Worldbank: rich countries prioritise diet shifts away from meat; tax meat

The World Bank published a report last May on how the agriculture and food sectors can become climate neutral by 2050: 'Recipe for a liveable planet'. To realise these goals, the World Bank advised high income countries (HIC's) and middle income countries (MIC's) to start policies that lead to diet shifts, away from consumption of meat and dairy. 'Fully Pricing High-Emissions Foods' (like taxing meat and dairy) is needed. This can contribute to almost 10% of 16 gigatons of CO2 eq. emission reduction by 2050, needed for a climate neutral sector. The World Bank is very critical to the livestock sector: "Consumption of animal-source foods has damaged the planet". The report also wrote 'unmitigated climate change will cause food prices to increase by up to 3.2 percent per year by 2035 and will put up to 183 million additional people at risk of hunger, especially in Africa'. So reducing GHG-emissions in the agri-food sector will also benefit all people in the world by reducing overall food prices.

The Bank wrote: "Emissions pricing schemes involving the “full-cost pricing” of foods could lead to relative price increases for high-emitting foods in order to reduce emissions. Current food prices do not capture the full cost of food production, including social and environmental externalities. As such, cheaper foods are made possible by overexploiting and exhausting the agrifood system’s natural resource inputs". "High income countries should lead the way in full-cost pricing of foods and in promoting low-emissions diets". The report mentioned that diet shifts and alternative proteins have a cost-effective GHG emisison reduction potential of 1700 Mton CO2 e/yr (tabel 3.1) and such demand side measures can be applied best in China, the EU, the USA and Brazil (figure 3.3.). This call to action reflects the COP28 Declaration signed by 3 African climate ministers, urging OECD countries and China to tax meat and dairy, to reduce GHG-emissions and use part of the tax revenues for the Loss and Damage Fund. 

The report notes that the agrifood system is a huge, untapped source of low-cost climate change action. "High-income countries can lead the way – by giving more support to low- and middle-income countries and by shifting subsidies away from high-emitting food sources" and apply GHG-emission taxes on meat and dairy. "This would reveal their full price and help make low-emission food options cheaper in comparison", according to the World Bank report. Full-cost pricing is discussed in chapter 3 of the report, and carbon and emissions pricing are discussed in more detail in chapter 4,

The World Bank wrote that "High Income Countries Greatest Opportunities for Reducing Agrifood System Emissions Are From Curbing Energy Emissions, Aiding Developing Nations in Their Shift to Low-Emissions Pathways and Fully Pricing High-Emissions Foods"

Meat prices would be 20-60 percent higher if prices were to reflect true costs of meat

The World Bank wrote: "Full-cost pricing of animal-source food to reflect its true planetary costs would make low-emission food options more competitive. Meat and dairy producers still receive large subsidies in many HICs and MICs. Globally, one-third of agricultural support was directed toward meat and milk products in 2016, with the top five subsidized economies being China, the EU, India, Russia, and the US (Springmann and Freund 2022). These subsidies, combined with the free or cheap use of water and nutrient resources and the costless nature of their externalities, reduce animal-source foods’ market prices and contribute to their large share in diets (Instituto Escolhas 2020; Vallone and Lambin 2023). Indeed, studies have shown that if prices were to reflect the true health, climate, and environmental costs of meat, meat prices would be 20–60 percent higher, depending on the type of meat (Funke et al. 2022). That said, the prices of meat and dairy products are highly elastic compared to those of other food products (Andreyeva, Long, and Brownell 2010), meaning that the repurposing of red-meat subsidies toward low-emission foods, such as poultry or fruits and vegetables, could lead to large changes in consumption patterns and large emissions reductions while also improving many health indicators, especially cardiovascular health (Pearson-Stuttard et al. 2017)."

FAO: diet change potential (reducing meat/dairy consumption) is 4 times larger compared to mitigation potential in livestock sector

"The demand for animal-source diets accounts for almost 60 percent of total agrifood emissions across all emissions categories, including on-farm activities, land use changes, and pre- and post-production processes (Xu et al. 2021). Therefore, there is greater mitigation potential from shifting diets away from animal-source food than from changing production methods. FAO estimates that the mitigation potential from modifying livestock production practices, such as improving pasture management or improving animal diets, would be from 1.1 to 1.8 GtCO2 eq per year (Gerber et al. 2013). By contrast, the mitigation potential from humans changing their own diets, for example, through the reduced consumption of meat and other carbon-intensive food commodities, would be from 0.7 to 8 GtCO2 eq per year, a much higher ceiling (IPCC 2019). Moreover, dietary changes in HICs would have a greater impact on emissions than dietary changes in MICs".

Reducing demand for high-emissions foods.

The World Bank also wrote: "HICs can decrease consumer demand for emissions-intensive, animal-source foods by fully pricing environmental and health externalities, repurposing subsidies, and promoting sustainable food options. As global populations become wealthier, they consume more emissions-intensive foods, like meat and dairy (Ranganathan et al. 2016). HICs have the highest per capita incomes, so demand for and consumption of high-emitting, animal-source foods are greatest in those countries (Vranken et al. 2014). For example, in North America, the average citizen consumes 36 kilograms (kg) of bovine meat per year, whereas the global average is 9 kg per person per year (FAO 2023a; FAOSTAT 2023b). This trend of increased meat consumption is also occurring in MICs and LICs as their populations graduate out of poverty (Clark and Tilman 2017; Clark et al. 2020). For example, as poverty declined from 1990 to 2020, cattle meat production grew from 53 to 68 million tons, a 30 percent increase, and added close to 0.25 GtCO2 eq to the atmosphere. Currently, the demand for animal-source diets accounts for almost 60 percent of total agrifood emissions across all emissions categories (Xu et al. 2021). Thus, the cost-effective mitigation potential from shifting diets away from meat is about twice as high as that from reducing enteric fermentation and other livestock production mitigation methods. Full-cost pricing of animal-source food to reflect its true planetary costs would make low-emission food options more competitive. Globally, one-third of agricultural subsidies were directed toward meat and milk products in 2016 (Springmann and Freund 2022). Indeed, studies have shown that if prices were to reflect the true health, climate, and environmental costs of meat, meat prices would be 20–60 percent higher, depending on the type of meat (Funke et al. 2022). As a result, repurposing red meat and dairy subsidies toward low-emission foods, like poultry, pulses, or fruits and vegetables, could lead to significant changes in consumption patterns and large emissions reductions. Likewise, governments, businesses, and citizens can expand low-emission food options through (1) financial measures, (2) choice architecture strategies, (3) food labeling, and (4) education and communication campaigns. Consumer changes to healthy, low-emission diets would reduce diet-related emissions by up to 80 percent and reduce land and water use by 50 percent (Aleksandrowicz et al. 2016).

The World Bank wrote: "As global populations become wealthier, they consume more emissions-intensive foods, such as meat and dairy. Demand for these foods in HICs and, increasingly, in MICs, leads to nearly two-thirds of total agrifood emissions. Indeed, excluding animal-derived food products from diets would halve global agrifood GHG emissions. There are several approaches that can feasibly and affordably do this. Simply shifting to alternative sources of animal protein can reduce emissions while providing the same nutritional value. For example, poultry causes only about 10 percent of the emissions generated by beef. Such changes can also reduce the health burdens of high-emitting foods, which also tend to be less nutritious. However, government subsidies for fossil fuels and certain food sectors, along with free environmental inputs such as land and water, make the cost of meat and dairy 20–60 percent cheaper than it otherwise would be. Therefore, simply removing these subsidies and fully costing environmental externalities would make low emissions alternatives more competitive and desirable among consumers. Public policies and private sector decisions can also promote dietary changes by influencing the consumer behaviors that dictate people’s food consumption patterns—for instance, through health guidelines, food labeling, food waste levies, and education campaigns, among others."

Policies needed for all Greenhouse gas emissions: agri-food products dominate list of most emissions-intensive exports

World Bank: "Carbon dioxide emissions receive much more policy attention than those of methane or nitrous oxide. As a result, products with high CO2 emissions like coal, iron, steel, minerals, and pharmaceutical products are considered the most emissions intensive and thereby are the most targeted by climate mitigation policies. In fact, when only CO2 emissions are considered, only two agrifood products are among the top 10 of the most emissions intensive exports, defined as the products that require the most emissions to generate a dollar in export value (figure 4.9, panel a). This would help explain the relatively limited climate policy attention that agrifood system commodities have received historically. However, when accounting for the three major GHGs—CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)—agrifood products dominate the list of most emissions-intensive exports, comprising 8 of the top 10 products (figure 4.9).

$260 billion a year investments needed for net zero emissions by 2050

The World Bank wrote that to achieve a climate neutral sector by 2050, "Annual investments will need to increase to $260 billion a year to cut in half agrifood emissions by 2030 and to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Twice as much money is spent yearly on agricultural subsidies, many of which harm the environment. While cutting wasteful subsidies can finance some of this investment, additional financing is essential to get to net zero. Making these investments would lead to more than $4 trillion in benefits, from improvements in human health, food and nutrition security, better quality jobs and profits for farmers, to more carbon retained in forests and soils". 

Consumption of animal-source foods has damaged the planet.

The World Bank wrote: "Consumption of animal-source foods has damaged the planet. As discussed in chapter 2 and the examination of MICs in the next section, livestock-related emissions are the single largest source of agrifood system emissions and the largest source of methane emissions. The production of animal-source foods is also damaging to the planet for several other reasons. First, it drives land use change, as many farmers expand croplands to produce cattle feed and other livestock inputs. Second, it depletes land, water, and energy resources to maintain those feed croplands and manage livestock populations. Third, meat production is a very inefficient process for converting inputs from feed to food (Herrero et al. 2013). As a result, per capita diet-related environmental impacts in high-income and upper-middle income countries are greater than in poorer countries (Clark et al. 2020). Similarly, the agrifood system’s transition to animal-source foods has depleted lands and contributed to higher greenhouse gas emissions (Bodirsky et al. 2020; Springmann et al. 2018). Therefore, a shift in diets away from animal-source foods, especially beef (figure 3.11), can help promote greater biodiversity and reduce environmental pressures (Clark and Tilman 2017; Foley et al. 2011; Springmann et al. 2018). Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products could reduce land use by 76 percent, GHG emissions by 49 percent, acidification by 50 percent, eutrophication by 49 percent, and freshwater withdrawals by 19 percent (Poore and Nemecek 2018)".

International Climate Negotiations on Agriculture and Food

The WB report wrote: "Recent climate negotiations on agrifood systems have encountered several hurdles, but at the time of this writing there are signs of progress. At the forefront of challenge is the inadequate climate finance allocated for agriculture and food, leading to appeals from LICs and MICs for increased international support (Buto et al. 2023; Galbiati and Bernoux 2022). As noted earlier in this chapter, a significant portion of NDC targets linked to agriculture are conditional upon this international assistance. Moreover, many low- and middle-income countries express concern that ambitious mitigation action, like adopting carbon pricing for agriculture, might jeopardize food security and disproportionately burden smallholder farmers, issues that were discussed in chapter 2. The Bonn Climate
Change Conference in June 2023 was particularly indicative of these challenges, with parties failing to reach a consensus on establishing a dedicated agricultural mechanism under the UNFCCC and being divided over adopting a comprehensive food systems strategy (World Farmers’ Organisation 2020) versus a restricted agricultural focus (Chakamba 2022). Consequently, the conference in Bonn concluded without agreement, and discussions on these issues were postponed until COP28 in Dubai in December 2023 (UNFCCC SBI 2023). At COP28, a full day was dedicated to agrifood issues for the first time. One hundred and fifty countries, including some of the largest food producers and emitters—including Brazil, China, and the United States—signed a declaration on climate action that promotes a “shift from higher GHG emitting practices to more sustainable production and consumption” under Objective 5, and affirms the intention to integrate food and agriculture into NDCs.29 However, COP28 did not lead to a declaration to integrate agrifood system mitigation into formal UNFCCC processes and negotiated texts. That said, the momentum generated at COP27 and COP28, coupled with the growing recognition of agrifood systems in NDCs, provides hope that these issues will assume the prominent role they deserve in climate negotiations. However, to maintain this momentum, HICs will need to step up their financial backing to ensure that countries fulfill their conditional NDC targets."

Action to reduce GHG emissions in the Food System are especially of importance for African countries and China, who are most vulnerable to climate change and depend on food imports already. See figure below: