The Ministry for the Future is a sci-fi novel in which the climate crisis is an emergency so dire that it forces humankind to shift course. In the book, a catastrophic Indian heatwave in the near future causes the death of more than 20 million people. Climate activism turns to terrorism, and the author, Kim Stanley Robinson, writes about how panic induces behavioural change. To rid people of their addiction to beef – responsible for 8.5% of human-induced climate emissions in 2015 – mad cow disease is cultured by climate terrorists and injected by drones into millions of herds all over the world. Cows die off and beef, now too risky to eat, quickly comes off the menu.
Nothing so drastic has been advocated by the UK government’s food tsar, Henry Dimbleby. He sensibly favours public messaging based on persuasion rather than fear. The science is clear: animal-based foods account for 57% of agricultural greenhouse gases versus 29% for food from plants. By cooking meat, people are cooking themselves. That explains why Mr Dimbleby is in a hurry. Ministers, he told the Guardian, need to warn the public that they have to stop eating meat to save the planet.
Mr Dimbleby believes that a 30% meat reduction over 10 years is required for land to be used sustainably in England. Currently, 85% of agricultural land in England is used for pasture for grazing animals such as cows or to grow food that is then fed to livestock. Despite polls conducted for the government showing support for some meat reduction measures – such as setting targets for supermarkets – none were included in the food strategy white paper released this June. Mr Dimbleby understands that the public won’t be easily moved. Meat-eating is sold as necessary, even though red and processed meats have been linked to cancer and heart disease. Early humans mostly ate vegetables. But eating meat was long seen as something to aspire to – and peer pressure makes it harder to change habits.
Perhaps the answer is to shame the public into action over its gluttony. To eat within our planetary boundaries – that is, with no net environmental damage – it has been estimated that we should consume no more than 98g of red meat, 203g of poultry and 196g of fish a week. However, in high-income countries such as Britain, households are currently consuming double this. Putting one’s needs ahead of others’ is not only unfair but also dangerous for the planet. Thankfully the mood is shifting. The rise in vegetarian and vegan diets reveals a conscious effort to reduce meat intake.
Different diets will shift the industry slowly, but may not transform food production systems quickly enough. That will need governments to act – and to treat eating meat like burning coal. Greener alternatives such as precision fermentation can produce animal-free eggs, milk and meat. Bill McKibben, writing about The Ministry of the Future, noted that in the book it is legislation that creates “a new legal regime that is fair, just, sustainable, and secure” to solve the climate crisis. Developed countries ought to think hard about the UN message last year that they should reconsider their support “for an outsized meat and dairy industry, which accounts for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions”. This is not a call to end rich-world farming, but rather to end a form of farming that risks costing the planet. Mr Dimbleby deserves to be heard.
