IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v165y2021i1d10.1007_s10584-021-03047-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver Lazarus

    (New York University
    Harvard University)

  • Sonali McDermid

    (New York University)

  • Jennifer Jacquet

    (New York University)

Abstract

Our view of responsibility for climate change has expanded to include the actions of firms, particularly fossil fuel producers. Yet analysis of animal agriculture’s role in climate change—estimated as 14.5% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions—has mainly focused on the sector as a whole. Here we examine the world’s 35 largest meat and dairy companies for their commitments to mitigating climate change and find four companies that have made an explicit commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050. In general, these commitments emphasized mitigating energy use, with minimal focus on emissions (e.g., methane) from animal and land use, which make the biggest warming contributions in the agricultural sector. We also compare the companies’ projected global emissions under a business-as-usual scenario to their headquarter countries’ future emissions, assuming each country’s compliance with their commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement. Taking this view of responsibility and emissions accounting (which is not the conception of responsibility in the Paris Agreement), our results show that including industrial meat and dairy producers’ full global emissions in national accounting would impact national targets for greenhouse gas reductions. As examples, by our calculations, two companies—Fonterra in New Zealand, and Nestlé in Switzerland—would make up more than 100% of their headquarter country’s total emissions target in the coming decade. Finally, we evaluated using 20 yes-or-no questions and a variety of sources the transparency of emissions reporting, mitigation commitments, and influence on public opinion and politics of the 10 US meat and dairy companies. According to the evidence we collected, all 10 US companies have contributed to efforts to undermine climate-related policies. Each of these analyses approaches responsibility in new and different ways. Under the swiftly changing social conditions provoked by climate change, we can expect new imaginings of responsibility for GHG emissions, as well as increased attention to the role of corporate actors and their accountability for climate change impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver Lazarus & Sonali McDermid & Jennifer Jacquet, 2021. "The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-21, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:165:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03047-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-021-03047-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-021-03047-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-021-03047-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mario Herrero & Benjamin Henderson & Petr Havlík & Philip K. Thornton & Richard T. Conant & Pete Smith & Stefan Wirsenius & Alexander N. Hristov & Pierre Gerber & Margaret Gill & Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, 2016. "Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(5), pages 452-461, May.
    2. Schneider, Uwe A. & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through Agriculture," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-5.
    3. Uwe A. Schneider & Pete Smith, 2008. "Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation and Emission Intensities in Agriculture," Working Papers FNU-164, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jul 2008.
    4. Robert Brulle, 2014. "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 681-694, February.
    5. Pushpam Kumar & Uwe A. Schneider, 2008. "Greenhouse gas emission mitigation through agriculture," Working Papers FNU-155, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Feb 2008.
    6. William J. Ripple & Pete Smith & Helmut Haberl & Stephen A. Montzka & Clive McAlpine & Douglas H. Boucher, 2014. "Ruminants, climate change and climate policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 2-5, January.
    7. Richard Heede, 2014. "Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 229-241, January.
    8. Rotz, C. Alan & Asem-Hiablie, Senorpe & Place, Sara & Thoma, Greg, 2019. "Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 1-13.
    9. Peter Frumhoff & Richard Heede & Naomi Oreskes, 2015. "The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 157-171, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clare, Kathryn & Maani, Nason & Milner, James, 2022. "Meat, money and messaging: How the environmental and health harms of red and processed meat consumption are framed by the meat industry," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Richard Twine, 2021. "Emissions from Animal Agriculture—16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-8, June.
    3. Martin C. Parlasca & Matin Qaim, 2022. "Meat Consumption and Sustainability," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 17-41, October.
    4. M. Kanerva, 2022. "Consumption Corridors and the Case of Meat," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 619-653, December.
    5. Sonali Shukla McDermid & Matthew Hayek & Dale W. Jamieson & Galina Hale & David Kanter, 2023. "Research needs for a food system transition," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Richard Bärnthaler & Andreas Novy & Lea Arzberger & Astrid Krisch & Hans Volmary, 2024. "The power to transform structures: power complexes and the challenges for realising a wellbeing economy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amanda Silva‐Parra & Juan Manuel Trujillo‐González & Eric C. Brevik, 2021. "Greenhouse gas balance and mitigation potential of agricultural systems in Colombia: A systematic analysis," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 11(3), pages 554-572, June.
    2. Kim, Daesoo & Stoddart, Nick & Rotz, C. Alan & Veltman, Karin & Chase, Larry & Cooper, Joyce & Ingraham, Pete & Izaurralde, R. César & Jones, Curtis D. & Gaillard, Richard & Aguirre-Villegas, Horacio , 2019. "Analysis of beneficial management practices to mitigate environmental impacts in dairy production systems around the Great Lakes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Mayberry, Dianne & Bartlett, Harriet & Moss, Jonathan & Davison, Thomas & Herrero, Mario, 2019. "Pathways to carbon-neutrality for the Australian red meat sector," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 13-21.
    4. Hari Wahyu Wijayanto & Kai-An Lo & Hery Toiba & Moh Shadiqur Rahman, 2022. "Does Agroforestry Adoption Affect Subjective Well-Being? Empirical Evidence from Smallholder Farmers in East Java, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-10, August.
    5. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.
    6. Huarui Gong & Jing Li & Zhen Liu & Yitao Zhang & Ruixing Hou & Zhu Ouyang, 2022. "Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Cropping Systems by Organic Fertilizer and Tillage Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    7. David Bryngelsson & Fredrik Hedenus & Daniel J. A. Johansson & Christian Azar & Stefan Wirsenius, 2017. "How Do Dietary Choices Influence the Energy-System Cost of Stabilizing the Climate?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    8. Soy-Massoni, Emma & Langemeyer, Johannes & Varga, Diego & Sáez, Marc & Pintó, Josep, 2016. "The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: Case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 43-52.
    9. Telmo José Mendes & Diego Silva Siqueira & Eduardo Barretto Figueiredo & Ricardo de Oliveira Bordonal & Mara Regina Moitinho & José Marques Júnior & Newton La Scala Jr., 2021. "Soil carbon stock estimations: methods and a case study of the Maranhão State, Brazil," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16410-16427, November.
    10. Ancuta Isbasoiu & Pierre-Alain Jayet & Stéphane De Cara, 2021. "Increasing food production and mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union: impacts of carbon pricing and calorie production targeting," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(2), pages 409-440, April.
    11. Chen, Jiandong & Cheng, Shulei & Song, Malin, 2018. "Changes in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions of the agricultural sector in China from 2005 to 2013," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 748-761.
    12. Wang, Guangshuai & Liang, Yueping & Zhang, Qian & Jha, Shiva K. & Gao, Yang & Shen, Xiaojun & Sun, Jingsheng & Duan, Aiwang, 2016. "Mitigated CH4 and N2O emissions and improved irrigation water use efficiency in winter wheat field with surface drip irrigation in the North China Plain," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 403-407.
    13. Saw Min & Martin Rulík, 2020. "Comparison of Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Fluxes between Conventional and Conserved Irrigated Rice Paddy Fields in Myanmar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-19, July.
    14. Connor, Melanie & de Guia, Annalyn H. & Quilloy, Reianne & Van Nguyen, Hung & Gummert, Martin & Sander, Bjoern Ole, 2020. "When climate change is not psychologically distant – Factors influencing the acceptance of sustainable farming practices in the Mekong river Delta of Vietnam," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    15. Franco-Luesma, Samuel & Álvaro-Fuentes, Jorge & Plaza-Bonilla, Daniel & Arrúe, José Luis & Cantero-Martínez, Carlos & Cavero, José, 2019. "Influence of irrigation time and frequency on greenhouse gas emissions in a solid-set sprinkler-irrigated maize under Mediterranean conditions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 303-311.
    16. Anna Kocira & Mariola Staniak & Marzena Tomaszewska & Rafał Kornas & Jacek Cymerman & Katarzyna Panasiewicz & Halina Lipińska, 2020. "Legume Cover Crops as One of the Elements of Strategic Weed Management and Soil Quality Improvement. A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-41, September.
    17. Kerstin Jantke & Martina J. Hartmann & Livia Rasche & Benjamin Blanz & Uwe A. Schneider, 2020. "Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Knowledge and Positions of German Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-13, April.
    18. Song, Guobao & Song, Jie & Zhang, Shushen, 2016. "Modelling the policies of optimal straw use for maximum mitigation of climate change in China from a system perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 789-810.
    19. Kathrin Hasler & Hans-Werner Olfs & Onno Omta & Stefanie Bröring, 2016. "Drivers for the Adoption of Eco-Innovations in the German Fertilizer Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Miomir Jovanović & Ljiljana Kašćelan & Aleksandra Despotović & Vladimir Kašćelan, 2015. "The Impact of Agro-Economic Factors on GHG Emissions: Evidence from European Developing and Advanced Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-21, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:165:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03047-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.