agriculture
Newsletter
Meat and dairy companies prioritize advertising over emissions reduction
Meat and dairy companies invest minimal revenue in climate measures while spending significantly on advertising, a new report reveals.
In short:
- Major meat and dairy companies allocate a small fraction of their revenue to emissions reduction, with Brazilian giant JBS spending just 0.03%.
- The sector, responsible for over 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, faces accusations of greenwashing due to misleading sustainability claims.
- Companies target younger consumers through social media, while opposing stricter environmental laws behind the scenes.
Key quote:
“They claim to be committed to climate solutions while employing deceptive tactics to distract, delay and derail meaningful action. These tactics mirror those of Big Oil and Big Tobacco, allowing them to continue their harmful practices unchecked.”
— Nusa Urbancic, CEO of Changing Markets Foundation
Why this matters:
Agriculture, particularly livestock farming, is responsible for a substantial share of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas emitted by cattle, and the extensive land and water resources required for meat and dairy production, pose significant environmental challenges. Despite these issues, major players in the industry have made only minimal commitments to reduce their carbon footprint.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Elena Larina/Big Stock Photo
Lawmakers clash over environmental regulations in stalled farm bill
The U.S. farm bill's progress is hindered by disputes over environmental rules, especially climate-related measures, delaying crucial funds for agriculture and climate initiatives.
In short:
- The farm bill, essential for agricultural and nutrition policy, is stalled due to partisan disagreements on climate regulations and funding.
- Disputes center on the use of $18 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act for climate-related agricultural programs, with Republicans and Democrats divided on its allocation.
- The bill, costing an estimated $1.5 trillion, also faces hurdles over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which accounts for 80% of its budget.
Key quote:
"It was not written to be used as a serious bill. It was written to be used as a campaign slogan."
— David Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture
Why this matters:
The farm bill affects food security, climate resilience, and the agricultural economy. Delays in its passage risk losing significant funds for climate-smart agriculture, impacting farmers and the fight against climate change.
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Unsplash+
Op-ed: Farmers of color need climate action now. The farm bill is our best hope.
Farmers of color who are leading the charge for regenerative farming, as they have done for generations, need our support now more than ever.
As summer heats up, we all find ourselves wondering, how hot will this one be?
Several of the last summers have been the hottest summers on record. For farmers, who depend on clement weather for their livelihoods and to feed our communities, a sudden heatwave or an erratic downpour amplified by climate change can cause real harm to livelihoods. Often, it’s not easy to ‘bounce back’ or finance repairs to damaged farms.
Last summer, Ashanti, a farmer in upstate New York, experienced severe flooding from a nearby stream that immersed half of her growing field in water. She managed to salvage some of her crop by using a high tunnel (a plastic-covered structure that extends the growing season), but the flooding delayed her farmer’s market sales and food pantry deliveries, causing Ashanti to lose income needed for daily business expenses. While some towns are now implementing early response systems for extreme weather, none were in place to mitigate the damage to Ashanti’s farm.
For most farmers, climate change is not a future problem, but a daily challenge. This is especially true for Black farmers like Ashanti, as well as Indigenous and other farmers of color who are particularly vulnerable due to well documented discrimination by the USDA and by banking institutions. When climate disasters hit, these systemic challenges have prevented many such farmers from receiving loans to pay for repairs to damaged farms, or from owning land, as opposed to leasing it.
As advocates for farmers with the HEAL Food Alliance and Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust, we’ve seen firsthand how farmers of color struggle to deal with climate challenges amid a systemic lack of resources and the impacts of structural racism. Our organizations have worked with dozens of farmers who steward their land, but lack access to the capital they need to adapt to climate change or to secure the long term land tenure stability that makes investment in climate adaptations more feasible. Community leaders have warned of this need for years, but opportunities for federal action have been limited – until now.
Amid growing opposition to clean energy and climate resilience investments, an unexpected avenue for climate justice has emerged – the Farm Bill, an over $400 billion legislative package that funds key federal programs and shapes our country’s food and agricultural policy. This year, Congress has the opportunity to make a historic investment in regenerative farming practices that would meaningfully reduce emissions that come from agriculture and provide real relief to farmers of color.
For example, in the so-called ‘Black Dirt’ region of Orange County, New York, known for its fertile black soil, Latine and Black farmers are pushing for meaningful investments in regenerative agricultural practices and climate resilience programs that protect the land and food security. Many of these farmers don’t own the land that they work - and if they do, they are recent land owners. Because they lack land security, spending their own capital on large scale infrastructure is a huge risk. So several dozen farmers of color from the area have asked for funding assistance with drainage for over a year without success. Funding to add more climate-resilient ditches to their farms would help them withstand flooding and also protect other nearby farms. But as both lessees and more recent owners of their farmland, they have less local political clout than landowning constituents and are more likely than long-standing landowners to face barriers to adopting new farming strategies. To support these farmers and others across the country who are burdened by climate change, the next Farm Bill could expand resources to support farming practices that protect and restore soil health. Healthy soils are more likely to bounce back from flooding and other adverse impacts of climate chaos. In addition to supporting local food economies, these practices can reduce emissions and other toxic pollutants, and revitalize ecosystems.
Amid growing opposition to clean energy and climate resilience investments, an unexpected avenue for climate justice has emerged – the Farm Bill.
Black, Indigenous, and other land stewards of color have long used regenerative farming methods rooted in traditional ecological knowledge. For example, the Diné people of the Navajo Nation have practiced alluvial farming, or planting crops in soil that has formed from sediment deposits, for hundreds of years. This maximizes the nutrients and water that crops receive - without depending on chemical fertilizers or pesticides. Indigenous and immigrant farmers of color have innovated new approaches like these that are rooted in cultural traditions of respect for the land, water, seeds, and life that sustain us. They’ve done so even while confronting seizure of their land, theft of their labor, harm from industrial agriculture, and contamination of their land and water.
These farmers know that investing in regenerative farming can ensure climate resilience and protect local economies. The Farm Bill is among our best chances to make this a reality. By establishing protections and meaningful supports for farmers who are most vulnerable to climate change, the Farm Bill can propel us toward our climate goals while allowing farmers of color to adapt to new uncertainties that climate change has created.
In May, the Senate released a long-delayed Farm Bill proposal while the House released their draft of text for the 2024 Bill. We were happy to see that the Senate proposal includes traditional ecological knowledge as a part of conservation and climate programs, and includes provisions for the protection of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds for conservation and climate spending. This is a step in the right direction for our nation's farmers, and for our environment.
Unfortunately, we see the exact opposite in the House Agriculture Committee’s Farm Bill draft, which does little to address farmers’ concerns about climate change. In fact, the Bill moves us backwards. The House Bill removes climate-related safeguards in conservation programs stipulated by the Inflation Reduction Act, which was passed in 2022 and provided historic investments for fighting climate change. To be clear, the 2024 Farm Bill must be a climate bill. Removing support for climate-related programs and practices will not only further disadvantage farmers who are investing in regenerative agriculture and traditional ecological knowledge to build resilience in their operations, but wreak havoc on the nation’s food security.
As climate extremes worsen, the architects of this Farm Bill must change their strategy if they hope for the survival of farmers, communities, or our economies. Farmers of color who are leading the charge for regenerative farming, as they have done for generations, need our support now more than ever, and deserve a farm bill that puts climate front and center.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Antonio Groß/Unsplash
University research supports meat industry's image
University researchers are helping meat producers improve their public image through funded research.
In short:
- The National Pork Board funds the Real Pork Trust Consortium to counter negative perceptions of the pork industry.
- Historically, land-grant universities have partnered with the agriculture industry to boost productivity, now focusing on addressing environmental impacts while maintaining industry growth.
- Critics argue these partnerships prioritize industry profits over public and environmental health.
Key quote:
"It's sort of like increasing public trust in coal mining-based energy production, lead-based paint manufacturing, leaded fuel-dependent transportation, asbestos-dependent construction methods, or DDT-based pest control."
— Crystal Heath, veterinarian and founder of animal advocacy nonprofit Our Honor
Why this matters:
Industry-funded research at universities can bias scientific inquiries toward profit-driven goals, potentially compromising public and environmental health. While research can lead to improvements in livestock farming practices, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving animal welfare, and ensuring safer food products, critics argue that industry-funded research might downplay the negative impacts of meat production and promote findings that favor the sponsors.
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Mirko Fabian/Unsplash
Companies use carbon markets to boost pesticide sales
Farmers enrolling in climate-smart programs find themselves reliant on pesticides marketed by the same companies running these carbon markets.
In short:
- Companies like Bayer are integrating pesticide sales with carbon market platforms, potentially increasing chemical use.
- Agricultural carbon markets, originally designed to offset greenhouse gases, now often incentivize practices requiring pesticides.
- Environmental groups worry these markets prioritize sales over genuinely reducing farm chemical dependence.
Key quote:
“Get a farmer in the program, get the information, and get to sell them seeds or pest control.”
— Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies and climate change, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Why this matters:
Pesticides, essential for controlling pests and ensuring crop yields, have a dark side. Their overuse can lead to a host of environmental issues, including soil degradation, water contamination, and loss of biodiversity. In addition, the production and application of these chemicals contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, potentially offsetting the reductions achieved through carbon markets.
Correction: 11 July 2024
An earlier edition of this story included Land O'Lakes among the companies integrating pesticide sales with carbon market platforms. Land O'Lakes prohibits the use of farmer data for sales and marketing targeting.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Brent Olson/Pixabay
Texas weather extremes becoming increasingly common
Extreme weather in Texas, including wildfires, thunderstorms and flooding, is intensifying due to climate change, according to scientists.
Alejandra Martinez and Yuriko Schumacher report for The Texas Tribune.
In short:
- Texas experienced record-breaking wildfires, tornadoes, severe storms and a tropical storm in the first half of 2024.
- Scientists attribute these events to rising temperatures and altered precipitation patterns from greenhouse gas emissions.
- Texas is witnessing more intense rainfall in wet regions and amplified drought in dry regions.
Key quote:
“Rainfall is being concentrated in these really high-intensity storms. And then the areas that are historically dry, the lack of rainfall is also being amplified.”
— Avantika Gori, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University.
Why this matters:
For the residents of Texas, these changes are not just statistics but a harsh reality. Families are being displaced, properties are being destroyed and the landscape of the state is being reshaped. Farmers and ranchers are particularly hard-hit, with crops and livestock suffering from the unpredictable and extreme weather patterns.
Keep reading...Show less
UN
Photo by Daiga Ellaby on Unsplash
Leaders ignore animal agriculture's role in climate change at G7 and Bonn summit
World leaders failed to address the significant climate impact of animal agriculture during recent G7 and Bonn climate conferences, despite growing evidence of its environmental harm.
In short:
- The G7 summit and Bonn Climate Change Conference focused on financial debates, omitting discussions on the climate impact of animal agriculture.
- Animal agriculture contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, yet international talks rarely address it directly.
- The new Apulia Food Systems Initiative aims to aid poorer nations' agricultural adaptation but does not address livestock emissions.
Key quote:
“We’re seeing, essentially, the cow in the room being ignored.”
— Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity
Why this matters:
Animal agriculture is a major driver of climate change, responsible for significant methane emissions and environmental degradation. Advocates say addressing this issue is crucial for achieving global climate goals and mitigating planetary warming.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
