{"id":1230,"date":"2025-10-03T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-10-03T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/audiomateria.com\/?p=1230"},"modified":"2025-10-03T19:20:08","modified_gmt":"2025-10-03T19:20:08","slug":"the-climate-movements-biggest-weakness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/audiomateria.com\/index.php\/2025\/10\/03\/the-climate-movements-biggest-weakness\/","title":{"rendered":"The climate movement\u2019s biggest weakness"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"A

\n\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Here\u2019s a sobering fact: Even if the entire world transitions away from fossil fuels, the way we farm and eat will cause global temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels \u2014 the critical threshold set in the Paris Climate Agreement. The further we go above that limit, the more intense the effects of climate change will get.<\/p>\n

The good news is that we know the most effective way to avert catastrophe: People in wealthier countries have to eat more plant-based foods and less red meat, poultry, and dairy.<\/p>\n

Such a shift in diets \u2014 combined with reducing global food waste and improving agricultural productivity \u2014 could cut annual climate-warming emissions from food systems by more than half. That\u2019s one of the main findings from a new report<\/a> by the EAT-Lancet Commission<\/a>, a prestigious research body composed of dozens of experts in nutrition, climate, economics, agriculture, and other fields. \u00a0<\/p>\n

The report lays out how agriculture has played a major role in breaking several \u201cplanetary boundaries\u201d; there\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions \u2014 of which food and farming account for 30 percent \u2014 but also deforestation<\/a> and air<\/a> and water pollution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The new report builds on the commission\u2019s first report<\/a>, published in 2019 \u2014 an enormous undertaking that examined how to meet the nutritional needs of a growing global population while staying within planetary boundaries. It was highly influential and widely cited in both policy and academic literature, but it was also ruthlessly attacked in an intensive smear campaign<\/a> by meat industry-aligned groups, academics, and influencers  \u2014 a form of \u201cmis- and disinformation and denialism on climate science,\u201d Johan Rockstr\u00f6m<\/a>, a co-author of the report, said in a recent press conference.  <\/p>\n

Our food\u2019s massive environmental footprint stems from several sources: land-clearing to graze cattle and grow crops (much of them grown to feed farmed animals); the trillions of pounds of manure<\/a> those farmed animals release; cattle\u2019s methane-rich burps; food waste<\/a>; fertilizer production and pollution; and fossil fuels used to power farms and supply chains.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

But this destruction is disproportionately committed to supply rich countries\u2019 meat- and dairy-heavy diets, representing a kind of global dietary inequality.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe diets of the richest 30% of the global population contribute to more than 70% of the environmental pressures from food systems,\u201d the new report reads. <\/p>\n

To set humanity on a healthier, more sustainable path, the commission recommends what they call the Planetary Health Diet, which consists of more whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts than what most people in high- and upper-middle-income countries consume, along with less meat, dairy, and sugar. But in poor regions, like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, the commission recommends an increase in most animal products, as well as a greater variety of plant-based foods.<\/p>\n

If globally adopted, this plant-rich diet would prevent up to 15 million premature deaths each year. (The commission notes that the diet is a starting point and should be adjusted to accommodate individual needs and preferences, local diets, food availability, and other factors.)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

It would also reshape the global food industry, resulting in billions of fewer land animals raised for meat each year and a significant increase in legume, nut, fish, and whole grain production (while many regions currently eat more fish per capita than the report recommends, total<\/em> global fish production would increase over time under the report\u2019s parameters to meet demand from growing populations). <\/p>\n

Rather than expecting billions of people to actively change how they eat, the commission recommends a number of policies, including reforming school meals, federal dietary guidelines, and farming subsidies; restricting marketing of unhealthy foods; and stronger environmental regulations for farms.<\/p>\n

If EAT-Lancet\u2019s main recommendations were to be implemented, shifting to plant-rich diets would account for three-quarters of the major reduction in agricultural emissions. Other recommendations, like improving crop and livestock productivity and reducing food waste, are important, but their impact would be much smaller than diet change, contributing a quarter of expected agricultural emissions reductions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The report is thorough and nuanced, but its conclusions aren\u2019t exactly novel; for the past two decades, scientists have published a trove of studies<\/a> on the environmental impact of agriculture and have landed on the same takeaways \u2014 especially that rich countries must shift their diets to be more plant-based<\/a>. But that message has, with few<\/a> exceptions<\/a>, failed to incite action by governments and food companies, or even the environmental movement itself<\/a>. <\/p>\n

That failure can be explained, in part, by the meat industry\u2019s aggressive, denialist response to the scientific consensus<\/a> on meat, pollution, and climate change.<\/p>\n

The meat industry\u2019s anti-science crusade, briefly explained<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In the 2010s, it seemed possible that the US and other wealthy countries might adopt more plant-based diets: Some researchers<\/a> and journalists<\/a> predicted<\/a> that better plant-based meat products, from companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, could disrupt<\/a> the conventional meat industry; governments<\/a> in several<\/a> countries<\/a> recommended<\/a> more plant-based diets; and campaigns like Meatless Monday and Veganuary had gained momentum.<\/p>\n

\n

This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletter<\/a><\/h2>\n

Sign up here<\/a> for Future Perfect<\/a>\u2019s biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova<\/a> and Kenny Torrella<\/a>, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more. <\/p>\n

Have questions or comments on this newsletter?<\/strong> Email us at futureperfect@vox.com!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

These trends posed an existential threat to the livestock sector, and it was in this environment that the first EAT-Lancet report was published. It made international headlines, but the backlash was swift: The meat industry coordinated<\/a> an intense and successful online backlash operation. Shortly after, the World Health Organization pulled its support for an EAT-Lancet report launch event. One report author said she was \u201coverwhelmed\u201d with \u201creally nasty\u201d comments, and another said he faced career repercussions<\/a>.  <\/p>\n

In the years that followed, the industry ramped up its efforts to steer policy and narratives in its favor and out of line with scientific consensus: <\/p>\n