Silo Thinking in a dilemma– Climate Change and Farm Animal Welfare

Solving for climate change mitigation and farm animal welfare enjoys a naturally synergistic relationship.? Reduce meat consumption and we reduce animal suffering as well as reduce methane emissions and deforestation.? Yet in a World where meat consumption is so ingrained in most food cultures this is not happening at the pace we need.? Instead, we create the opposite – an antagonistic relationship where farm animals are kept under unfathomably poor conditions partially justified by its positive impact on climate change.

Is that acceptable?? Does solving one problem (climate change) at the expense of increasing another problem (farm animal welfare) ever acceptable and does it have to be like that?? That is what I am looking into in this article.? It expands on my article Can carbon credits promote welfare for livestock and wild animals (link ).?

I am increasingly worried that we solve problems in siloes.? I appreciate that this article can be read as an attempt to shame people into stop eating meat.? It is not.? We all have different values and priorities, and I have long since stopped trying to preach mine.? I am no more perfect than anybody else.? I simply plea that we look to solve issues of climate change and animal welfare holistically or at least not antagonistically and that farm animal rights not to be forgotten until we solve climate change and all the other important human problems.? The suffering of billions of sentiment beings that we produce and kill each year under often horrifying conditions deserve better.?

I put my own hope that a new generation of corporates will emerge as “animal welfare champions” in the same way some have legitimately and profitably emerged as “climate change champions”.?

Executive Summary

• Solving for climate change mitigation and farm animal enjoys a naturally synergistic relationship.? Reduce meat consumption and we reduce animal suffering and reduce methane emissions and deforestation.? Yet in a World where meat consumption is ingrained in most cultures this is not happening at the pace we need.? ?
• Instead, of find solutions to mitigate climate change that involves keeping farm animals locked in farms and feeding them additives that combined reduce animal welfare and thus create an antagonistic relation.? Put differently, we can use the excuse of climate change mitigation to continue with our meat consumption.? But we should not.? We are not talking about small numbers of animals either. Each year more than 1,2 trillion animals each year or more than 15 animals per person – link .
• If we must make a choice between climate change and farm animal welfare who decides what takes priority?? It likely will be those who have the resources to speak the loudest and who has a case that most resonates with decisions makers in government and consumers.? Money matters and as an indication climate change most funding > 1 trillion (link ) , biodiversity gets second most (about USD 140bn (link ) and animal welfare almost nothing.? We need more money for all causes, but we need even more for animal welfare.
• It is worth taking note of that the UN and researchers have recognised some of these concerns and advocate that we solve for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) holistically and by prioritising those that have highest synergies.? Sadly, farm animal welfare does not have its own SDG and is scarcely mentioned in the target for the 17 SDGs.? It is an orphan.
• There are practical examples of synergistic relationships such a rotational farming or more veterinary attendance (which cost money) but these won’t solve the problem of farm animal welfare at scale.? Maybe one day cultured meat will but until then reducing meat consumption remains a core tenant of the solution.
• But I do have some hope for the role of corporates.? We have seen successful corporates taking on climate change and getting brand recognition and revenue for it.? But climate change / reducing greenhouse gas emission is expensive at the scale whether it matters, and few have found the business case. In contrast farm animal welfare is a more tangible issue, closer to home and where simpler initiatives (low hanging fruits) to change procurement, policies and lending practices (for financial institutions), can yield much higher recognition in a field where few champions exist globally.

A natural synergistic relation turning antagonistic

The most obvious synergistic relationship between climate change and farm animal welfare would be for an increase in veganism or at least reduced meat consumption. But that’s simply not happening or at least not fast enough.? Most people don't want to give up eating meat and I have long stopped “preaching”.? Despite the many calls for a “reducetarian” diet, and despite the plentiful warnings of meat’s negative health impacts of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease many western countries still eat 200+ pounds per person.? It should in fairness be said that some countries have formally recognized an obligation to protect animal welfare (link ).? Also, on average consumers in high-income countries are more likely to support price premiums on meat for animal welfare concerns, rather than sustainability concerns (like ) but such willingness stated in surveys are not always displayed in actual buying patters or at least not to a sufficient degree.? We have seen this in Denmark with the “Turbo Chickens” (Ross 308) that was withdrawn by supermarkets and then reintroduced (link ).

So, with a meat industry that is not reducing we end up with antagonistic where farm animals must suffer in the name of climate change mitigation.? Why?? Because farm animals that are free range require more space and hence lead to deforestation.? In addition, the digestive system of e.g. cows release methane gas that we cannot capture for free range animals.? Then better to lock them up in farms under very poor conditions and feed them new food additives (bovaer) that reduces the methane (link ).? ??All in the name of climate change mitigation.

Note here that the potential synergistic relationship between wildlife preservation (and welfare) and climate change is a lot stronger (link ) both in terms of wildlife’s positive impact on forest preservation and carbon sequestration (link ) and advocated by some as potential carbon sinks in their own rights.?

Solving in Siloes

I am increasingly worried that we solve problems in siloes.??? We justify neglecting one problem in the name of another.? I appreciate some problems are larger than others and climate change is a critical one.? I also appreciate that we must focus and that an attempts to solve for all problems at once may be haphazardness and fool hearted.? Nevertheless, I don’t even see a debate about this, and we need one.?

The UN already recognises the importance of solving for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) holistically (link ) and researchers recommend (link ) we should prioritise solving SDGs that have most synergies with others. By extension we ought not to prioritise an SDG if it creates important other problems. Of course, we cannot and should not stop solving for climate change, but we should do it in a way that at least is not antagonistic to animal welfare.? But….. unfortunately farm animal welfare does not have a separate SDG or even more than a minimal mentioning as a target within the SDGS.?? It is an orphan.

The question becomes, who gets to decide what global problems to solve and whether it is acceptable to sacrifice say animal welfare for climate?? The answer to me is that it is those who can influence and that is normally either those with money or public sentiment.? The farm animal welfare movement are dwarfed by those promoting climate change mitigation and retaining the current status quo of animal farming.? Climate change has most public support and existing animal farming is strongly supported by both the corporates that profit from it and governments that offer large subsidies. Hierarchy where climate change receives most funding (> 1 trillion (link )), biodiversity gets second most (about USD 140bn (link ) and animal welfare almost nothing.?

And again consumers are not willing to give up meet.? We don’t want to change (link ) or even pay a sufficient price premium for meat from animals that leave bearable lives (link ).? Importantly, this is not an attempt to pass moral judgement on anybody. Certainly, climate change needs even more attention and funding but it is an attempt to diagnose a root cause of why farm animal welfare, in my opinion, is overlooked in policy setting as well as corporate and consumer actions.

So, if we can’t use SGDs or appeal to morality what argument may be raised?? Perhaps a more potent argument can be found in the fact that when animals are stressed and kept in poor conditions, they (physically and mentally) can be more susceptible to health issues, including diseases they could potentially transmit to humans (link ).? Our own health ought to get our attention.? Accordingly the One Health Expert Panel has called for solutions that “recognize the importance of animal welfare and the integrity of the whole ecosystem” (link ).

Is there another way? Is there any practical solution where a symbiotic relationship can be created?nbsp; From my experience the answer is “yes” but not to sufficient scale.nbsp;nbsp; I hope I am wrong but reducing meat consumption is a core tenant to the answer.nbsp; Nevertheless, here are some solutions suggested by others:

• Improving livestock management in the developing world. Methodologies like rotational grazing practices can increase production efficiency (and / or generate carbon credits) and improve farm animal welfare at the same time (link )
• Better veterinary care.? This would perhaps obviously benefit animal welfare but also climate change mitigation through higher production efficiency. There is of course an additional cost to this and the veterinarian will continue to face challenging judgment calls and conversations about whether animal welfare is sufficient to meet regulation (and own morale index) but that is a conversation for a different article (link ).
• Cultured meat.? Whilst plant-based meat has enjoyed some popularity it has yet to replace meat production.? Cultured meat grown from stem-cells in labs, when it lives up to its potential both scientifically and economically, I hope, would reduce the need for farm grown meet.? Not a synergistic solution per se, but a solution that could scale possibly.

Is there an opportunity for corporates to be the hero?

Is there an opportunity for corporates to be the hero? Yes, and in there lies hope. ?Looking at the financial institutions? (link ) it is obvious that their policies and procedures as well as actions for supporting animal welfare is far less developed than for issues such a gender, climate change or many other issues within sustainability.? Looking at corporates I see much the same patters.? And whilst the current state of affairs may be discouraging it also offers the biggest potential for rapid improvements.? Corporates and financial institutions can make smaller changes that are not costly and create a lot larger positive impact than for say climate change where many are facing the costly reality of creating marginal reduction to their scope 1-3.??

Examples include things such as:

• Changing procurement practice to source food for corporate settings (corporate canteens and social gatherings) from suppliers that demonstrably practice animal welfare.
• Changing procurement practice or selling practices to exclude suppliers that practice animal testing of products except where no viable alternative exist.
• Sourcing material for products that are made from alternatives to animal products.
• Reducing meat consumption and having policies against covering representation of clients where food from endangered species (e.g. shark fin).
• Lending policies against lending to companies that operate to endanger animals on the endangered list .

These are all initiatives that are relatively easy to implement and where the impact and positive exposure can be significant.? Corporates can be genuine champions in an area that is much less competitive and equally impactful to other issues of sustainability.

Final Thoughts

Maybe technology will provide a solution.? Maybe a new generation of consumers will demand better animal welfare and maybe governments will take a tougher stand.? I hope so but I don’t believe it will happen at the pace needed.? I hope we will say a wave of corporates that she the opportunity to become farm animal welfare champions – profitably - and that they increasingly become the positive driver of change.?