Despite the diplomatic hype, COP28 is not an historic success and is not at all a breakthrough. As expected, the 28th climate convention, like all previous ones, has ended without a final paper stating the obvious which is the end of fossil fuels (finally mentioning fossil fuels in a final agreement for the first time after 27 climate conventions is not a success). And similar to previous climate conventions it has been a failure in all other aspects as well. Some exclude the COP21 held in Paris and regard it as successful, however as we elaborated in our critical review of that convention, COP21 was in fact also another failure of humanity to seriously address what it considers to be its greatest challenge. In another post we tried to explain why it is so. Therefore regarding COP28 we want to focus on a seemingly positive change.
Clearly, animal food industries should have been in focus during climate conventions decades ago considering that one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the food industry with flesh and dairy accounting for most of it (as well as for many other environmental harms), and considering that dairy production alone emits more greenhouse gases than global aviation, and considering that in the latest IPCC’s Special Report on Climate Change and Land, scientists wrote that animal flesh and dairy do more damage to the environment than any other food, or in their words: “meat was consistently identified as the single food with the greatest impact on the environment”; yet it didn’t happen.
It took 27 climate conventions, and decades of knowing and deliberately ignoring, but on the face of it, it seems that finally there is a formal recognition of the animal food industry’s contribution to climate change.
However, after reading The Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, And Climate Action that was signed during COP28 and doesn’t mention any specific action nor animal based agriculture’s emissions, not to mention, recommending plant-based diets; and after considering the development and use of a tool such as Global Warming Potential Star (GWP*) – a new method of measuring methane emissions that will practically allow animal based agriculture to keep the exploitation business as usual even if someday there will be a general requirement of emission reduction from the agriculture sector; and considering the fact that this convention had the highest ever number of lobbyists in general as well as specifically of animal exploitation industries (there were four times the number of industry-affiliated lobbyists compared with last year’s summit and that number may be even much higher as it relies on delegates openly disclosing their connections to fossil fuel and their interests to the organizers), then clearly, exactly like the words ‘phase out of fossil fuels’ have never been agreed on in any final agreement of any climate convention, the words ‘phase out of animal agriculture’ will never be agreed upon. Exactly like no previous convention has reached an agreement on the obvious needed decision regarding fossil fuels, same would go for animal agriculture.
That is despite that at least technically speaking, it’s supposed to be much easier to phase out the animal based food industry as all it takes is to stop consuming animal based products and maintaining a plant based diet, than to change the entire energy industry. But actually it is much harder because while humans don’t care about the energy source that is charging their phones, they care a lot about the food they are eating. That is of course care in the sense of wanting it to be familiar and tasty, not care in the sense of caring about the dire effects their choices have on others. So it’s a much tougher change and way more demanding of humans. Humans are not emotionally attached to their energy source, but they are deeply attached to their favorite food. Unfortunately they are not at all emotionally attached to the ones whom their food is made of.
Maybe agriculture will play a part in climate conventions at last. But unfortunately it is highly unlikely to last. If decades of acting on the issue including 28 conventions have yet to produce an agreement about the obvious thing to do in terms of the energy industry, there is no chance it will ever happen regarding the food industry.