Richard McIlwain, Chief Executive at the Vegetarian Society, reflects on COP26
Epilogue: A last, best blog post…
I thought I’d delay writing my final COP26 blog until after the weekend, to allow the dust to settle and get a sense of perspective (rather than firing from the hip on my first read of the final agreement). Depending on who you listen to, our “last, best chance” of staying within 1.5°C is either still alive (just), or it is now out of sight with the world heading for up to 2.4°C of warming.
The promises on reversing deforestation and the global methane pledge were high points. However, the latter was developed in advance of COP26, and the former was previously agreed in 2014, and since then the rate of felling has actually increased.
“China and India will have to explain themselves to climate-vulnerable nations,” said COP26 President Alok Sharma, on the news that the language on coal use in the final agreement had, at the last minute, been changed from ‘phase out’ to ‘phase down’. Had we got the original wording, I suspect the UK could have called its presidency a success. As it stands, little seems to have moved by any significant degree.
In fact, the wording of the agreement is such that it could have been drafted before the conference. It’s light on specifics and heavy on diplomatic verbiage such as ‘urges’, ‘emphasises’, ‘encourages’, ‘invites’ and so on. I recognise this is the universal language of diplomacy between nations, particularly when dealing with agreements that have no formal legal standing, but if this really was our “last, best chance”, surely more emphasis on real action and deadlines could have been included. Or maybe that’s naïve, and doesn’t recognise the complexity of getting 197 nations to sign up to one agreement. But with our very future at stake it feels like a lost opportunity to halt not just future climate damage but the harm occurring now, perhaps best emphasised by Simon Kofe, Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister, giving his speech to conference while knee-deep in seawater.
In terms of actual positives coming out of conference, the conclusion of the Paris rulebook and the opportunity for transparent global carbon trading is definitely a step forward. While 90% of countries have submitted plans for reducing carbon emissions, many go nowhere near far enough to support a 1.5°C warming threshold. With this in mind, the agreement to come back together in 2022 with revised and strengthened plans is very welcome. In addition, reference to loss and damage caused by climate change is now in the agreement, with calls to double funding to affected countries but no actual mechanism.
And the major roadblocks remain. How do developed countries reduce carbon emissions quickly, without impacting too much on society (a real vote loser in the short-term)? And how do developing countries switch from fossil fuels as they develop their economies without adequate financial support from developed countries for a ‘just transition’ (particularly given that developed countries have benefited most from historic use of fossil fuels)?
In conclusion, I’m left feeling the ambition just isn’t high enough, and the thinking not far-reaching enough. Instead of electric vehicles, where is the high-level ambition on developing low cost, green public transport? Instead of pigeonholed chats about low methane producing feed for animals, why not a comprehensive debate and re-imagining of our global food system? Instead of discussing how we can maintain growth using green energy, why not a fundamental re-calibration of our consumption levels and why we need so much ‘stuff’ day after day, week after week?
I’m brought back to the words of Joseph Brotherton MP for Salford, one of the founders of the Vegetarian Society, which he uttered in Parliament during a debate in 1842: “My riches consist not in the extent of my possessions, but in the fewness of my wants.” Words perhaps even more relevant now than they were then. If we could all learn to live with less and value what really makes a good and happy life, maybe we as citizens could play a key role in meeting the challenge of staying within 1.5°C.
As ever, I remain optimistic!
Thank you for reading.
=====
Day twelve – COP, out!
I was hoping (as I’m writing this on Friday evening) to be reporting on the final text of the agreement, but as was perhaps expected, the 6pm deadline came and went… and still we wait for the final document. The primary sticking points (though there are many others) appear to be around ending subsidy for fossil fuels, and the transfer of finance from wealthy industrialised nations to developing nations, as it’s this latter group that suffers most from the effects of our changing climate.
As COP26 draws to a close, it’s clear that progress has been made, and many countries are taking the issue seriously. However, a review of The Climate Action Tracker analysis makes for less than compelling reading. An analysis of 36 of the key economies contributing to carbon emissions reveals not one has yet submitted a plan in line with keeping warming to 1.5°C. The UK is actually better than most, and is not too far away, while others lag behind including the EU, US, China, Russia, India, Australia and Brazil. This is the primary reason why the UK is pushing hard to get countries to ratchet up their plans at next year’s UN climate conference, and not in five years’ time, as is currently permitted.
I’m not holding my breath for the final plan to make any great noise on our food systems and meat consumption – unfortunately I think that’s for another conference.
So, this isn’t yet my final blog on COP26. As the clock ticks, we await the agreement. Let’s hope for all our sakes it doesn’t have the life squeezed out of it…
=====
Day eleven – Building to a climax…
Thursday, the penultimate day of the conference, was dedicated to ‘Cities, Regions and the Built Environment’. I’ve expressed my frustration on numerous occasions through this COP26 blog that meat and diet hasn’t had its own focused day, but when cities and the built environment get theirs, my blood boils. Not that the future urban built environment isn’t an important issue, but it’s the fact that the food sector, which contributes one-third of all carbon emissions, isn’t getting the attention it should. I’m not alone in this. Many commentators have expressed surprise and exasperation at the lack of focus on where our food comes from and what a future healthy and sustainable diet looks like.
The Vegetarian Society will be focusing on this oversight and, no doubt together with many others, ensuring that future UN climate conferences don’t make the same mistake.
But on the theme of the day, I can’t say I got too excited by the announcements. The UK launched an Urban Climate Action Programme, providing almost £28 million to at least 15 cities in developing countries over a three-year period. That’s all very nice, but doesn’t sound like nearly enough to make any real difference, unless others chip in. It was also announced that over 1,000 cities were now participating in a ‘Race To Zero’.
On the actual conference agreement currently being negotiated, the positive news from the previous day (around the US and China agreeing to boost climate co-operation) appears to have dissipated, as it became clear that the draft agreement is still short of being truly transformational. Again, commitments to agree phasing-out dates for oil and gas seem to be stumbling blocks. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and Conference President Alok Sharma made speeches reiterating the need to “raise the bar”. Meanwhile, the former UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, crucially commented on the lack of focus on food systems, and the fact they are largely absent from many countries National Determined Contributions (NDCs). Of course, all of these words, no doubt well-made and well-meant, are now crashing up against the reality of tense negotiations, red lines and local political and economic interests.
The summit, in theory, ends tomorrow. Negotiators will be working through the night and the world holds its (hopefully not last) breath. Let’s hope the outcome is more Paris 2015, than Copenhagen 2010. But for now, we watch and wait…
=====
Day ten – From A to B (without CO2)
Wednesday was ‘Transport Day’, and with the carbon emissions from cars, buses, trains and planes contributing over one-fifth of total global emissions, it’s easy to see why it deserved a dedicated day for debate around emissions reduction.
There was some identifiable progress. In particular, the announcement that 30 countries will work together to make ‘zero emission vehicles’ or ZEVs (yet another acronym for my already overloaded brain) the new normal by making them accessible, affordable and sustainable in all regions by 2030 at the latest. As someone who would love to drive an electric car, but finds prices out of reach for both new and second-hand, this would be most welcome. The World Bank weighed in with $200 million to be deployed over the next ten years to decarbonise road transport in developing economies. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I can never work out whether these huge numbers, a few hundred million here, a billion there, are enough, not enough or don’t even scratch the surface. They sound impressive, but I suspect are never really enough and are in fact aimed at deploying seed-funding to pull in cash from elsewhere.
However, as someone who ardently believes we need a radical transformation in society if we are to succeed in staying within 1.5oC and building a fairer society, all the talk of cars doesn’t go far enough. Instead of building millions of new vehicles, what if we invested in first rate, affordable, accessible and green public transport and get people out of their cars altogether? Interconnected walking routes, cycling routes and public transport is a way forward I could truly get behind, and would also encourage people to be healthier. Anyway, I digress…
Putting my soap box away, the major outcome from today was the news that the US and China would co-operate on plans to reduce carbon and methane emissions “in the 2020s”, as both are alarmed at the risks posed by climate change and recognise the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis. The methane proposal is interesting, and cites fossil fuel, waste and agriculture as the sectors in which methane reductions will be required. Will diet and meat finally make it into the headline narrative? Again, we’ll see. But it does feel like a major step forward – and certainly some tonic after the lukewarm response to the first attempt of the proposed COP26 draft outcome, which was criticised for being too wishy-washy and, once again, not offering the levels of financial help required by developing countries.
And cycling back to my opening line, if transport represents over one-fifth of emissions and gets a full day of debate, why does our food system not get the same when in total it accounts for one-third of all emissions (of which over 14% arise from animal agriculture). Answers on a postcard…
=====
Day nine – “The world should begin thinking like women.”
Tuesday at COP26 was ‘Gender Day’, looking at equality and, in particular, how women and girls in countries around the world can participate in meaningful climate action. As a young woman, Greta Thunberg provides a leading young, female voice within the climate debate, but it would be naïve to suggest that all woman and girls around the globe have the means, capacity or freedom to follow her lead. And so, Tuesday was a critical day in bringing the issue of gender to the fore within the context of the climate crisis.
The issue was expressed powerfully by Angelica Ponce of the Plurinational Authority of Mother Earth in Bolivia, when she said: “The world as designed by men has destroyed many things. The world should begin thinking like women.”
Of course, having a female leader is no guarantee of progressive policies when it comes to climate, but Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, who plans to make their public sector carbon neutral by 2025 and Sanna Marin in Finland, who plans to achieve complete carbon neutrality by 2035, are certainly leading the way. And Nicola Sturgeon provided a clear focus for the future of gender and climate policy when she stated: “There is no doubt we must ensure climate change is a feminist issue. Women are not pleading to be supported. We’re demanding to be empowered.”
Elsewhere, the absence of any focused debate around diet and meat consumption was again a topic of conversation in the media. The Guardian once more highlighted the fact that while finance, energy and transport had their own allocated days for debate, agriculture and food didn’t. Wrapping up these critical issues within the broader theme of ‘nature’ does the issue a real disservice.
This surely has to the last UN climate conference where the issue of our global diet is not specifically tabled for debate and action. Certainly the next major climate conference in 2025, at which each country’s carbon reduction commitments under the Paris agreement are progressively tightened or ‘ratcheted up’, cannot fail to give the topic its own focus. If more rationale was needed, simply refer to the news today from the respected Climate Action Tracker that said, when you go beyond the headline-grabbing announcements and look at actual confirmed in-country policy, we are potentially on our way to between 2.5 and 2.9oC of warming by 2100, which would be catastrophic.
We’ll see what the negotiators achieve come the weekend, but the reality is that the hard work starts once the conference ends.
=====
Day eight – Week two begins (and so does the hard work…)
After Sunday’s day of rest, week two of COP26 got underway. This week is typically described as both more boring than the first week (with the media-grabbing announcements having been already made), and yet far more crucial as it’s the week in which the negotiators get down to work in earnest. Despite the healthy scepticism that remains amongst the protestors outside the conference, the challenge of getting the 197 Climate Convention countries to commit to the policies required to turn the grand announcements into reality should not be underestimated.
Indeed, since the Paris Agreement was negotiated in 2015 and adopted in 2016, key elements still remain unfinished – particularly around the delivery of a transparent and fair carbon market mechanism. A functioning global market for carbon is critical, but then negotiations must also consider how to ensure delivery of the new announcements on methane reduction and deforestation.
But back within the conference itself, the key theme for Monday was ‘Adaptation, Loss and Damage’. This aspect is of vital importance given we are already experiencing 1.2oC of warming and feeling the effects. Indeed, a good friend of mine, Dr Morgan Phillips, in his role as Director of the Glacier Trust, has recently written a book entitled Great Adaptations on just this topic. I heartily recommend this read for anyone interested in finding out more about the impacts already being experienced in countries across the globe and the crucial need to adapt to our changed and changing climate, not just mitigate carbon emissions.
In my opinion, a key element of adaptation should focus on landscape and diet, ensuring the soya we currently harvest is fed directly to people not animals, growing an expanded range of plant-protein crops, reversing deforestation and encouraging rewilding on land previously used for pasture. This type of natural management could provide a future landscape which acts as a carbon sink, reducing flood risk and encouraging greater biodiversity and wildlife tourism. However, once again, the narrative is constrained within the need for “sustainable agriculture.” Perhaps the negotiations over the next few days will elicit more details.
Or perhaps not. After all, with news reports today picking up that the fossil fuel industry has more delegates in Glasgow than any one country, I wonder how many animal agriculture and meat industry representatives are also present to ensure agreements don’t infringe on their vested interests…
=====
Day six – Good natured discussions?
And so, the great day arrived! The ‘Nature and Land Use’ day. How would the conversation on the world’s diet, food systems and agriculture pan out? What ground-breaking ambition would be put forward? How excited would I be by the end of the day?! Not very, unfortunately…
The pledges didn’t create anything like the excitement generated by the deforestation and methane pledges made earlier this week. The UK grabbed the headlines, announcing a promise from 45 nations which will set out new commitments to protect nature and change agricultural policies to become more sustainable and less polluting. Try as I might I could not find reference to the need to reduce meat and dairy consumption, despite numerous scientific reports stating this is required. As ever, I guess the devil is in the detail. But with our food system generating a third of all the world’s greenhouse gases, we have to get to a stage of maturity where the issue of what we eat is tackled head-on, without fear of upsetting vested interests or being accused of telling people what they can and can’t eat. We are running out of time.
No less than the UK’s environment secretary, George Eustice, said: “To keep 1.5 degrees alive, we need action from every part of society, including an urgent transformation in the way we manage ecosystems and grow, produce and consume food on a global scale.” I couldn’t agree more. What he didn’t say was that this would require you to eat less meat – and you can’t help but feel the influence of the meat and livestock sector in preventing world leaders from being bolder and more straightforward in their announcements.
In other news, business stepped up to do their bit with major food retailers Tesco, Sainsbury’s, M&S, Waitrose and the Co-op promising to halve the environmental impact of a weekly shop by the end of the decade, focused on reducing carbon emissions, deforestation, food waste and packaging. This commitment is laudable and may well require a greater shift to plant-based products and away from meat, as one of the quickest and easiest ways to cut emissions.
So, no great excitement, maybe after reading the detail of the commitments I will feel more hopeful. As ever, we’ll see!
No blog on Sunday as it’s a rest day for conference. Roll on week two…!
=====
Day five – Bright young things
So, COP26 finally arrives at its first weekend. For me, Saturday is the day I’ve been eagerly anticipating most – because it’s the day agriculture and land use gets its moment in the sun. I’m looking forward to a raft of animal-friendly pledges to significantly reduce meat consumption, step back from intensive farming, and boost investment into plant-based proteins. Well you can dream… we’ll see by close of play!
But for now it’s time to look back on Friday. The theme was ‘Youth and Public Empowerment’, which sought to elevate the voice of young people and demonstrate the critical role of public empowerment and education in climate action. As someone who was previously involved in supporting the Eco-Schools programme across England, it was great to hear the Education Secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, announce a new science curriculum for 2023 which will, he says, deliver world-leading climate education to students. The media focus was understandably on Greta Thunberg and the thousands who marched into Glasgow City Centre to hear her speak. It’s hard to disagree with her sentiment that the COP26 events have started to increasingly resemble PR events. However, inside the conference halls, the hard work was undeniably still going on.
In particular, the 77 page Global Youth Statement, prepared in advance of COP26 and representing the views of 40,000 young people from all over the world, was presented to key COP26 leaders, with the various demands then debated through the day. I’d recommend having a read. It’s not a document full of unicorns – it’s a really well-researched manifesto, the language is mature, and the desire for a better world shines through.
In the report they encourage “all parties to raise awareness amongst consumers on the environmental impact of the meat and dairy industry.” Also they state “livestock expansion and intensive agriculture are recognised as contributing factors in global pandemics and thus their prevention must be included in food and agriculture policies.” The report also urges the “provision of healthy, sustainable and plant-forward food at all levels of primary and higher education.” Is it right that I feel a little disappointed the report wasn’t more assertive about meat and the need to reduce consumption? Possibly, but perhaps, at least for now, that’s asking too much in a report that seeks to achieve consensus from young people representing countries and cultures right across the globe. There is clearly a need to consider fairness and delivery of a ‘just transition’ when it comes to action on climate. Sustainable mixed agricultural practices, particularly in developing countries, remains a component part of the short-term transition. But in the longer term I hope more young people will come to recognise that a world without animal agriculture and meat consumption can be instrumental in delivery of the fairer and more sustainable world they wish to see.
=====
Day four – Coal gets the sack…
Another day at COP26, and yet another pledge – this time the ‘Coal Pledge’. Altogether over 40 countries have stated they will move away from using coal. However, party poopers China and the US have not signed up, displaying once again the challenges of getting agreements over the line when so many vested interests and political alliances ‘back home’ have to be taken into account by leaders and ruling parties. This despite the fact that the pledge does not commit any one nation to exact deadlines, beyond suggesting that rich nations would phase out coal use in the 2030s, with poorer nations given until the 2040s. And, once again, none of this is legally binding. There are no sanctions for not complying… beyond the obvious risk of climate breakdown, of course.
It was great to see increasing media coverage of the conference focusing on meat and in particular the impact of beef in articles such as this story in Forbes. Top prize, in my opinion anyway, goes to the Big Issue with their article titled “The COP26 menu is like serving cigarettes at a lung cancer conference.” Now that’s what I call a headline! The piece focused on the fact that foods such as beef burger and haggis were being offered to delegates, despite the menu’s own carbon calculator showing them as being far more carbon intensive than plant-based options (a subject I touched on in my blog from yesterday). Why on earth are these anywhere near a climate conference? Naturally, we’re back to vested interests and home politics.
Finally for today, I’m ending on the story that our own PM Boris Johnson is under pressure to explain why he is using a private jet to return to London after COP26 rather than the train. Downing Street was at pains to stress the PM’s busy schedule and the importance of getting him around the country in rapid time for important state business. This was somewhat undermined, however, by the story that broke today regarding the PM taking said private jet back to London on Tuesday evening to attend a reunion of Telegraph journalists hosted by climate sceptic, Lord Charles Moore. A lot of talk at the conference has been about actions being louder than words. Well, in this specific case they are – and deafeningly so – but unfortunately for entirely the wrong reasons. Is it any wonder climate protesters have stepped up their efforts in Glasgow to try and make their voices heard? As advocates for the benefits of a vegetarian diet and reducing meat consumption, the Vegetarian Society will increasingly have a key role to play in amongst this growing throng demanding a better, fairer world.
=====
Day three – Money talks…
Day three was ‘Finance Day’ at COP26 – arguably one of the most important days, given the underpinning importance of finance and its deployment, in terms of tackling global heating.
It’s useful to bear in mind just how critical this conference has become. Just a 1.1°C rise on the average pre-industrial temperature is leading to wildfires, floods and unpredictable weather, and it’s glaringly obvious every future 0.1°C increase will have a tangible impact on the lives of people and wildlife across the globe. Staying within 1.5°C is critical.
Yesterday seemed to conclude with cautious optimism. Perhaps the showpiece announcement was the fact that 450 organisations, controlling around 40% of global assets worth $130 trillion dollars (no, I can’t imagine that amount of money either), plan to move their investments into zero carbon activities and away from carbon intensive activities. This ‘Financial Alliance for Net Zero‘ is focused on 2050, but with 2030 interim targets focused on driving action in the immediate future. The pessimists are of course watching closely, and in the absence of a global price for carbon, the need for short-term investment returns could still override longer-term ambition.
All of the media reports have predictably focused on the impact this new alliance may have in driving investment into clean energy and away from oil, coal and gas. I have yet to see any narrative around our food system, diet and agriculture. Will investments into the meat and livestock industry ultimately be viewed in the same way as fossil fuels? Will this drive even greater investment into meat substitutes, a buoyant and growing market, which I commented on in a recent article. Conversely, will it drive investment away from animal agriculture and the associated land clearances in South America and Africa? It clearly should. Maybe we’ll find out more this coming Saturday, when the negotiation turns to land use and agriculture. But for now it’s fair to say the Glasgow conference is outperforming, admittedly low, expectations.
=====
Day two – So, the obvious question is: why is beef even on the menu?
The second meaningful day at COP26 has drawn to a close, and it’s been a pretty impactful one in the broader scheme of things, with some eye-catching outcomes. The pledge to end, and indeed reverse, deforestation was first off the blocks, with 110 countries signed up including Brazil, under the leadership of the climate sceptic Jair Bolsanaro. Altogether the pledging countries cover 85% of the world’s forests, so if this pledge is adhered to, it’ll be a genuinely significant step in the right direction. Of course, there is no guarantee countries will adhere to the pledge – national economics and politics often override these agreements, which have no legal standing. Case in point, following a similar pledge made in 2014, the rate of deforestation actually increased. However, the current wildfires, floods and storms around world mean the heating of our climate is an issue of both national and international importance now. Additionally, if more people cut out or reduce meat in their diets this could, of course, reduce the pressure to fell trees and create more land for cattle grazing or soya, the majority of which is used to feed pigs and poultry around the world.
I referenced the Global Methane Pledge in yesterday’s blog, and its launch in September backed by the US and EU. As of today, almost 90 countries have now signed the pledge including, once again, Brazil. Has Jair Bolsonaro had a Damascene moment? I’ll reserve judgement, after all, it’s action not words (or “blah, blah, blah” as Greta Thunberg says) that count. Unfortunately, China, India and Russia have failed to sign, despite earlier indications that they might, once again underlining the hugely complex issues and negotiations that make the pace of change glacial, if you’ll pardon the pun.
And finally, I’ll sign off by demonstrating how challenging it is to get past the vested interests that fight against positive change and the resulting cognitive dissonance this produces. The Compass Group have done a splendid job in ensuring there is a “kg of carbon dioxide” measure associated with each of the menu options, allowing participants and delegates to adopt the kind of “low-carb” diet we need for the future. The beef burger on the menu tops the list by some distance with 3.9kg CO2. This illustrates perfectly why reducing or eliminating meat consumption is a priority. So, the obvious question is: why is beef even on the menu? It’s Scottish beef, of course. No doubt the meat industry will have lobbied hard to get a place at the table, literally, which in itself is a little vignette of what we vegetarians are up against in creating that fairer, kinder, more sustainable world we all want to see.
=====
Day one – The sound of cans being kicked down the road becomes deafening… but I remain hopeful.
So, COP26 has finally kicked off – a year late due to the pandemic. But that 12 month delay has brought the issue of climate change, or ‘global heating’ as it’s now being called, into sharp relief with wildfires and floods making the news on a far too regular basis. Each day I’ll be rounding up the key events from the conference, in particular keeping a close eye on how the critical issue of diet and the need to reduce, and ultimately move away from, meat production and consumption is being tackled.
Day one was always going to be about the big speeches and the grandstanding as we “strive to keep 1.5°C alive.” With 120 world leaders at the event, they were each given three minutes to say their piece, and set the ambition for the rest of the conference. Already it feels like we’re behind, with the underwhelming G20 meeting in Italy at the weekend falling short on commitments but long on warm words. The outcome that the G20 would pursue “meaningful and effective action” feels like too many conference set-pieces from years gone by. We deserve better from a group representing around 80% of global emissions.
A key highlight of the speeches, following the rousing talk by David Attenborough, included US President Joe Biden confirming his commitment to re-join the Paris Agreement. However, with India’s PM Narendra Modi stating they would achieve net-zero by 2070, and China and Russia proclaiming 2060 targets, there remains much to be done to force the pace of change. Long-term targets are fine but without short-term action, focused on 2030 when we need to halve current global emissions, the sound of cans being kicked down the road becomes deafening.
Specific references to identifiable action were limited, as expected on the opening day. The substantial discussions will get underway from now. We will keep a clear eye on the emerging themes, particularly focused on diet and meat consumption. Encouragingly and prior to COP26, the US and EU jointly launched the Global Methane Pledge, which targets a 30% cut in methane emission by 2030, compared to 2020 levels. Given the majority of methane emissions come from animal agriculture, it’ll be interesting to see what commitments are made to tackle this source – particularly as estimates suggest that 50% of the current 1°C rise in temperature arises from atmospheric methane.
Over the course of COP26, I very much hope to be able to report that the issues caused by animal agriculture and the urgent need to reduce global consumption of meat are key features of negotiations alongside fossil fuel use, energy and transport. I remain hopeful.