World Bank’s climate plan: Pricier red meat and dairy, cheaper chicken and veggies ( www.politico.eu )

“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves,” a World Bank official said, as red meat and dairy drive CO2 emissions.

Cows and milk are out, chicken and broccoli are in — if the World Bank has its way, that is.

In a new paper, the international financial lender suggests repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost CO2-rich products like red meat and dairy for more climate-friendly options like poultry, fruits and vegetables. It's one of the most cost-effective ways to save the planet from climate change, the bank argues.

The politically touchy recommendation — sure to make certain conservatives and European countries apoplectic — is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers to cut climate-harming pollution from the agricultural and food sectors, which are responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

…

The paper comes at a diplomatically strategic moment, as countries signed on to the Paris Agreement — the global pact calling to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — prepare to update their climate plans by late 2025.

3volver ,

I agree, let's end subsidies for the industries that are fucking up the climate. Fuck all the weak snowflakes who don't want to change their meat consumption. How hard is it to not eat beef? Not hard, people are just weak. So hit them in the wallet then, if that's what it takes.

evranch ,

Even as a rancher (native prairie, low input) I agree beef is way too cheap. Well, it was, now it's starting to be more appropriately priced.

Considering everything from the labour involved in raising it ethically to the nutritional value, the consumer pays very little for beef for what they're getting. Even if it means people eat less beef, the price should go up. It would also favour small farmers like me who would rather raise less cows sustainably on grass than overgraze chasing high volume sales.

BruceTwarzen ,

Meat and dairy should be way more expensive in general

wafflez ,

It is it's just paid with tax dollars in many countries

sirico ,
@sirico@feddit.uk avatar

Dinosaurs back on the menu boyz

wafflez ,

Not in Florida

FunnyUsername ,
@FunnyUsername@lemmy.world avatar

They need to open up more Popeye's

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Oh look, more suggestions. Im sure it'll work this time.

Carrolade ,

may be turned into a culture war battle

May be? Bit optimistic, don't you think?

muse ,
@muse@fedia.io avatar

Already, more like

grysbok ,
@grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Me "not eating pork" is already a political statement to my mom's side of the family and has been for a at least a decade. A government body recommending less beef? The horror!

frezik ,

Bet they claim there's not enough land for solar panels, too. If we all eat one or two fewer burgers every week, there's plenty of land.

pineapple_pizza ,

As a bonus it's much healthier. Win win.
Though a large portion of the population won't see it that way.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

In a new paper, the international financial lender suggests repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost CO2-rich products like red meat and dairy for more climate-friendly options like poultry, fruits and vegetables.

The politically touchy recommendation — sure to make certain conservatives and European countries apoplectic — is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers to cut climate-harming pollution from the agricultural and food sectors, which are responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the report, countries must funnel $260 billion each year into those sectors to get serious about erasing their emissions by 2050 — a common goal for developed economies.

Governments can partly plug the gap by reorienting subsidies for red meat and dairy products toward lower-carbon alternatives, the World Bank says.

The switch is one of the most cost-effective ways for wealthy countries — estimated to generate roughly 20 percent of the world’s agri-food emissions — to reduce demand for highly polluting food, it argues.

Food is an "intensely personal choice," he added, saying he fears that what should be a data-based debate may be turned into a culture war battle.

The original article contains 439 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •