In pursuit of a more environmentally friendly future, Canada is forced to reconcile its rich tradition of food production with the urgent need to reduce GHGs. COP28’s focus on food highlights the complexity of this dilemma.
COP28, an international conference on climate change organized by the United Nations, began last week in Dubai and takes place over two weeks. For the first time, a day will be dedicated to food and water, December 10.
The food industry contributes nearly 31% of human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on our planet, from agricultural practices to food waste. Essentially, a third of GHGs come from rising global temperatures which directly impact food production. Given the substantial impact of the food industry on emissions, it is not surprising that COP28 chose to prioritize this sector.
During the first weekend of COP28, a declaration on food received the support of 134 countries, representing a population of 5.8 billion people and accounting for more than 75% of all emissions from global food production and consumption. This coalition brings together major players such as the United States, China, the European Union and Canada.
The declaration itself sets out a comprehensive approach to addressing climate change in agriculture and food systems, in preparation for future COP conferences.
It highlights the importance of inclusive engagement at the national level to integrate these systems into various strategies to reduce gas emissions. In addition, it calls for the review of agri-food policies to support activities that improve several aspects, including GHG reduction, resilience and sustainability.
The declaration also emphasizes the need for increased financial support from various agri-food sectors to adapt and transform these systems, while promoting innovations based on science and local knowledge to improve productivity and resilience. Finally, it highlights the importance of a fair and transparent multilateral trading system, anchored by the World Trade Organization, to address these global challenges.
These objectives are indeed ambitious, but well thought out for the well-being of our planet. Canada’s endorsement of this statement should not be overly disputed. Controversial discussions about the intersection between diet and climate often revolve around whether humans should reduce their consumption of meat and dairy.
For Canada, this represents a significant challenge.
In meat alone, Canada ranks 11e world leader in production, with 60,000 livestock farms contributing $21.8 billion to gross domestic product at current prices.
Additionally, Canada ranks 6e world ranking for pork production, and government quotas worth more than $30 billion support the production of animal proteins, including chicken, turkey, eggs and dairy products. Supply-driven sectors account for almost 20% of all cash receipts in the country. The stakes are undeniably high for Canada and decarbonizing our food economy must become a priority in the years to come.
Adding to the pressure on our livestock industry is the Global Methane Pledge, launched at COP26 two years ago, which commits countries to reducing their methane emissions by 30% by 2030. On Over a period of 100 years, methane is found to be about 20 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
Food systems are responsible for 53% of global methane emissions, about two-thirds of which come from livestock production, including sources like cow burps and manure management. This requires the adoption of more biodigesters and improved manure management practices in rich countries, as well as improved animal feed for more environmentally friendly digestion in the rest of the world.
That said, while Canadians are willing to contribute to climate efforts, this should not compromise the cultural and traditional importance of food.
The use of rhetoric like “foods that warm the planet” that advocates of reducing meat consumption loudly proclaim is insolent, especially when more than 91% of Canadians regularly include animal proteins in their diet. .
As we have seen with carbon taxation, governments should prioritize incentivizing more environmentally friendly practices rather than relying solely on sanctions to change behavior.
Taxes can have inflationary effects, even if they are subsequently removed, particularly in the area of food. More importantly, the negative connotations associated with taxation can discourage individuals from becoming better stewards of the environment. Ottawa is currently learning this the hard way.