vegetarians and vegans can treat themselves to a meatless patty that literally bleeds… beetroot juice. Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, and Naturli are some of the companies working on bringing meat-free ‘bleeding’ burgers to the mass market. 

These burgers are either grown in labs or made from ingredients such as mushrooms, wheat, nuts, coconut oil, beetroot and soy, and have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than the animal-based original. 

Farmers inspecting wheat near Pullman, Washington (Photo: Jack Dykinga)

6. Wheat for it

Most of the emissions from staples such as bread come from the fertiliser used to grow wheat. A 2017 study found that ammonium nitrate fertiliser accounts for 43% of all the greenhouse gas emissions in the production process of a loaf of bread.

But can different types of bread be better or worse for the environment (besides being better or worse for your body)? Cereals used in bread, such as oats and barley, have smaller carbon footprints than typical wheat used in white loaves, as well as rye.

7. One way isn’t the best way

Blanket agricultural production doesn’t work across the world, and it’s important to consider local ecosystems when looking at how best to produce food with the lowest carbon footprint.

A vegetarian typically has a smaller carbon footprint than a meat eater but the plant-based diet isn’t practical everywhere, especially for those who live in dry or cold places that cannot support the growth of most vegetable crops.

Although approximately 1,799 gallons of water is needed per pound to raise a cow, the amount of water needed in order to successfully farm in desert-like climates can be huge and is currently unsustainable. Even though it may be better for the climate to be vegetarian, for some, that just isn’t sustainable.

The post 7 surprising things about the carbon footprint of your food appeared first on Climate Home News.

James Kipkoech, a 56-year-old maize farmer, stands outside a welding and fabrication workshop with a green notebook, ready to take down stock and instruct his workers on the day’s jobs.

He barely bothers with farming these days. Unpredictable rainfall means this welding and fabrication workshop is his lifeline. “With this kind of farming, I only make a loss,” Kipkoech says. “Maize dried up in the farm and I have used a lot of money, so I prefer this business because it pays me well.”

Kenya’s food crisis: Drought raises prices and political tensions

His store, once full of sacks of maize, is now used to store scrap metal. Kipkoech regrets the money he invested in farming, while maize production costs sky rocketed. He spent Ksh 30,000 ($288.74) on seeds, fertilisers and labor. Pointing at the dried maize plants on his farm, he says he cannot plan for the next season.

“Last year, maize did very well, in one acre I harvested about 40 sacks of maize. But this year I am experiencing a loss and even if it rains, I can’t plant it again because am not sure whether the rain will continue,” he says.

The long rains (what Kenyans call the March-June wet season) of 2017 were generally poor over most parts of the country, according to a review by Kenya’s meteorological department. The Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture’s prediction for this year’s harvest – 32m bags – is now 20% less than had been initially projected and 5.1m bags less than last year’s harvest.

Farms in Ingbor received little rain during the recent wet season, sending many farmers looking for new ways to make income (Photo: Wesley Langat)

For the past five years, the east African region has been experiencing continuous droughts and crop failures. Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Uganda are worst affected. Farms have failed across the regions, leading to food insecurity and high food prices.

In Kenya, the annual food inflation rate is 18.6%. Climate Home also reports today on the political instability this has caused as opposition parties blame the government’s management of the crisis.

Farmers are hit on both sides. As they abandon once-productive farms they lose a stable income. Meanwhile the price of food soars.

Tony Kirui, a 28-year-old Ingbor farmer and father of two children, says his maize dried up leaving him hopeless. “I struggled to get fertilisers, seeds and ploughed my farm spending all the money I had. But now there is nothing on the farm,” he says.

There are hardly any casual jobs at the farms around as economic activity has ground to a halt. This forced him to go for construction jobs where he gets Ksh 500 ($4.81) per day, which he says it is not enough to feed his family.

“I don’t get work anymore, there is no maize. We buy at Ksh 120 ($1.16) per 2Kg. I left farming for casual jobs at construction sites. The money is not enough but it’s better you’re sure you have something to buy food for the family,” he says.

Dr Stephen N Mugo, principal scientist working with the International Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT), a nonprofit research organisation based in Nairobi, says maize is an important food security crop in Africa. It is grown by 280 million people who harvest approximately 33m hectares per year.

Analysis: Scientists say east Africa will get wetter, so why is it drying out?

“But despite the large acreage of maize, productivity is still low giving 1.5 tonnes per hectare compared with global production of 5 tonnes per hectare,” he said. Low soil fertility contributes to 20% of lost productivity while drought causes 17%, he said.

Mugo says CIMMYT are making efforts to address the challenges facing maize farmers. “Our research addresses stresses that are experienced by farmers, especially small scale farmers who have problems with low soil fertility, low access to nitrogen. We make them maize that is more efficient in using low nitrogen, drought resistant and produces higher yields.”

He says implementing improved farming systems among small scale farmers alongside improved maize breeds could increased yield by one tonne per acre. This could increase Africa’s maize harvest by 33 million tonnes.

But some farmers have left maize behind for good. Diana Wongoi, a 56-year-old mother and a neighbour to Kipkoech, says she abandoned maize farming after she experienced a loss in three consecutive years.

“After putting all the money in maize farming, sometimes you sell a cow, goats or the remaining bags of maize to buy fertilisers and seeds then drought comes and destroys it. So for me I gave up and started horticulture farming which gives me good returns,” she says.

A problem solved for Wongoi, but Kenya’s maize shortage only gets worse.

The post Kenya’s food crisis: ‘With this kind of farming, I only make a loss’ appeared first on Climate Home News.

Since 2015, Kenya has experienced shortages of the staple food, maize, and other basic commodities such as sugar. The annual food inflation rate stood at 18.6% in March, forcing households to tighten their belts.

President Uhuru Kenyatta’s administration is under pressure over its handling of the food crisis, ahead of the poll on 8 August. Placards saying “unga”, the Swahili word for maize flour, are a common sight at opposition rallies.

Esther Passaris, a candidate from the National Super Alliance (NASA), a coalition of five opposition parties, accused the government of ignoring expert advice.

Kenya’s food crisis: ‘With this kind of farming, I only make a loss’

“Despite the warning that there is going to be a drought, the government continued to allow millers to export the staple food, maize, to neighbouring countries like South Sudan,” she told Climate Home. Neighbouring Uganda and Tanzania, in contrast, suspended maize exports.

Government coffers benefit from taxes on exports, but Kenya paid the price in higher import costs later on, said Passaris. “The government sees food as an opportunity to make money and that’s why it allowed millers to export the maize to South Sudan at high prices, forgetting that its citizens need food.”

In its defence, the ruling Jubilee Party says its subsidies on maize flour are easing the impact on citizens, while building dams for irrigation will boost resilience to drought in the long term.

The government is paying millers a total of 6 billion Kenyan shillings ($58 million) to fix the price of a 2kg bag of maize flour at 90 shillings ($0.87). Due to scarcity, the market price had reached around 140 shillings in May.

Analysis: Scientists say east Africa will get wetter, so why is it drying out?

“There is a challenge with the distribution because some millers are holding the maize to create scarcity, but the government is working on that,” Jubilee lawmaker Isaac Mwaura told Climate Home.

“The hike in food prices was caused by the prolonged drought which resulted in reduced crop production,” said Mwaura. “However, the opposition has turned it into a political issue by blaming the government for not providing unga to the people.”

Kenneth Okwaroh, director of policy and research at the Africa Centre for the People Institutions and Society (ACEPIS), said drought was the primary cause of inflation, but government had missed an opportunity to mitigate the problem.

“In 2015, the government was warned that production was low and there was an imminent drought,” said Okwaroh. “This would have been a signal to begin early measures to help the market import more maize before the crisis.”

High import levies, poor road infrastructure and trade restrictions do not help the situation, he added.

Humanitarian NGO Oxfam reports a rise in children dropping out of school, prostitution and forced marriage as hunger bites. It is calling for international support to prevent further suffering.

“Not acting now will lead to greater levels of hunger and suffering for vulnerable communities hit hard by drought, climate shocks and other disasters beyond their control,” said Farhiya Ali, acting country director for Oxfam Kenya.

Report: Indian farmers mourn dead after debt crisis turns violent

The problem is not limited to Kenya.

Tanzania, which halted maize exports, nonetheless saw food prices escalate, according to Leon Mrosso, research director at the country’s farming ministry.

“Some regions had a surplus of maize supply, but the challenge comes with transporting stock to other regions – the cost is too high,” said Mrosso.

In some parts of Tanzania, grain prices doubled between December 2016 and April 2017, according to Philbert Nyinondi, country coordinator of the Open Forum for Agriculture Biotechnology.

“However, the trend changed early after harvests in May 2017,” he said. “As of now, food prices are relatively going down.”

According to a report by Action Aid in April, prolonged drought combined with conflict in East Africa has left 16 million people hungry. An estimated 6.2 million Somalians, 5.6m Ethiopians, 4.6m South Sudanese and 2.7m Kenyans are in urgent need of food aid.

The post Kenya’s food crisis: Drought raises prices and political tensions appeared first on Climate Home News.

Something to ruminate over (Pixabay/ Gabi_Bendler)

By Alex Pashley

Keen to help the planet, but not if it means a lifetime of pulses, grains and veggies?

Climatarianism could be for you. The idea? Slimming the carbon footprint of your food.

All ruminants – beef, mutton, goat, venison – are off the menu. But chicken or pork aren’t.

Cheese and some dairy products are verboten, sadly. But sustainably-caught fish, fine. As long as it hasn’t been flown over in boxed ice.

Air miles and frozen, packaged products are a no-no. Everything else goes. Though remember to stay local, and keep waste to a minimum, proponents Climates plead.

A tonne lighter

Simple changes to your diet can take a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions equivalent a year off the planet’s waistline per person, according to the non-profit social network.

That’s the same as driving 3,500 miles or taking three return short haul flights, they calculate.

The average Briton was responsible for 7.1 tonnes in 2011, according to the World Bank.

Greenhouse gas emissions from our food – from farming, packaging to distribution – account for 20-30% perhaps of the global total. Other studies go far higher.

“We don’t want to go into battle with the meat industry. People like eating meat, it helps them get a nutritional balance, but we’re identifying the big hitters,” founder Biba Hartigan tells RTCC.

Analysis: Why does the meat industry escape climate scrutiny?
Report: How cutting food waste could help the climate

Beef and mutton are in her sights. A kilogramme produces 60-70kg of CO2, according to figures from Oxford University.

Animal-based foods are fed on crops, their fertiliser releases nitrous oxide and even their manure is potent in greenhouse gases. Then there’s the burped methane.

An average kilogramme of food from a UK basket of 93 goods comes to just 10kg, by comparison.

How foods fare on the CO2e produced per kilos (credit: Climates)

According to Climates, 1kg of boned beef meat waste is equivalent to wasting 24kg of wheat given its climate impact.

“The idea isn’t to radically change people’s lives but for them to recognise where they can make easy changes which add up to a major shift,” Hartigan adds.

As they plump for donations, the network has worked up recipes – from chicken and sweet pepper lasagne to climate-friendly bolognese, which swaps beef mince for pork.

Hartigan, who admits she couldn’t fully part with meat, says the diet has a chance of spawning into a movement.

“The only way to have a good climate diet is to go vegan,  but that’s a step too far for myself even. This is the ideal diet to limit one’s impact on climate.”

So, how did I get on?

Fairly well. I ate healthier and trimmed money off my shopping bill.

Assessing the climate impacts of every food item I bought certainly raised my awareness and pushed to me little-sampled alternatives.

My week’s meals included:

Kidney bean, tomato and avocado fajitas, without the sour cream. Chili con carne made with pork mince. Vegetarian dishes like ratatouille. Pollock (with the Marine Stewardship Council logo), roast potatoes and broccoli.

I tend to avoid frozen food, so there was little issue there. But the biggest struggle came in the cheese ban. Parting company with mozzarella, cheddar and stilton would be tough in a low carbon world.

To cap global warming, lifestyles of hearty meat consumption need to be dialled back. It’s an unpalatable truth. Climatarianism might not be such a bad place to start.

The post Climatarianism: the low carb(on) diet you’ve never heard of appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Flickr/Christian Kadluba)

By Cecile Kobryner

From farm to plate, producing food has a big impact on water use, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

How much do you know about the environmental footprint of your meal? Take our test to find out.

The post Quiz: Food, farming and climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

Degraded land in Uzbekistan (Flickr/IFPRI -IMAGES)

By Simone Quatrini and Harald Heubaum

Land is a fundamental natural resource, providing food and livelihoods for billions of people around the world.

Soil and land also play a key role in addressing economic inequality, maintaining biodiversity and combating global climate change. Whether it is forests, grasslands, savannahs or deserts – terrestrial ecosystems are a key to building a more sustainable future.

Yet, land is under threat. Land degradation – the reduction in the quality and productive capacity of land and soil due to extreme weather conditions and human activities such as deforestation, unsustainable agriculture and invasive mining – has quickly become one of the biggest challenges of the 21^st century.

Worldwide, two billion hectares of land are currently degraded – an area larger than South America. Of this, 500 million hectares are abandoned agricultural land.

With an expected global population of 9.5 billion by 2050, land degradation, population pressures and climate change increasingly tax our natural resource base beyond its carrying capacity. Available cropland per person is falling precariously.

With 52% of agricultural land moderately or severely degraded and with more than 12 million hectares lost to production each year; demand projections for crucial resources – especially productive land for food, fuel, fibre and water – outstrip all future scenarios for supply.

When land stops being productive, it drives forest clearance (Flickr/CIFOR)

As current agricultural land becomes more and more degraded, producers move on to pristine, more productive land, with often harmful consequences such as the loss of forest cover and additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment report, nearly a quarter of all global GHG emissions are due to agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). This makes AFOLU the second largest emitter of GHGs.

It is clear that land degradation needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The UN recognizes the importance of this issue in its proposed sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Only a sustainable landscape management approach can establish land degradation neutrality (LDN), maintaining and wherever possible improving the condition of land resources.

However, securing finance to support the wide-scale application of such an approach remains a major problem.

Analysis: Why love of landscapes is central to climate challenge

The Global Mechanism (GM) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has established the LDN Fund to answer precisely this challenge.

The Fund is designed to act as a coordination platform for blended finance, established as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) among private institutional investors, international finance institutions and donors.

It supports the transition to LDN through land rehabilitation while generating revenues for investors from sustainable production on rehabilitated land.

The Fund seeks to mobilize US$2 billion annually, with a potential total of $50 billion over 20 years.

As a demonstration of its commitment to encouraging workable sustainable business solutions, the Fund will be privately managed.

The GM recognizes that public approaches alone are insufficient in stemming the tide of growing land degradation. It is only in close cooperation with the private sector that viable and sustainable business models can be accelerated and brought to sufficient scale.

Through public and private investments, the LDN Fund will promote the rehabilitation of a minimum of 12 million hectares of degraded land a year.

The Fund will then support, with long-term financing and technical assistance, the sustainable and productive use of rehabilitated land, with a focus on large scale land restoration and rehabilitation projects.

Report: Brazil’s satellite-dodging loggers recast deforestation fight

The LDN Fund adds value to existing international commitments via a landscape approach which understands intensified, profitable agricultural production as dependent on the simultaneous protection and preservation of ecosystem services.

A landscape approach considers and manages trade-offs among all land use sectors, including sustainable agriculture, sustainable livestock management, agroforestry, sustainable forestry, renewable energy, infrastructure development, eco-tourism, and more.

Profit considerations are key for private investors and the Fund will target average market returns in line with established risk/return profiles. The returns will come from the value generated by upgrading and repurposing land for sustainable production and use.

The goal is for the Fund to turn stranded land assets into productive ones, enabling landowners and land users to establish or expand profitable and sustainable business models on land that was formerly degraded, underperforming or abandoned.

A women explains the benefit of having trees in the field, Kenya (Flickr/Program on Forests)

In designing the LDN Fund, the UNCCD has learned from a range of other viable approaches. For example, the Althelia Climate Fund, which provides finance to conservation activities, has successfully managed to secure capital flows to land restoration.

Employing innovative agricultural practices, the lands can be transformed into valuable assets benefitting local communities, aligning financial performance with social development and environmental protection.

The benefits of the LDN Fund, however, go beyond generating revenue streams for sustainable land use and protecting vital ecosystems.

They are also to be found in the mitigation of climate change through the cost-effective sequestration (or avoidance) of up to 20% of global CO2 emissions by 2050. This is a meaningful contribution if we are to remain within an agreed global carbon budget.

Further, the Fund increases the resilience of vulnerable populations and contributes to the achievement of climate change adaptation at scale, particularly in terms of improved food, water and energy security.

Initial success will mean slowing and eventually halting the trend of global land degradation. However, the Fund’s disruptive potential lies in its role as a catalyst for the replication of efforts across developing and developed countries so that the two billion hectares of land already degraded can be reclaimed, too.

This may seem like a tall order but the implications for global climate change, food and water security, ecosystem protection as well as economic opportunities for local communities would be immeasurable.

As such the official launch of the LDN Fund at COP21 in Paris this year could just be the game changer needed on the road to sustainable land management.

Simone Quatrini is LDN Fund founder and coordinator at the Global Mechanism, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

Harald Heubaum is assistant professor in global energy and climate policy, SOAS, University of London

The post Why restoring degraded land is crucial to the climate appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Flickr/ Dean Hockman)

By Freya Palmer

Fork after fork, your food is taking a bigger bite out of the carbon budget.

The global food system – from fertiliser, production to packaging – accounts for up to a third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, according to CGIAR.

Dialling down diets should be a first step in tackling climate change – removing red meat is good, vegetarianism better, veganism best.

To be sure, any state role in controlling our intake is rightly controversial. So here are eight ideas and initiatives to cut your carbon footprint.

1. Lab-grown meat

A butcher in Bethlehem, Palestine (Flickr/ verdienter Künstler)

Meat is the worst offender on any plate. Rearing livestock strips rainforest for grazing and feed-stocks, while animals themselves produce methane, a potent warming pollutant.

In 2013, however, Maastricht University’s Mark Post answered the groans of all meat-loving environmentalists when he created the world’s first lab-grown burger.

Cultured meat produces 80-95% less emissions than farmed meat, meaning it would have a significant impact on the average carbon footprint. One problem: you’ll have to wait at least ten years before it makes supermarkets.

2. Low-methane cows

Milking ’till the cows come home (Flickr/ Oli)

Now we’ve sorted our burger problem, it’s time to turn to milk. So long as we continue to consume dairy, cows will continue to pollute our plates.

One solution that has been found to this is the introduction of methane inhibitor, 3NOP, which reduces the methane production of cows by 30%.

It’s a potential breakthrough, although it does nothing to stop the deforestation problem.

3. Genetically modified rice

A rice paddy in Bangladesh (Credit: UN photos)

Livestock isn’t the only culprit when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Grown in water-logged conditions which breed methane-producing microbes, rice is one of the largest contributors. As it is also a global staple, the impact of rice on greenhouse gas emissions is huge.

But don’t fear. Guilt-free rice is on its way. Earlier this year researchers succeeded in genetically modifying rice crops to produce virtually no methane.

4. Insects

(Flickr)

But why wait around for genetic modifications and commercial viability when there’s a low-carbon food source already available to us? High in protein, vitamins and minerals, as well as being environmentally sound, insects are an ideal choice for anyone trying to cut their carbon footprint.

In the face of climate change and peak farmland, tree foods offer “hidden harvest” for the global hungry, said a report by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations in June. Grub’s up.

5. Vertical farming

(Credit: wikimedia commons)

Another way to cut the impact of our food is by changing farming methods. Vertical farming uses tall buildings to grow crops like leafy greens, with lower land, water and fertiliser use.

Being close to the urban centres of demand, such farms can also cut down on transport emissions and spoilage.

However, as David Rosenberg, CEO of vertical farming company AeroFarms, admits, a lot of energy is used to power the LED lights and nutrient pumps necessary to crop growth.

Is it lower carbon overall? The jury is still out.

6. Bacon-flavoured seaweed

Seaweed at Eilean Donan Castle in Scotland (Flickr/ Andi Campbell-Jones)

Last month, researchers at Oregon State University patented a new strain of seaweed which will excite environmentally-conscious meat eaters.

The seaweed is protein-rich and tastes exactly like bacon. Not only this, the growing process is also carbon-negative, as the seaweed absorbs CO2 from the water.

7. Cutting food waste

Who would toss the cute little nectarine on the right? Most grocers that’s who. #SaveTheSmalls http://t.co/FlnNAy5f4f pic.twitter.com/YnBS2YvZO2

— @UglyFruitAndVeg (@UglyFruitAndVeg) August 22, 2015

The planet is producing a third more food than it consumes. And greenhouse gases given off over the lifetime of all discarded produce total 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. That would make it the third largest emitter if it were a country, behind China and the US.

One American eco-conscious man, Jordan Figueiredo, has set up the @UglyFruitAndVeg Twitter account to show the waste of imperfect greens. With almost 20,000 followers, his message is getting out there.

ICYMI – The Pepper Boxing Match! #DuelToTheSalsa Pic by @happyacrefarm on IG pic.twitter.com/yRCt6phsgv — @UglyFruitAndVeg (@UglyFruitAndVeg) August 23, 2015

8. Eat your offal

All giblets are good. Ox-feet, tripe and pluck a meal can make. Making nose-to-tail eating fashionable again may not be too difficult for older generations. But in today’s age of supermarket bounty, it’s a more radical thought.

British celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall tried with a book campaign to persuade consumers to look past the prime cuts.

Eating the whole beast is another way of limiting waste, if modern consumers can get over their aversion to innards.

Alex Pashley contributed to this report

The post 8 ways to cut the carbon footprint of your dinner appeared first on Climate Home News.

Food scraps in a dumpster. 800 million people live in extreme hunger worldwide (Wikimedia commons)

By Alex Pashley

The low hanging fruit in tackling climate change is literally rotting.

The planet is producing a third more food that it consumes, stoking global warming as forests give way to crops and freight grows.

Greenhouse gases given off over the lifetime of all discarded produce total 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

That would make it the third largest emitter if it were a country, behind China and the US.

Yet as countries work to sign a UN-backed global warming agreement this year in Paris, food waste receives scarce mention.

Waste not, want not

It is an issue highlighted by John Mandyck, chief sustainability officer at United Technologies Corp, which makes refrigerators for shipping containers and supermarkets.

Countries are scrapping 1.3 billion metric tons of edible food a year and that’s set to swell as more is needed to feed rising populations, Mandyck and co-author Eric Schultz write in Food Foolish: The Hidden Connection Between Food Waste, Hunger, and Climate Change.

Two-thirds perishes during distribution, with the consumer to blame for the remaining third, as oversized portions are scraped into the trash and vegetables pass their best.

“We don’t have the environmental licence to grow our food production to meet the needs of a planet of 9.5 billion in 2050 with today’s paradigm,” Mandyck told RTCC in London.

“The paradigm is we’ll just grow more to throw away more to feed more.”

Carbon footprint

Still, extreme hunger remains. Over 800 million people are chronically undernourished, the FAO estimates.

Combating wastage will help countries achieve sustainable development goals to eradicate hunger. It will also conserve water, a large input in food production.

Things are changing. UN chief Ban Ki-moon made food waste the fifth and final aim of the Zero Hunger Challenge in 2012.

The European Parliament has urged a 50% reduction in food waste by 2025, with more access for the needy.

Towards a 10 billion-planet

Swelling populations will put more pressure on food supplies, while urbanisation moves people further away from food sources.

Competition for food will ease with crop production rising 45% to meet demand by 2050, estimates the Millennium Institute.

Forests in Brazil cleared for soy and cattle-rearing to meet Chinese demand take away carbon sinks. While extra food miles through transportation, together with packaging, add to a warming planet.

Emerging economies are a concern. China’s $1 trillion grocery market, the world’s largest, has up to 40% losses due to ferrying perishable goods in open trucks, write Mandyck and Schultz.

India produces 28% of world banana supply, but exports just 0.3% as products go bad over long distances.

Analysis: Ten reasons why food will be scarce in a warmer world

The country’s underdeveloped “cold chain” is of commercial interest to United Technologies, which also makes engines and elevators.

Mandyck argues company innovation can drive climate solutions.

A UN-backed climate fund, which has raised $10bn of start-up cash from rich countries, could too target initiatives to lower food waste, he suggested.

Supply chain action

Mary McGrath, chief executive at UK charity FoodCycle, bristles at the scale of waste – 15 million tons thrown away a year in the UK.

The charity has lobbied supermarket chains to hand out expiring food to the needy, though they make up just 2% of waste, she said.

Personal responsibility is key, but further up the supply chain is where action should be better placed.

“Retailers and manufacturers need to become more sophisticated in forecasting systems, and redistributing food they have over-ordered. It’s better than sending for anaerobic digestion.”

In regions more vulnerable to climate change, its impact on food security has wide reaching effects.

A Russian heatwave, which sent wheat prices soaring as yields fell, is linked to igniting the Arab Spring. Protracted drought in Syria from 2006 is connected to the outbreak of civil war.

With an estimate 2.5 billion more mouths to feed within 35 years, December’s crunch summit can simultaneously cut carbon and hunger if it tackles the issue.

The post How cutting food waste could help the climate appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Global Environmental Outlook GEO-5 for Business report produced by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) warns that the viability of individual companies and sectors could hinge on their ability to cope with flooding, droughts and damaged crops.

It assessed environmental trends in ten business sectors including construction, chemicals, healthcare and communications.

“Those who succeed may find that they not only can use the trends to their advantage, but can generate real and ever more transformative solutions to challenges already arising from a rapidly changing environment in a rapidly changing world,” said UNEP chief Achim Steiner.

Growing zones for crops may have to shift, or certain crops, including those with medicinal value, may be lost. (Source: CIAT)

UNEP warn that without swift measures to curb emissions, limit biodiversity impacts and boost climate resilience, many sectors could face serious challenges in the coming decades.

It says the the financial sector industry is likely to suffer the worst consequences of climate change as insurers experience severe capital losses and reduced profitability. Property and casualty insurers will likely see increasing claims due to severe weather.

But it says companies that limit their negative impact on the environment cut operations costs and enhance their reputation.

It also observes that the capital needed to address climate change will result in a greatly-expanded market for financing, while the construction industry is advised to take advantage of an increased demand for coastal and flood defences.

Research

With demand for electricity set to increase rapidly, research and development into renewable energy needs greater investment in order to stabilise electricity grids in developing nations. It can then be in place to take advantage of the lessening demand for coal that is expected to fall from two-fifths to one third by 2035.

The report also identifies the food and beverage and healthcare industries as especially vulnerable to environmental change.

Growing zones for crops may have to shift, or certain crops, including those with medicinal value, may be lost, although markets for organic food and beverages expanded on average by 10 to 20% per year during parts of the last decade.

The post UN: business must take lead in climate adaptation appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Dalvir Kular

With conservative estimates forecasting a population of around 9 billion people by 2050, the question of whether the world food system’s production capacity can keep up with increasing demand is a very important one.

How it can do so in a world increasingly influenced by climate change is an even tougher question.

Imagine if 2013 were the year where we started to take real action on climate change. The year where we changed our course to end malnutrition, for good.

I choose to be optimistic.

Land degradation, variable rainfall and extreme temperatures are making the job of farmers harder (Source: UN/John Isaac)

In the global north we have warped our basic need for food into a multi-billion pound industry in which it’s not so much about nutrition but luxury…at least as long as you have the money.

In the global south, the losers of our success are driven further into poverty, due to injustices in the political decisions of the global north.

The lack of regulation, commodity speculation, inequitable trade policies and climate change combined are helping to send food prices through the roof for the poor.

The recent launch of the ‘Enough Food For Everyone IF‘ campaign hammered home the truth that for now, there is enough food available to feed everyone on Earth, but the real problem is how to ensure that people have sufficient access to ensure their food security.

Unsustainable energy use and agriculture are fueling a warmer climate, which is resulting in unpredictable and increasingly frequent natural disasters such as floods and droughts.

The problems described above – and the increasing shadow of climate change – are directly and indirectly impacting on access to food for the world’s poor; and climate science tells us there’s more to come.

Prices

According to the United Nations global food reserves are at their lowest levels in nearly 40 years, meaning that there’s a much smaller margin for those already food insecure.

If the cost of staples goes up 170%, people either increase their expenditure for the same amount of food, you change your diet to a cheaper and often less nutritious one or you eat less.

If you’re poor, i.e. when the food required to be secure represents a reasonable proportion of your income, the first option may not be open to you, and there is much less scope to adapt.

Rapid urbanisation in the developing world creates the opportunity of greater inequality of livelihoods and income in a higher population density.

This give rise to possible future food security issues and a need for safety nets to help city dwellers cope when food prices may be volatile in the future.

Helping farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change can defend food supplies (Source: Flickr/Nestle)

Laws to prevent speculation have been largely opposed by the big players.

Barclays is the biggest UK operator in food commodity markets, making up to an estimated £500m from speculating on food prices in 2010 and 2011.

Legislation to limit commodity speculation was backed by the EU in early 2013.

Germany’s fourth largest bank, DZ Bank, has announced it would no longer speculate on food prices.

Agriculture – especially large-scale, intensive farming of livestock – contributes heavily to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which in turn are a big part of the reason why we’ve been seeing crop failures all around the world, from Africa to the USA to Russia.

Agriculture needs to be part of the solution – and with an increase in investment and better policies, sustainable agriculture technologies and practices may be adopted to improve food security and sovereignty for farmers and consumers in the global South, and to reduce emissions and preserve biodiversity.

Hope

The recent extremely successful UK-based Fish Fight campaign, spearheaded by the food writer Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, is proof that people power – assisted by the internet and social media – can bring real change.

It coordinated its supporters to send emails to MEPs in all the official languages of the EU, with more than 120,000 sent within 24 hours in a, successful, effort to ban fish discards.

We need similar political momentum to set a more ambitious 40% emissions reduction target for Europe.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which receives nearly 40% of the EU budget must be reformed along the lines advocated by the ‘Enough food for everyone IF’ campaign.

It suggests stopping food from becoming fuel for cars, a false economy when it comes to tackling climate change. Certainly we in Europe should pressure our MEPs to lobby for sustainable agriculture in the context of the CAP reform being carried out this year.

The idea of a low GHG diet – more domestic, home grown foods, seasonal, local, and including less red meat and dairy – is far from new, but it’s one of the ways that people can make the biggest difference to their carbon footprint.

The really good news is that it isn’t only more sustainable, but also often healthier too.

Dalvir Kular is a member of Healthy Planet UK

The post Food in the shadow of climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Natasha Adams

According to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 25 million more children will be malnourished in 2050 due to the effects of climate change.

The impact of climate change on access to food is huge. Natural hazards like droughts and floods are becoming more frequent and more severe, and rainfall patterns are changing.

As the climate changes, this affects how much food can be grown across the world. In developing countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America, it is predicted that climate change will shrink harvests by as much as 21% by 2080.

In some places, the effects will be felt much sooner than that – arguably they are being felt already. By 2020, rising temperatures and unpredictable rainfall are likely to reduce the production of staple foods by up to 50% in some African countries.

This is a disaster for millions of smallholder farmers, dependent on rain-fed agriculture and already struggling to feed their families. It is also a disaster for the urban poor – as dwindling harvests push food up food prices, parents can’t afford to buy as much food, and children get less to eat.

Eleven-year-old April lost her home when floods hit the Philippines in December 2012 (Source: © UNICEF/NYHQ2012-1691/Caton)

Climate change and food – hitting children hardest

Children are least responsible for climate change, and yet they’re the most vulnerable to its effects – challenges to the food system always hit children hardest. Children are still developing physically, making them more susceptible to malnutrition and therefore more at risk of illness and disease as a consequence.

The 2012 Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that 200,000 people will die and 200 million people will suffer from food insecurity as a result of climate change in lower income countries – half of these deaths are projected to be children.

Climate change reduces children’s access to nutritious food in several ways. It reduces the amount that can be grown on small and large farms, so poor farmers produce less and poor parents can buy less food for their children (as scarcity drives food price rises).

Research by UNICEF Indonesia in 2011 found that six in ten children said food became more expensive after too much or too little rain.

Climate change and education

Less money from farming can also mean less money for children to go to school. In Indonesia, one in five rural children interviewed in 2011 stated that weather events meant there was not enough money for them to stay in school. This is compounded by the fact that malnourished children get sick more often and therefore miss more lessons.

A UN survey of progress toward the Millennium Development Goals found that school attendance rates are lowest in communities with the highest levels of malnutrition.

The impacts go even further than this – as harvests shrink and poverty deepens, children are at greater risk of being sent out to earn money, and therefore of exploitation. Many families are also forced by changing weather to abandon farms and move to cities, swelling slum populations with no guarantee of more secure livelihoods.

It could be worse than we think…

Sadly, projections for CO2 emissions and a lack of action to reduce these mean that the effect of climate change on global food production is likely to be worse than predicted. So the stark estimates above could be far worse if temperatures rise more than 2 degrees and emissions continue to go unchecked.

We need action now

Urgent action is therefore needed by governments to ensure that children are able to withstand the impact that climate change is having on the food system. Governments must work to urgently reduce C02 emissions. But climate change is already affecting poorer countries, and we’re locked into it worsening even if global energy use were to change overnight.

This means support for poorer countries to adapt is vitally important. Climate change is an additional challenge which cannot be addressed through aid – we urgently need to find new sources of funding to provide climate finance, helping communities in need to adapt, and funding green development.

Happily, there is a global commitment to mobilise $100 billion in climate finance by 2020 – work through international for a like the UNFCCC is needed now to ensure this promise is kept. We need an internationally agreed plan with clear timelines and milestones, outlining how we can mobilise and scale up resources. We need to know how this will be done, where the money will come from and when.

The role of the UK

UNICEF UK believes the Government here should play a leading role in mobilising global climate finance. Our Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has been receptive to our messages about the impact of climate change on children, and he announced the commitment of more aid money to adaptation at COP 17 last year.

If you live in the UK and would like to help us push the UK Government to lead on climate finance, you can take action now by emailing the Minister.

You can also find out more about the effects of climate change on food systems, and impact on children, by reading our policy briefing.

Natasha Adams is the Activism Officer at UNICEF UK. She coordinates several networks of UK campaigners, including Children’s Champions and the Schools Campaign Network, and is also actively involved in the Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign.

The post UNICEF: Climate food crisis a disaster for children appeared first on Climate Home News.

Parched ground in the Chalbi Desert (Source: ©FAO/Giulio Napolitano)

By John Parnell

Climate change will threaten a number of crops including coffee, chocolate and rice, according to a number of agricultural research institutes.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that 925 million people are under nourished. Increased pressures on food supply and prices are only likely to exacerbate the situation.

Failures in food supply can often occur as a result of short-term drought but now longer term changes in climate are putting pressure on a range of crops. Recent work by a number of organisations, particularly the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) highlights several of these emerging and catastrophes. As well as creating issues of food security, several tropical regions whose economies rely on their cash crops look set for a challenging time.

Coffee

Ok, so it’s not as much a staple of anyone’s diet as it is an early morning crutch, but the effects of drought on coffee stocks are being felt heavily in Ethiopia. Coffee exports represent a significant portion of the country’s GDP at 1.1% creating implications not just for the farmers, but on a national scale.

Drought is not the only challenge. Rising temperatures in South America are also driving the optimum growing areas for coffee into higher altitudes, according to research. This significantly reduces the land available for coffee cultivation.

Chocolate

As if threats to coffee were not bad enough, cocoa is also under threat.

Half the world’s cocoa is from West African markets with Ghana and the Ivory Coast racking up in excess of $1.6bn in 2005.

Suitable areas will again increase in altitude and the potential output will decrease.

As well as driving prices up in the main chocolate markets, it will also deprive farmers of a key cash crop, a term that can be applied literally.

“Many of these farmers use their cocoa trees like ATM machines,” says Dr. Peter Laderach, lead author of a report by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). “They pick some pods and sell them to quickly raise cash for school fees or medical expenses. The trees play an absolutely critical role in rural life.”

Bananas

In Africa and Latin America changes in climate are raising the vulnerability of bananas and plantains to disease as well as reducing the typical yield. The banana is now the most popular fruit in the UK but in many parts of the world it is the staple of the diet. According to the CGIAR, one variety of banana, the East African Highland banana supports 80 million. The CGIAR’s Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) has developed a map highlighting the severity of the crisis.

Rice

Rice is regarded as the single most important crop for ensuring food security. It is estimated that 3 billion people eat rice every single day.

Rice production in South East Asia and Africa is predicted to increase and decrease by no more than 10% regionally, according to a report by the UK’s Department for International Development. However, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paints a more complex picture. The report looked at 227 rice farms in six different Asian countries. Warmer daytime temperatures increase yield while hotter night time temperatures have a negative effect. The study concludes that as temperatures continue to rise, increasing daytime maximum temperatures will also start to have a negative effect resulting in a decrease in yield in a part of the world that produces 90% of the world’s rice.

Potatoes

The humble potato supports millions but rising temperatures in marginally suitable areas for its cultivation are putting stress on the crop. After a certain threshold heat impairs growth. The potential for the development of blight is also increased. Northern India and other territories around the Himalayas are at the most risk. Some areas currently too cold to grow potatoes in a sustainable way at present will benefit, but as the stress map shows, the net result is overwhelmingly negative.

What next?

A network of agricultural monitoring has been proposed to keep tabs on soil properties, agricultural practices and even economic factors of the surrounding area. Similar pilot schemes are already underway but the journal Nature has reported that talks ongoing to develop an international version. Multiple philanthropic organisations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have committed funding and there is hope that global food conglomerates, which could use the data commercially, will also contribute.

The post Off the menu: The climate change food crises appeared first on Climate Home News.