The old aphorism “may you live in interesting times” has seldom been more apt. With so much attention understandably focusing on the conflict in Ukraine, it’s easy to forget the multitude of other human tragedies unfolding elsewhere in the World, from famine in Yemen to migrant deaths in the Mediterranean. And all these overlying the ongoing crises of climate change and loss of biodiversity that threaten to engulf us.
The horror story in eastern Europe has affected us in lots of ways, but as far as the economy is concerned two impacts have stood out. First, the price of fuel has sky-rocketed. This is in part because western Europe remains heavily reliant on cheap gas from Russia. Secondly, many food items have become far more expensive and a great deal harder to come by. This is unsurprising considering that Russia and Ukraine are the source of 30% of the World’s wheat, 50% of its sunflower oil and a large share of its fertiliser.
These are complex issues. Conflict, poor harvests, tariff disputes and extreme weather have all contributed to growing problems in global food supply over recent years. According to the UN World Food Programme, between 2019 and 2020, the number of undernourished people grew by as many as 161 million, having fallen consistently in previous decades. But in times of political crisis, messages all too often get over-simplified, and knee jerk political reactions become misrepresented as long-term solutions. This has been depressingly evident in the government’s reaction to the food and fuel challenges, along with that of some in the agri-business and energy sectors.
The government’s Energy Independence Plan, published recently, is certainly ambitious in scale. Eight nuclear power plants, massive growth in offshore wind and huge investment in oil and gas development in the North Sea are among the headlines. Neither nuclear nor offshore wind are without their problems of course. Putting those aside though, it’s perhaps understandable for them to play a significant role in the vision of a government that has committed to carbon neutrality. But investing in oil and gas, less than six months after the pledges at COP26? Seriously?
Whatever you think about the government’s plans, they won’t do much to help the estimated 1 in 3 people who are at risk from fuel poverty this winter. Hinkley Point was announced in 2010 and is scheduled to open in 2026. Major oil and gas developments take up to ten years to come on stream. That means that we’ll be well into the 2030s before most of what was announced in the Plan comes into effect.
What is even more striking is what doesn’t feature in the Plan. There is no focus on small scale generation that is far quicker to take effect and could help communities and individual households go green. Neither is there any mention of demand management. Insulation, better quality building, advanced battery technology - these can all help us reduce the overall amount of energy we consume, which is ultimately the best way to reduce our emissions and lower our energy bills.
The debate around food security emanating from the Ukraine crisis has been equally concerning. We’ve heard calls from lobbyists in the agri-business sector to invest more in intensive food production and to move investment away from nature recovery. From a simplistic, productionist viewpoint this may not sound entirely unreasonable in the circumstances. But there are two fundamental problems. First, intensive farming almost invariably means intensive emissions. This is in part due to the damage industrial agriculture has wreaked on biodiversity the World over, destroying those very habitats that are most effective at sequestering carbon. But it is also because deep ploughing, intensive slurry spreading and heavy use of artificial fertilisers are all among the chief carbon culprits in the food and farming sector. Intensive farming relies on agrochemicals, including nitrogen fertiliser. Not only is its manufacture heavily fossil fuel dependent, but once applied to the soil it breaks down into nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas hundreds of times more powerful than CO2. A sustainable future for food means reducing our reliance on these techniques, not increasing it.
The second problem relates to our use of land. The world population is eating more meat. This may be taken by some as a sign of affluence, but it’s a massive problem for the planet. Of the Earth’s farmed land, 77% is used for livestock, either as grazing pasture or to produce livestock feed. But livestock only contributes 18% of our global calorie supply. That’s an extremely inefficient use of our most valuable and finite asset of all – land.
Earth Overshoot Day, the brainchild of Global Footprint Network, marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. In 2021, Earth Overshoot Day landed on July 29. In the UK, with our high emissions and relatively low intact natural resources, it fell in mid-May. Another way of looking at this is to say that the greater our ecological footprint in terms of carbon emissions and other impacts, the larger the area of healthy habitats and other natural capital we need to absorb it. And in the UK we are out of balance by a factor of more than two.
The National Food Strategy, chaired by Henry Dimbleby, gets to the nub of the issue. We simply don’t have enough land to grow the food, restore nature, become self-sufficient in timber, build the homes we need and satisfy all our other demands in a business as usual scenario. Dimbleby argues for one third of our land to be used for high volume production, one third in regenerative agriculture and the remaining third for nature. To do this, we need to reduce our meat consumption and radically cut food waste as well as reducing all farming’s reliance on fossil fuels.
There is talk of a higher percentage of subsidies being redirected to intensive farming of all kinds and away from nature restoration. Boosting grain production in the short term may be needed. But these changes will have long term impacts, and it is highly unlikely that they will only apply to those crops that are impacted by the current crisis. Unlike wheat or oil seed, there is little obvious link between livestock farming in Britain and the crisis in Ukraine. And there has been almost total silence on anything about demand, such as changing our diets or reducing the 30% of our food that goes to waste.
Perhaps it’s a little unfair to judge the government so harshly in the face of such an unprecedented geo-political threat. It is still considering its response to the Dimbleby report and its Energy Independence Plan is not finalised yet. So here are four things the government could do to turn this around.
First, and most important, ditch our dependence on fossil fuels. We’ve been addicted for far too long. We have the technology to change this. We can choose to invest in renewable energy and electrify our transport system. While seeking alternative suppliers of oil and gas in the short term may be unavoidable, there is absolutely no excuse for investing in largescale drilling, locking us into fossil fuel dependency long term.
Secondly, farm with the environment not against it. Cutting back on intensive livestock and cheap meat consumption would release large areas of land for regenerative farming, where soils can be rebuilt, animal welfare can be enhanced and where nature can recover. Reducing our reliance on fertilisers and agrochemicals would benefit farmers as well as wildlife and water quality. Public subsidies to farming are crucial for the sector, but they must be linked to greener, low carbon techniques. There will always be a need for volume production, but new technologies mean that in future much of this can be taken out of fields, making it easier to manage climate conditions, control pests and diseases, contain pollution and reduce carbon emissions.
Thirdly, we need to support local households and communities to go green. According to Carbon Brief, a government decision just under a decade ago to scrap green energy grants is estimated to be costing the average household an extra £150 today. We need grants for households and businesses to install insulation, solar panels and ground source heat pumps. And we need policies and incentives that empower households and communities to build their own sources of green energy where they live.
Finally, we need to take a long hard look at how we use our land. We need to recognise that land is finite, and that our current demands on it simply aren’t sustainable. We do have enough land for nature, climate, food production and people if we use it wisely and efficiently. But to do that, we need to be led by a strategic land use framework and be prepared to take tough decisions on the basis of it.
The latest IPCC report went virtually unnoticed. But its message was chilling. This is the last chance to prevent uncontrolled climate change and to stay within two degrees of warming. The government, business and indeed all of us need to keep our focus on the long-term priorities and the facts. The government’s own 2021 UK Food Security Report found that environmental degradation and climate change pose the greatest medium to long term risk to food security. We must not be fooled by simplistic arguments that take us backwards. We must not allow an immediate crisis to be used as a justification for flawed decisions with long-term consequences. A future free of fuel poverty and with a resilient food system will be one that is low in carbon and rich in nature, not the opposite.
Everyone has a part to play. Find out what actions you can take to reduce your carbon footprint and increase resilience to climate change here.