PAMACC News: The world’s largest meat company, JBS, has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by a staggering 51% over the last five years and is now responsible for greater emissions than Italy’s annual climate footprint, new research finds. It is approximately equivalent to fossil fuel giant Total’s 2020 emissions. r
A coalition of campaign groups – including the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), Feedback and Mighty Earth – have expressed outrage at JBS’s supersized climate emissions, which place it at odds with its own corporate emissions reduction strategy just one year on from its ‘Net Zero by 2040’ pledge. Ahead of the company’s annual general meeting (AGM) in São Paulo on 22 April, the coalition is urging JBS’s investors and customers to drop the Brazil-based company.
“JBS is one of the world’s worst climate offenders and that’s why we’re urging its key customers like giant supermarkets Carrefour, Costco and Tesco to drop JBS urgently,” said Alex Wijeratna, Campaign Director at Mighty Earth. “No company that buys meat from JBS can claim to be serious about climate change. JBS could easily implement systems that would end its links to deforestation and radically reduce its methane pollution. The fact that a single meat company can cause more pollution than an entire G7 member country should be a wake up call that we need a massive scale up of plant-based and cultivated protein, and we need it now.”
JBS’s top investors include Brazilian development bank BNDES, asset manager BlackRock, and Barclays and Santander banks. Its major customers in the retail sector include supermarket giants Carrefour, Costco, Tesco, Walmart and Ahold Delhaize. In the fast food sector, its customers include McDonald’s, Burger King and KFC.
Using a UN-approved methodology, new research contained in a media brief by IATP, Feedback and investigative website DeSmog, found that JBS – which processed 26.8 million cattle, 46.7 million pigs and 4.9 billion chickens last year – increased its annual GHG emissions by 51% in five years from 280 million metric tonnes (mmts) in 2016 to around 421.6 mmts in 2021. This is more than the annual climate footprint of Italy or Spain and close to that of France (at 443 mmt) and the UK (at 453 mmt).
The latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report has singled out livestock-related methane emissions, recommending they be slashed by a third by 2030 in order to hold global temperature rise to 1.5ºC. Instead, JBS’s emissions are set to jump even higher as it pursues aggressive expansion plans and seeks access to increased financing through a possible listing on an American stock exchange.
“It’s mind blowing that JBS can continue to make climate claims to investors, even as the company massively increases its emissions,” said Shefali Sharma, Europe director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which estimated in 2018 that JBS’s emissions were roughly half that of oil majors such as BP, Shell or ExxonMobil. “Our updated emissions estimates show clearly the harm being done by empty net-zero announcements. Investors gathering at today's AGM shouldn't be fooled by this greenwash. We need public, independent and accountable systems for monitoring these companies’ emissions. Governments need to step up and regulate these companies and support a transition out of this destructive model of industrial livestock production.”
With operations in 20 countries ranging from Brazil to the US and record annual revenues of $76 billion, JBS last year promised to achieve net zero emissions by 2040. However, its net-zero plans provide little detail and have been panned by campaigners for omitting so-called ‘Scope 3’ emissions – which represent up to 97% of JBS’s contribution to climate change. Scope 3 emissions encompass pollution from its entire supply chain: potent greenhouse gases such as methane emitted from livestock, as well as emissions from deforestation, forest fires, and land conversion, plus the production of animal feed, enteric fermentation, and the use of agrochemicals.
Carina Millstone, Executive Director of campaign group Feedback, said: “It's high time that banks and investors, many of whom have adopted their own 'net-zero’ targets and committed to end deforestation, ceased to bankroll climate chaos and the destruction of nature, by pulling the plug on their financial backing to toxic JBS and its subsidiaries.”
Hazel Healy, UK Editor of climate investigative news outlet DeSmog, said: “JBS is using the same greenwashing tactics we’ve seen employed by oil and gas majors for decades. It presents itself as a company with genuine climate ambition but fails to disclose its full emissions so they can be compared with the company’s public communications. And as this research shows, JBS’s emissions are increasing substantially, not decreasing.”
Launched alongside IATP’s JBS emissions revelations, a new report about the company by Mighty Earth – called The Boys From Brazil – highlights how JBS used corruption and massive government subsidies to finance the enormous international growth that put it into the climate super-polluter category in which it finds itself today.
The report highlights that JBS was responsible for an estimated 1.5 million hectares of deforestation in its indirect supply chains in Brazil since 2008 and warns that scandal-hit JBS has repeatedly broken its promises to stamp out deforestation in the Amazon or conserve other key ecosystems such as the Cerrado and the Pantanal. It also chronicles a long history of links to elite bribery, price-fixing, invasion of Indigenous lands, worker exploitation, modern-day slavery, and environmental pollution.
Climate change made extreme rainfall heavier and more likely to happen during several back-to-back storms earlier this year in Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique, according to rapid attribution analysis by an international team of leading climate scientists.
While the analysis shows that climate change made the eventsworse, the scientists were not able to quantify exactly how much climate change influenced the event due to a shortage of high quality weather observations available for this part of Africa.
In early 2022, Southeast Africa was hit by three tropical cyclones and two tropical storms in just six weeks.
Tropical Storm Ana, in late January, was followed by Tropical Cyclone Batsirai, which made landfall in Madagascar on 5 February. Over the next few weeks, the region was hit by Tropical Storm Dumako and Tropical Cyclones Emnati and Gombe.
The consecutive storms left people with little time to react. Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique were the worst-hit countries, with more than a million people affected by extreme rainfall and floods, and 230 reported deaths.
To evaluate the role of climate change on the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall during the storms, the scientists analysed weather observations and computer simulations to compare the climate as it is today, after about 1.2°C of global warming since the late 1800s, with the climate of the past, following peer-reviewed methods.
The analysis focused on rainfall, which caused widespread flooding, over the wettest three-day periods in two regions: Madagascar, where cyclone Batsirai caused major damage, and an area over Malawi and Mozambique most affected by Tropical Storm Ana.
In both cases, the results show that rainfall associated with the storms was made more intense by climate change and that episodes of extreme rainfall such as these have become more frequent.
The finding is consistent with scientific understanding of how climate change, caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, influences heavy rainfall. As the atmosphere becomes warmer it accumulates more water, increasing the risk of downpours. With further greenhouse gas emissions and continued temperature increases such heavy rainfall episodes will become even more common.
While the analysis shows that climate change made the events more intense and damaging, the precise contribution of climate change to the event could not be quantified, due to the absence of comprehensive historical records of rainfall in the region.
Of 23 weather stations in the affected area in Mozambique, only four had relatively complete records going back to 1981. In Madagascar and Malawi there were no weather stations with suitable data for the study.
In many other parts of the world where more comprehensive weather station data is available, scientists have been able to quantify the influence of climate change on particular extreme events. Increased investment in weather stations in Africa would enable a more precise estimate of the impact of rising greenhouse gas concentrations on the continent.
The study was conducted by 22 researchers as part of the World Weather Attribution group, including scientists from universities and meteorological agencies in France, Madagascar, Mozambique, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and the US
NAIROBI, Kenya (PAMACC News) - A new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on April 4, 2022 shows that accelerated international cooperation on finance to support low income countries is a critical enabler of a low-carbon and just transition.
The report, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change points out that scaled-up public grants for adaptation and mitigation and funding for low-income and vulnerable regions, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, may have the highest returns.
According to Celine Guivarch, one of the lead authors, the report shows that reducing emissions at the speed and scale required to limit warming to two degrees or below implies deep economic changes that could increase inequality between and within countries. “But policies can be designed to avoid increasing or even decrease economic inequality and poverty. This entails broadening access to clean technologies and international finance. In applying just transition principles to integrate considerations of equity and justice into policies at all scales and enable accelerated mitigation action.”
Key options according to the report include: Increased public finance flows from developed to developing countries beyond USD100 billion-a-year; shifting from a direct lending modality towards public guarantees to reduce risks and greatly leverage private flows at lower cost; local capital markets development; and, changing the enabling operational definitions.
According to Brett Cohen, one of the coordinating lead authors, the report recognizes that mitigation must be region and context specific. So not all actions are applicable everywhere. Furthermore, it highlights the multiple sustainable development benefits from mitigation, as well as the trade-offs that need to be considered. Understanding and accounting for these will help to build the support base for mitigation action.
He further noted that the report considers mitigation from a system point of view so as to maximise various interactions to optimize benefits. For instance, if we are to change to clean cooking at household level, it is best if this is achieved through renewable energy. Further, mitigation efforts need to look at how various sectors and agendas such as the sustainable development goals complement each other
On the role of Africa in mitigation, Cohen believes that it is more important to ensure low emissions development trajectories, to ensure that development leapfrogs the high emissions historically found in developed countries. The report explores the concept of sustainable development pathways, demonstrating that all decisions taken along the development trajectory have implications for the emissions intensity for economies.
The authors also found that agriculture, forestry, and other land use can provide large-scale emissions reductions and also remove and store carbon dioxide at scale.
“Agriculture, forestry, and other land use contribute 22% of global emissions,” said Mercedes Bustamante the lead author: Forest conservation, nature-based solutions, options for developing countries.
This sector, according to Bustamante, can not only provide large-scale reductions of emissions but can also remove and store CO2 at scale.
She observed that the knowledge and experience of Indigenous Peoples and local communities are crucial for land-based mitigation. That mainstreaming these insights relies on governance that emphasizes integrated land use planning and management framed by Sustainable Development Goals.
“Well-designed land-based mitigation options to remove carbon can also benefit biodiversity and ecosystems, help us adapt to climate change, secure livelihoods, improve food and water security. Options include protecting and restoring natural ecosystems such as forests, peatlands, wetlands, savannas, and grasslands,” said the author.
Laura Diaz Anadon, another lead author who focused on Policies & renewable energy said that evidence reviewed in the report showed that while a lot of the decarbonization policies that have been put in place around the world have had a positive impact on innovation, technology, deployment and environmental outcomes.
“In some cases, they have also had a short-term negative impact on vulnerable groups, low-income groups, and in some cases that they have favored, for example, large firms over small firms. We have also found that this is something that can be avoided by designing policies in a different way or putting in place complementary policies,” said Anadon.
According to Nokuthula Dube, the IPCC Lead Author, Chapter 15 on Investment and Finance, the report highlights the importance of mobilizing diverse sources of capital from both local and international sources in tackling climate change and sustainable development.
“Our assessment points to accelerated international co-operation on finance as a critical enabler of a low carbon and just transition. Scaled-up public grants in the funding to tackle climate change for low-income and vulnerable regions, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, may have the highest returns.
Meeting the $100 billion UNFCCC Copenhagen Accord on a grant-equivalent basis could support Paris aligned NDCs (national plans) integrate policies on COVID-19 pandemic recovery, climate action, sustainable development, just transition and equity in the process harnessing co-benefits towards hidden energy poverty such as clean-cooking. Close to 3 billion people in Africa and developing Asia have no access to clean cooking energy.”
PAMACC News - A new report from West Coast Environmental Law, Net Zero or Net Reckless, warns that technofixes that aim to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere should play only a limited role in Canada’s future climate plans.
The report pushes back against politicians and oil and gas industry leaders who have advocated for large-scale development of industrial “negative emissions technologies” instead of immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. West Coast is concerned that Canada’s Emissions Reduction Plan, released yesterday, proposes for the first time using negative emissions technologies to achieve its 2030 target but fails to clarify how and to what extent these technologies will be used.
“Our review of the scientific literature is clear: the world needs reductions in fossil fuel pollution combined with a realistic - and very limited - use of negative emissions technologies.” said West Coast’s Climate Accountability Strategist, Fiona Koza. “The world needs these technologies to help restore the atmosphere and to capture the emissions from a small number of essential but extremely difficult to decarbonize processes, not as an excuse to delay emissions reductions or to continue oil and gas production and use.”
Direct Air Capture and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage are two technologies used to suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Both have only ever been implemented at a very small scale and have massive resource or land demands that severely limit their use. They are cousins to the better-known Carbon Capture and Storage (CSS), which reduces greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources, rather than removing them from the atmosphere, and which raises some of the same problems.
Canada’s new Emissions Reductions Plan predicts that by 2030, Direct Air Capture in Canada will suck approximately seven hundred thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere each year, but it says nothing about its role in the climate plan, who will pay for it, or the massive energy, land and water impacts, and potential impacts on Indigenous Peoples that it brings.
The Net Zero or Net Reckless report finds that, depending on the technology used, how it is powered, and what is done with the captured carbon dioxide, even that modest amount of Direct Air Capture could require tens of millions of Gigajoules of energy and millions of tonnes of water, and could even increase greenhouse gas emissions.
“Done right, a small amount of negative emissions technologies can be part of the solution,” said Koza. “But done badly they are a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry that can make climate change worse.”
West Coast Environmental Law will be monitoring implementation of Canada’s new Emissions Reduction Plan to see if technological solutions are limited to the role that science demands.
GENEVA, Switzerland (PAMACC News) - Experts at the 2020 Global Biodiversity Negotiations in Geneva have slammed particularly developed countries for lacking the will to stem the tide of biodiversity loss, which threatens up to one million species with extinction within decades.
According to Brian O’Donnell, the Director of Campaign for Nature, the progress with the negotiations has been painfully slow, and the level of ambition with financing remains woefully inadequate.
“Unfortunately, the negotiations in Geneva have not reflected the urgency that is needed to successfully confront the crisis facing our natural world," said O’Donnell.
However, he noted that there is emerging consensus in support of the science-based proposal to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and ocean by 2030, which is encouraging. As well, , there is growing recognition of the need to better safeguard the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, who must be central to achieving the world’s biodiversity goals.
In the same breath, the activist pointed out that there remain serious challenges that will require renewed leadership from governments around the world. "In order for any deal to be meaningful, donor countries must commit to far more ambitious financing targets, and all world leaders will need to more clearly demonstrate that addressing the biodiversity crisis and finalizing a global agreement at COP15 is a priority for their country and for the planet,” said O’Donnell.
While this year's round of negotiations was designed to be the last before a global biodiversity agreement is finalized at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP15) in Kunming, China, the overall lack of progress has bogged down the process with too many unresolved issues, requiring another in-person negotiation to be held in June (21-26). The COP15 is scheduled to conclude in September, almost exactly two years after it was initially planned to occur.
Despite these challenges,the meetings in Geneva delivered some positive progress, including on the proposal to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and ocean by 2030. The following are several takeaways from the Geneva negotiations and the issue that must be resolved in the weeks and months ahead.
Areas of Progress:
-
An Emerging Consensus on 30x30. The proposal to protect or conserve at least 30% of the planet’s land and ocean - currently Target 3 in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework - continues to be the target with the most overwhelming support. There are now 91 members of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, an intergovernmental coalition that was formed to champion the 30x30 proposal. During the negotiations, several other countries expressed their support for the target for the first time. The target is a global one, not one that every country will be able to meet within their own borders, and countries that had previously questioned the target indicated their comfort with it so long as it remains clear that countries will determine their contributions in accordance with their national circumstances. One country blocked the ambition of 30% and questioned its scientific basis. In response, numerous countries pointed to the overwhelming scientific support for the target, which indicates that 30% is the absolute minimum amount of conservation needed to curb global biodiversity loss. There now appears to be clear consensus on the major elements of this target, which many countries continue to regard as the centerpiece of the overall biodiversity agreement.
-
New Support for IPLCs Rights and Engagement. For the first time, language was included in Target 3 to better indicate the important role that Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) must play in achieving 30x30 and to more explicitly protect their rights. Countries added the term ‘equitably governed’ in response to requests from Indigenous leaders and added the phrase ‘giving effect to the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities’ at the end of the target in order to underscore the critical point that implementation of this target must not lead to human rights violations. This is progress, but the explicit recognition of ‘free, prior and informed consent’ is what Indigenous leaders have proposed. Elsewhere in the negotiations, countries advocated for more explicit recognition and support for IPLCs, including in the context of financing. Several delegations requested that IPLCs be included as an explicit recipient of increased funding from donor countries in Target 19, alongside developing countries. While Targets 20 and 21 - which specifically address IPLC issues - need to be addressed, and Indigenous leaders are calling for additional improvements to various aspects of the global biodiversity framework, it is evident that there is now better recognition that global biodiversity goals will not be reached without IPLCs and that their rights and engagement must be more directly discussed in key targets and the overall plan.
Concerns and Issues that Must be Addressed:
-
An Overall Lack of Urgency. Scientific reports continue to highlight the urgency of addressing the biodiversity crisis and the interrelated climate crisis, with the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change serving as the most recent example. Unfortunately, none of this urgency was reflected during the negotiations, and a lack of progress - and in some cases even discussion - on major issues has led to the need for yet another negotiation session later this year in order for Parties to prepare for COP15.
-
Renewed Leadership is Needed. In order to address this lack of urgency, there needs to be a major push from world leaders to clearly indicate that confronting the escalating crisis facing our natural world is a priority and to empower negotiators to work towards achieving a global agreement. In Geneva, delegations only discussed their government’s positions, and in many meetings did not get to the important process of constructively negotiating or working towards a possible agreement. If the newly added meeting in Nairobi is to be successful, political leadership is needed from all countries and the determination from delegations, the group leads, the co-chairs, the CBD secretariat, and the COP15 presidency to drive through an effective negotiation.
-
Securing an Ambitious Deal Depends on Financing. Finance is the critical issue in the negotiations. It has become the basis for potential deadlock, and the overall success of the global biodiversity framework will depend on the level of ambition on financing. During the Geneva meetings, leading countries from the developing world, which will be disproportionately responsible for conserving biodiversity, made it clear what needs they have in order to be able to help implement a global strategy and expressed their concerns with the current systems and mechanisms. It is now up to donor countries to urgently rally to find serious solutions to closing the finance gap and to consider reforms and new mechanisms to create trust with developing countries and help solve this existential crisis.
BELETWEYNE, Somali (PAMACC News) - On the outskirts of Beletweyne town in southern Somalia, Maryam Muse Duale breaks up small sticks in her hands, stoking a fire in the dirt to keep her young children warm at night. Maryam has made a flimsy shelter of sticks and cloth; it doesn’t keep the cold night air out. Her children sit on a mat, waiting for food from humanitarian agencies. When it comes, she shares among the children first. Parents eat whatever is left.
Like many other rural Somalis, Maryam is facing a new reality; it is a far cry from her life as an agro-pastoralist just a few months before. The drought in Somalia, which began in late 2020, has only been spreading and deepening.
Not so long ago, Maryam’s family used to raise goats, collect firewood and do some rain-fed farming to support themselves. But after three failed rainy seasons, the land has dried up, her goats are dead, and her family has been left destitute.
“Before the drought, we had a cart and a donkey, and we used to harvest wood. We had no camels, but we did have goats. Now that is all gone,” she said. With no options left, her family made the tough choice to leave their home and head to the town of Beletweyne in search of help.
“We came to the town here in search of life.”
Maryam’s family has also had to separate as a survival mechanism. The women have taken the children to town for help, while the men search for odd jobs and stay in their village to protect what’s left of their belongings. They don’t know when they will be reunited.
In the Internally Displaced People (IDP) camp where Maryam and her children have found temporary shelter, everything must be provided for them – food, water, medicine. Living amongst strangers and away from the protection of their relatives, displaced women and children are also at a higher risk of gender-based violence and physical harm, not to mention disease outbreak. The decision to flee from home comes with a heavy economic and psycho-social toll.
“There is a big difference between our past and our present because in our past, we were living in our homes, and if we needed anything, we had a place to go,” said Maryam.
She is now entirely dependent on the goodwill of others for her survival and that of her family’s.
Like Maryam, some 667 000 people have already been displaced by the drought, and this number is predicted to rise exponentially in the second quarter of 2022, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
With other agencies providing support to those in IDP camps, FAO is in the drought affected areas, providing cash transfers, livelihood assets and other support to people in their villages, giving them the option to stay and helping to decrease the massive displacement and pressure on already crowded IDP camps.
With funding from United States Agency for International Development (USAID), FAO’s Cash+ project provides families with emergency cash transfers and livelihood assistance. Seeds, tools and veterinary care for animals help families to continue their work, while emergency cash assistance helps them cover other basic needs such as food, water and medicine, reducing the need to move away for services and support.
“I’m a farmer, and I will still work here”
Meanwhile, local pastoralist Ali Mohamed Wasuge has decided to stay in his village of Sariirale in central Somalia near the border of Ethiopia, though he says he has never seen the land this dry before. The earth, the trees, the bushes - all different variations of brown.
“The fields are dry and without water everything we planted last season has been wiped out by the drought. Our livestock are starving,” he said.
With nothing to eat, Ali’s weakened animals cannot fight off simple colds and infections and are now dying en-masse. He is watching his livelihood disappear before his eyes.
Despite the challenges, Ali has chosen to stay in his home with his family.
“I have seven children and live here with my wife. I’m a farmer, and I will still work here,” he said.
He knows the risks involved in abandoning their farm and livelihoods, but leaving is something he thinks about every day.
FAO is working to give people options. Ali’s family, along with 1 874 other families in the district, have received cash transfers and livelihood assistance through FAO’s Cash+ project. Ali has so far received USD 180 of direct cash assistance, as well as seeds and tools for planting before the next rainy season.
While only a small amount, this has enabled Ali to pay off debts and keep his family together, and the seeds will help his family bounce back faster after the drought.
Keeping families together
“What we are seeing are rural households facing destitution,” said FAO Representative, Etienne Peterschmitt. “They have exhausted their coping mechanisms and are moving to urban areas in search of assistance. This is what FAO is seeking to prevent,” he said.
FAO’s drought response plan calls for USD 80.4 million to reach 634 800 people in 52 districts. Cash transfers and livelihood assistance helps protect rural livelihoods and prevent a larger humanitarian crisis.
Investments in livelihoods is much more efficient in the long run. For every USD 1 spent on supporting livelihoods for rural families through FAO’s programmes, USD 10 can be saved in food related assistance for a displaced family in an urban centre. And while it costs USD 40 to buy a new goat, saving a rural family’s goat from drought-related diseases costs as little as forty cents.
While the drought conditions continue to get worse, FAO is working hard to scale up its assistance to rural communities and also help farmers implement practices to be more resilient to droughts, extreme weather and climate change related impacts in the future.
The full story and photos can be found here: https://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1479585/
