Veganism is not an adequate response to the urgent crisis of global livestock emissions
I constantly see articles about how ‘the single largest impact you can have to reduce climate change is to go vegan’. It really frustrates me because it is part of a broader obsession with lifestyle choices as the beginning and end of our personal agency. In a world of individualism, collective action for systemic change is downplayed or obfuscated entirely. Veganism is a lifestyle choice that does not connect with coordinated collective action for systemic change. Yes, there is a ‘movement’ of sorts, popularised by viral documentaries, lifestyle blogs and social media. But it is a collection of many people who identify with the same consumption choices, rather than a political strategy aimed at reducing emissions from livestock. To be clear, I have no problem with veganism as a personal ethical choice, and this is not an attack on people who choose it. But if you want to start claiming that it reduces carbon emissions in any kind of systemic way then we need to talk. And no, not about intensive soy production, though there is something in that too. I’m talking about the bigger picture of personal versus systemic change.
Let’s set the scene and talk about demographics. Meat and dairy consumption are not tied to population growth; they are tied to demographic transition. It’s a middle class thing. Rapidly growing middle classes in China and India (and to a slightly lesser extent in Africa and South America) are, on global terms, the only numbers that really matter when it comes to meat and dairy. I know, I know — we can’t not do something ‘because of China and India’. That’s not my point. Stay with me. Imagine we created an unprecedented global campaign that successfully converted 10% of all people to veganism over the next, say, 5 years. That would be 760 million extra vegans. Do you reckon that would significantly reduce global agricultural methane emissions? Take a minute to consider that rising middle class of meat eaters I just mentioned. Their growth far outstrips any theoretical growth in veganism. Now, any thoughts on how preposterously unachievable a 10% conversion rate to veganism would be anyway? The point is that demographic transitions absolutely dwarf the impact of veganism, even if you were to allow for unimaginable global uptake of the idea. If we’re serious about actually tackling carbon emissions from meat and dairy then we need to think far more strategically.
The wider point here is that lifestyle change campaigns do not leverage significant systemic change for the environment. Here’s what does: environmental protection laws; national parks and reserves; levy systems (e.g. Container deposits reduce plastic bottle litter by 80%); economic stimulus packages and targets (e.g. Renewable Energy Target, clean energy finance corporation); taxes and trading (e.g. price on carbon, emissions trading); outright bans (e.g. CFCs, DDT, asbestos, plastic bags); and new technologies that make harmful ones obsolete (e.g. renewable energy). There are also two other key drivers of systemic change on environmental issues. One is scarcity (prices rise, consumption drops), and the other is cultural change. Cultural change happens in line with the other factors and rarely if ever in isolation. For example, people decide that climate change needs acting upon at the same time as rooftop solar becomes the economically preferable choice for them — they have agency and they change their worldview accordingly. Critical mass is reached. A political voice rises. Voila, you have a cultural shift, followed closely by a political sea change. This then facilitates further political and economic progress.
So, back to meat and climate change. Telling people to eat less meat is not a sensible battle because it does not have an achievable significant systemic outcome. All you will ever do is build a collection of individuals making aligned lifestyle choices within the framework of a capitalist system that will continue to do things as it has always done. Veganism cannot challenge power inherent in the agricultural and food industries and to think that it can is a fantasy. However there are some things that might change the situation:
- The most immediate ways to change livestock emissions are not exciting. They are not a lifestyle position you can take. But as a raft of changes they could make an extremely significant impact. We’re talking about changes to agricultural subsidies. Changes to import and export tariffs and trade agreements. Changes to land use laws. Changes to monopoly and tax laws that disrupt the power of big agriculture and big supermarkets. Changes to farming standards and animal welfare laws. The list goes on. If we were to organise campaigns around these issues we could potentially cause dramatic emission reductions without actually appealing directly to individual lifestyle choices. It is less instagramable though…
- Meat consumption has risen in line with cheap fossil fuels. As fossil fuel scarcity kicks in, meat becomes more expensive. Less meat will get eaten per capita. This is almost a certainty. As oil prices rise, the type of meat people eat will change. Most high emission meat (beef) is high emission because it is grain fed. The emission footprint is calculated by including the landuse change and the oil use associated with the grain production and transport. Then you add the methane contribution from the animal. So you take fossil carbon, destroy forest or other natural habitat along the way (carbon sinks), then bind that carbon into CH4 as a highly potent GHG. We eat a lot of beef raised in this way due to cheap oil. If oil gets expensive (like, much more expensive) then the beef price skyrockets and there are few alternative systems for mass beef production. Now consider chicken or farmed fish. Again, most are fed on grain (and fishing by catch, which is a whole other stupid situation). But you can feed them on insects because unlike cows, they need a high protein diet. And insects are the most efficient way of making protein that we know of. Plus you can grow maggots on garbage! You could continue to produce cheap chicken and fish, with a much lower footprint than either currently have, even as oil prices soar. And as this happens, people will change their eating habits based upon an economic stimulus. Ultimately you’ll get a cultural change, whereby red meat is seen as a real luxury rather than an everyday item. This will not happen through people making a moral choice. It will be a fiscal one.
- Artificial meat. This is a brand new and rapidly improving technology. As in, slabs of living muscle cells grown in a vat of nutrients. Let’s go there. Because we’re heading for 9 billion people on this planet and many of them are culturally aligned with meat eating. And no extended veganism campaign is going to change that. It has a serious yuk factor sure. But there is actually nothing inherently wrong with the idea. You could grow it on protein from insects again. Suddenly cheap meat is sourced artificially (your fast food burgers, etc) and ‘real meat’, now more expensive (the true cost), becomes a premium product that you might only occasionally indulge in. At the same time you’d see millions more choosing a vegetarian diet, again for fiscal (and aesthetic) reasons, rather than moral ones. In such a situation the global livestock industry, deprived of cheap oil and demand from the cheap mass consumption end of the market, would shrink to a tiny fraction of its current size. Now we’re talking emission reduction!
So please, when considering how to address major global challenges, be it livestock emissions or anything else, think systemically, think strategically, think about collective action. And stop obsessing over everyday personal choices!
