A coalition of global investors is urging some of the largest fast food companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The group, which has approximately $6.5 trillion under management, wants the fast food chains to reduce the carbon footprint of their meat and dairy supply chains.
The global fast food sector is reportedly worth a whopping $570 billion annually. The coalition has targeted some of the most notable contributors to that figure, including McDonald’s, KFC, Domino’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, Pizza Hut, and Chipotle.
According to the investors, animal agriculture is one of the world’s highest-emitting sectors without a low-carbon plan. If left unchecked, emissions from animal agriculture alone would contribute 70% of the total worldwide target for emissions in 2050 that would keep the global rise in temperature below 2C. Animal agriculture also uses an estimated 10% of annual global water flows.
In their letter to the fast food giants, the investors are calling on the companies to implement clear requirements for suppliers of animal proteins to report and reduce their greenhouse gas and freshwater impacts. They want fast food companies to publish quantitative, time bound targets for reductions, and commit to publicly disclose the progress on these targets.
Climate change is increasingly a factor for investors when evaluating market risk. This investor letter comes just weeks after the EAT-Lancet commission report was published, in which their experts suggest that a sustainable diet for the planet by 2050 will require a 90% reduction in red meat and milk consumption.
Fast food may need to slow down.
**********
Web Links
Fast food giants under fire on climate and water usage
The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health
Photo, posted May 19, 2014, courtesy of Mike Mozart via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
It depends totally on how the animals are raised. Pasture is a carbon sink, and while livestock has been reduced in the last decade or two methane is on the rise. NASA recently pointed to gas and oil as the reasons why; not livestock. In addition rice fields and tilled soil account for much in the way of emissions not animal agriculture. The global corporates and billionaires pushing this agenda include tech giants who have invested heavily in fake meat – with no estimates of what producing such in industrialized development (without pasture benefits and using fossil fuels) would contribute. As for water use that depends what type of water. If its a mega dairy in the middle east sure, but Wales 12 million sheep for eg, as well as all being on carbon sequestrating pasture, use natural water – its a heavy rainfall nation. In addition animals also produce clothing as bi product. Wool for example is long lasting whereas petro chemical fast fashion is derived from oil and has a life of approx 3 months before landfill bound with associated problems of biodegradability. Cotton too use a great deal of water – look at the Aral sea. In addition wool for eg reduces the need for fossil fuel use. Monocrop agriculture too uses masses of water in California for eg with almond crop, and also has had a terrible effect on bees – indeed arable and associated pesticides is causing an insect apocalypse with areas as diverse as Puerto Rico and Germany recording 75% drops in insects which could be catastrophic. Animal agriculture does not have these side effects. So any science that doesn’t take all this into account is simply flawed. But it won’t stop the tech giants and billionaires eager to divert attention from their own emissions (the tech sector is expected to be responsible for 14% of emissions over the next decade and with its built in obsoletion model of consumerism the waste is enormous too) pushing this agenda.