World Bank Recommends Shifting “Wasteful” Subsidies Away From Animal Agriculture – vegconomist

In new a report Under the title “A Recipe for a Livable Planet,” the World Bank recommends that high-income countries shift subsidies away from animal agriculture and toward more sustainable alternatives.

The report concludes that conventional agriculture contributes to soil degradation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, and pollution. But although the agri-food system is one of the largest contributors to climate change, most actions taken to reduce emissions have targeted other sectors.

According to the World Bank, livestock accounts for 25.9% of agri-food emissions, more than any other source. In addition, some other sources may be indirectly linked to animal agriculture – for example, net forest conversion accounts for 18.4% of agri-food emissions, mostly forests It was cleared for pasture or to grow animal feed. Even if all fossil fuel emissions from all other sectors were eliminated, agri-food emissions alone would bring the planet past the Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C warming.

Redirecting subsidies

While reducing agri-food emissions would have costs, shifting money away from subsidies – which the report described as “wasteful and environmentally damaging” – could be beneficial. The total amount required is estimated at less than half the amount the world spends annually on agricultural support.

An image of the forest taken from above, showing the white color of carbon dioxide
© Philip Stock.adobe.com

High-income countries have the highest per capita agri-food emissions, and the report advises the need to “reduce consumer demand for emissions-intensive animal source foods.” This may include increasing the cost of animal foods to reflect their environmental and health impacts, along with shifting subsidies to low-emission foods and encouraging more sustainable alternatives.

Create a level playing field

Many organizations have previously called for reform of agricultural subsidies; For example, Investor Alliance The $7.3 trillion asset manager has urged the G20 to make changes by 2030 a report by The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change reached a similar conclusion, finding that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy was not well aligned with its objectives. currently, 82% of agricultural support In the EU it goes to the production of emissions-intensive animal foods.

Subsidies maintain the prices of animal products artificially lowWhich makes plant-based alternatives seem expensive in comparison. In the United States, livestock and seafood producers received More than $59 billion in subsidies since 1995, while plant proteins and alternatives have received just $124 million over the past two decades. As awareness of the environmental impact of animal agriculture grows, calls for reform of the subsidy system are growing.

“By supporting plant-based meat alternatives with the same levels of support that the meat industry receives, we can level the playing field so that consumers who choose the more sustainable plant-based option do not have to pay an unfairly higher price,” Lynette Koksma, co-founder of Natural Machines, told Vegan Economist Last month.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected