Environment – The price of meat

Humans have been eating meat for at least 10,000 years, though not at the scale and with the health and environmental costs that are generated today. New Zealanders are the world’s fourth largest meat consumers per capita, three times the world meat average, according to some figures. Kiwis eat 115kg of meat per annum. In 2017, 72kg of this was red meat, down from 84.7kg in 2007.

Only four per cent of New Zealanders are vegetarians, but this represents an increase of 27 per cent since 2011. Vegetarianism is rising, especially among those aged 14-34, North Islanders and men. No wonder vegetarians and vegans feel virtuous – as well as preventing suffering and saving the lives of countless animals, they have a lower environmental impact. Meat eaters contribute 2.5 times the greenhouse gas emissions of vegans.

Even though red meat consumption has declined by about 22kg a person per annum in the 10 years to 2017, in favour of pork and poultry, meat consumption globally is predicted to increase by 75 per cent over the next 30 years. Partly that’s due to an estimated additional 2.3 billion people on the planet by 2050, and partly because of an increase in global income leading to more meat-rich western diets adopted around the world.

But there’s a problem with our meat addiction. For one thing, there is the burden on the public health system of humans carrying other animals’ fat on our waistlines and in our arteries, but there’s also a problem for the environment. Globally, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture contribute more than all transport emissions combined. Governments are doing a little (not enough) to tackle transport emissions by applying taxes to disincentivise inefficient transport use and by investing in alternatives. ‘Sin taxes’ are applied on other unhealthy consumer goods such as sugar and tobacco to offset public health costs. But the meat industry seems untouchable.

If we had an equitable ‘polluter pays’ system, the price of meat would include the cost of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, deforestation, water shortages, dead streams, dead lakes, dead rivers, dead oceans, declining public health, and lost opportunity costs to future generations. Instead, overt and hidden subsidies encourage unsustainable consumption. There’s an emerging global consensus about the dangers of excessive meat consumption to planetary and human health. It’s certainly fatal for animals. Researchers from around the world say that our appetite for meat needs to change if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate change, and to feed the growing global population.

Studies show that beef consumption in the western world needs to drop by 90 per cent if we are to avoid major environmental and biospheric collapse. To change this behaviour will require a range of tools: a combination of media and education campaigns; labelling and consumer information; fiscal measures, such as taxation, subsidies, and other economic incentives; school and workplace approaches; local environmental changes; and direct restriction and mandates.  At this rate, almost everything must change. It won’t happen overnight, but every meal matters.

Sources:
www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/10/meat-tax-might-be-needed-to-save-the-world-study
www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/06/taxing-red-meat-would-save-many-lives-research-shows
www.europebreakingnews.net/2018/10/meat-tax-might-be-needed-to-save-the-world
www.businessinsider.com/oxford-university-says-taxing-meat-and-dairy-would-cut-emissions-and-save-lives-2016-11
www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2016_11_Emissions

Christine Rose
christine.rose25@gmail.com