Dear friend,

The fight against climate change is already as hard as it is but it doesn't just mean fighting natural elements. Turns out, it doesn't even mean just fighting big conglomerates, trying to change government policies or trying to convince people that what we're doing to our planet is destroying it. For some people, being a climate activist means putting your own and your loved ones' lives in danger. Latin America is one of the most dangerous places for climate activists, especially women. Read this excellent piece from Open Democracy on the challenges women activists in Latin America face in their fight against climate change.

Berta Cáceres solidarity rally, Honduras 2016. Photo: Flickr/Daniel Cima/CIDH. CC BY 2.0.

If we want to stop humanity from destroying the living planet we need to start thinking beyond the current time and beyond borders. SpaceBuzz is an organisation that is aiming to do both. It's based on the idea of the 'overview effect', something that astronauts who see the earth from outer space experience, that allows them to see it as a "fragile ball of life". SpaceBuzz's mission is to give this experience to as many children so that they will grow up not taking the earth for granted. We talked with Spacebuzz's founder Hidde Hoogcarspel to see where Spacebuzz is headed (other than to infinity and beyond).

Would you like to read this newsletter in the comfort of your own inbox? Sign up 👉 and receive it every Saturday.

More Stories

Four ways to reduce the carbon in your food basket

Your moment

Written by
The Conversation

on
20 January 2020

How does your food shop affect the planet? Well, think of it like this – consuming just one egg emits between 260 and 330g of CO₂ to the atmosphere. That’s because before that egg can reach your plate, animal feed has to be produced and delivered to the hen that laid it. That hen then needs heating pumped into the shed it shares with the other hens on the farm, and their eggs have to be transported, often by van, to the shop you buy them from, where they’re stored in refrigerators. There’s also the packaging that must be made to store the eggs and the process of cooking them to consider.

All of this takes energy, which, more often than not, is generated using fossil fuels. We can analyse the carbon footprint of a particular food item by working out the quantity of greenhouse gases that are emitted during the production of raw materials, industrial processing, transport, storage, cooking, consumption, and waste. This is called the “cradle-to-grave” approach.

It can help people better understand how the things we use every day affect the world around us. With that in mind, here are four simple rules to help you reduce the carbon footprint of your food basket during your next shopping trip.

1. Diversify your protein sources

Of all livestock, cows require the most pasture land and the most feed from land-intensive crops. Their burps also generate large quantities of planet-warming methane, making the carbon footprint of beef on average four times higher than pork and poultry. Lamb has a high carbon footprint, and its consumption should be also reduced.

Grains, beans, lentils, soya and tofu, nuts and seeds, mushrooms, and seaweed all contain high levels of protein and require far smaller inputs than animals to grow, giving them a very low carbon footprint. A recent study showed that it’s possible to reduce dietary greenhouse gas emissions by 80%, just by reducing meat consumption by 70% and dairy consumption by 65%.

2. Organic doesn’t mean low carbon

In the absence of calculated carbon footprints on food labels, consumers commonly use other information on labels to estimate the environmental impact. But these can often mislead. Consumers may associate “organic” or “free range” with higher environmental quality (low pesticide intensity and more natural animal rearing), and by extension assume that they are low-carbon products. But while some organic products, such as milk or olive oil, typically have a lower carbon footprint than regular equivalents, the reverse is true for soy milk and organic and free-range eggs versus barn eggs. For pasta, there’s generally no difference between organic and non-organic varieties.

Of course, caring for animal welfare and supporting the limited use of chemical fertiliser are important considerations too. But avoid using these keywords to estimate the carbon burden of foods.

3. Local isn’t always best

Buying local products doesn’t guarantee a smaller carbon footprint. Transport is an important contributor to the carbon cost of foods but its not the only carbon cost. In fact, the carbon contribution of transport is higher in low-carbon than high-carbon foods. To this extent, the “food miles” concept, should not be used as an indicator of carbon footprint, because it only considers the transport element of the carbon footprint.

For instance, transport does not increase the footprint for high-carbon products such as meat by much, and it may transpire that lamb from New Zealand in the season of slaughter has lower carbon emissions than British lamb out of season, primarily because of the much lower carbon footprint at rearing, due to more favourable weather that allows the animals to eat more grass and less animal feed. On the other hand, green beans from Kenya or asparagus from Peru will have a low carbon footprint at production, but their carbon footprint is much increased by the flight that gets them to supermarket shelves in the UK.

Going local is useful for fruit and vegetables in season, but the carbon emitted by growing them in greenhouses in winter means that importing from a country where the produce is in season is usually more sustainable. Of course, best of all would be to eat in synchrony with the natural seasons where you live, if possible.

The carbon footprint of transport can be lower for processed products too. Shipping ground coffee instead of coffee beans or concentrated orange juice rather than oranges implies only transporting the final product, without the waste or the extra water, and using less refrigeration and less packaging. As a result, concentrated orange juice emits less CO₂ than fresh orange juice, and grinding coffee where beans are grown may be more sustainable than importing the beans to be ground elsewhere.

4. Packaging matters

Plastic packaging is not always the evil it’s made out to be. Some packaging options, particularly tin and glass, are very heavy, and so can only be transported in smaller quantities. This means that their transport requires more energy per unit of food. As a result, switching from these types of materials to plastic, which is considerably lighter, can reduce carbon emissions. This is particularly the case if the plastic is recyclable.

Plastic packaging can be better than no packaging in some cases. In extending the shelf life of fresh produce, plastic can be an ally in reducing food waste – which produces methane if it goes to landfill.

Where packaging is unavoidable, or necessary to preserve food, select the simplest packaging and ensure it’s recyclable.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. It's written by Luca Panzone, Lecturer in Consumer Behaviour, Newcastle University, and Natasha Auch, PhD Candidate in Behavioural Economics, Newcastle University. You can read the original article here.

This story features:

Future of Food / climate change

Read more
Apocalypse Cow: a documentary’s vision for the future of food

Solutions

Written by
The Conversation

on
10 January 2020

On the Channel 4 documentary Apocalyse Cow: How meat killed the planet, British environmentalist and vegan George Monbiot presented the UK as stripped of woodland by grass-eating sheep, crowded with the “agricultural sprawl” of industrial farms, and with streams polluted by manure. Monbiot insisted that the British countryside isn’t a picturesque escape, but an ongoing ecological disaster.

The way food is grown in most parts of the world creates these conditions, which harm wildlife and restrain natural habitats. In its place, Monbiot offers possible solutions. Some, we are told, look rather like science fiction.

Visiting a Welsh farm, Monbiot meets livestock farmer turned cultured meat entrepreneur, Illtud Dunsford. Instead of rearing animals to be slaughtered for meat, Dunsford is now working on growing meat using animal cells. A Finnish biotech company that Monbiot visits can also create flour and other foodstuffs using bacteria.

Monbiot’s vision is that vast herds of methane-producing cows may no longer be necessary to meet the world’s appetite for food, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from farming. If most of the food we eat could be grown in a lab, he argues, then a fraction of the space currently reserved for farming would be needed.

With characteristic zeal, Monbiot asserts that huge tracts of Earth’s surface, instead of being carefully maintained to grow food, could be returned to natural habitat like forests, meadows and marshes.

My interest here is cultured meat. I’m a sociologist and have spent 12 years documenting the politics and culture of the people working in this industry: people like Dunsford, the CEO of Cellular Agriculture Ltd, who I have occasionally worked with. He moved away from his career as a livestock farmer after travelling South America and seeing deforestation in the Amazon.

It was an “emotional experience” for Dunsford, as he recalled in the documentary:

My personal choices here, as a farmer in Wales, had a direct correlation with the crops that were being grown in Brazil.

Dunsford returned to the UK and became a leading figure in the UK cultured meat sector. Working with the University of Bath, he showed Monbiot a small work-in-progress bioreactor, used for growing animal muscle cells. As Monbiot noted, to some this is Frankenstein food. Dunsford himself admitted that it took a while for him to adjust too. “Anything that’s alien to you can be slightly scary,” he said.

From the land to the lab

Dunsford’s story is unusual. The dual identity of a livestock farmer turned cultured meat entrepreneur captures a tension in the politics of lab-grown food. Many cultured meat companies have no link to conventional farming. Most are rooted in a venture capitalist tech culture that grew out of Silicon Valley and many companies – including New Age Meats, Finless Foods, and Mission Barns – are located within the San Francisco Bay Area.

The same day Apocalypse Cow was screened, Monbiot published a Guardian opinion piece in which he described this as “farmfree food” that “will allow us to hand back vast areas of land and sea to nature”.

The relationship between traditional farming and the cultured meat industry has been tricky to balance. On one level, as Monbiot suggests, the aim is to replace industrial animal farming. On another, the cultured meat community has been careful not to exclude farmers entirely, with some insisting that cultured meat can broaden the “protein portfolio” alongside livestock. Some entrepreneurs suggest cultured meat factories could be hosted on farms that grow plant-based input materials, or that farmers could rear animals (potentially from rare breeds) as cell donors. Notions like Monbiot’s farmfree food undermine the work of keeping farmers on board.

Monbiot also advocates making cultured meat technology free from patents, to allow the widest possible distribution of ownership. This, he argues, "could break the hegemony of the massive companies that now control global food commodities."

This idea sits uncomfortably with the start-up culture surrounding much of the cultured meat industry. Many patents have already been filed. Some in the industry, such as charity and research funding organisation New Harvest, align with Monbiot’s approach of patent-free open source technology. For others, the idea of giving up intellectual property rights is difficult to contemplate, as selling or licensing technology forms part of potential business plans.

The issue of whether to be with or against global food giants is another strategic difference between Monbiot and the main approach of the cultured meat industry. Many in the sector see the technology’s route to success through a business-savvy market-based approach, as opposed to fighting against big agriculture or undermining agricultural capitalism, as Monbiot prefers.

Closing the show, Monbiot describes how increasing deer numbers prevent trees taking root in the Scottish countryside, as he joins a hunt to shoot (and then, it seems, eat) a wild deer. The exercise is intended to control deer for the benefit of the local ecology, allowing forests to return and rewild the landscape, free from the voracious appetite of deer.

Across the documentary, Monbiot may have antagonised many viewers, including potential allies. Certainly livestock farmers, but also possibly vegans. And perhaps also some in the cultured meat community, who in general will appreciate his positive message, but be less keen on how he positions cultured meat in strong opposition to farming, and repudiates a possible route to profit.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. It's written by Neil Stephens, Research Fellow in Sociology and Science and Technology Studies, Brunel University London. You can read the original article here.

This story features:

Future of Food / Future of Meat / Cultured meat

Read more
Ethical veganism recognized as philosophical belief in landmark case

Solutions

Written by
Davide Banis

on
9 January 2020

A U.K. employment tribunal has ruled that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief and should be protected by law as such.

Jordi Casamitjana, a vegan animal protection professional, says he was fired by his former employer, British charity the League Against Cruel Sports, because he informed colleagues that the organization was investing the pension fund in companies involved in animal testing.

The League Against Cruel Sports denies the claim saying Casamitjana was sacked for gross misconduct.

Conversely, Casamitjana claims he was discriminated against because of his ethical veganism belief.

Ethical vegans are people who not only eat a plant-based diet but also oppose all forms of animal exploitation, like wearing clothing made of wood or leather, visiting zoos or using cosmetics that have been tested on animals.

On Friday, at the employment tribunal in Norwich, judge Robin Postle ruled that ethical veganism is a “philosophical belief” and, as such, it’s protected by the Equality Act 2010. “Religion or belief” is one of the nine “characteristics,” which include race, sex, pregnancy and sexuality, protected by the law making it illegal for employers to discriminate on those grounds.

To qualify as a belief and not as a mere opinion, veganism has to meet a series of criteria such as being genuinely held and representing a “weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behavior.”

"[Ethical veganism] clearly in my view meets all the criteria; It is a philosophical belief, not just an opinion. It is cogent, serious and important, and worthy of respect in democratic society,” commented judge Postle in a short summary judgement.

"I'm extremely happy with the outcome of this hearing and for the words of the judge who clearly understood what ethical veganism is. I didn't expect to have a judgement today but the overwhelming weight of the evidence we have provided seems to have been sufficient for the judge to conclude that I'm the ethical vegan I say I am, and that ethical veganism is a protected 'non-religious philosophical belief,'" said Jordi Casamitjana.

“In view of its animal welfare value, the League did not contest the issue of whether ethical veganism itself should be a protected belief, with the League maintaining that it's irrelevant to the core reason for the dismissal [...] The League is now looking ahead to the substantive hearing in this case and to addressing the reason for Mr. Casamitjana's dismissal, which it maintains was due to his misconduct and not the belief he holds," argued Rhys Wyborn partner at Shakespeare Martineau, the law firm which represented the League Against Cruel Sports.

This story features:

Future of Food / Vegan / Veganism

Read more

About Kinder

Topics

To infinity and beyond

Dear friend,

More Stories

Four ways to reduce the carbon in your food basket

1. Diversify your protein sources

2. Organic doesn’t mean low carbon

3. Local isn’t always best

4. Packaging matters

Apocalypse Cow: a documentary’s vision for the future of food

From the land to the lab

Ethical veganism recognized as philosophical belief in landmark case