Real Climate Impact – or Greenwashing?

With the COP27 summit now in play in Sharm-El-Sheikh, the spotlight is on the climate debate.  Turning ambitious pledges into concrete actions is the official focus. It is positive that the topic is now brought up in board room discussions and that sustainability strategies are today an integral part of corporate decision-making.  But we need to avoid greenwashing. Also retailers are struggling to know how best to address this challenge.

This month Lidl Netherlands has decided not to sell any fruit & vegetables transported by plane.  From a marketing perspective, one can say that this is a good message.  Their customers are environmentally conscious and want to make a positive contribution which makes them feel good.  Despite being a positive move, the real impact is however very limited.  Only 0.2% of worldwide food is transported by air. Food transport accounts for 6% of the ecological footprint. What about local tomatoes grown in greenhouses in Northern Europe versus tomatoes grown in the open air in the southern hemisphere and which require transportation? Following the seasons obviously helps. According to the University of Leuven, the origin of the food is not that relevant, even if we use all kinds of labels. Whether an apple comes from Belgium or New Zealand, its origin does not have any real environmental impact.  It is the food which ends on our plate and how it is produced which matters.

The food industry is an important player in this debate.  If we want to limit global warming, we will have to look at our food production, which is responsible for 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture and land usage are responsible for 75% of this. In particular meat production – especially beef – has the biggest negative impact. Measures to promote the consumption of fruit & vegetables do not serve the climate objectives. To save the planet, we need to focus on a healthy diet and promote a good balance between plant-based and animal protein. The current Western diet needs to evolve in that direction. It isn’t just a question of becoming vegetarian or vegan.

Retailers can have an impact, but they often contradict themselves. Attacking over-consumption is far more effective for the environment.  But this runs counter to their economic model.   Pushing plant-based solutions whilst still heavily promoting (red) meat seems a real contradiction.  Applying an everyday fair pricing model to meat creates a win-win for all parties in the food chain.  It will take out the excesses in meat consumption and ultimately meat production, reduce the impact on land, offer a fair pricing model to the farmer and contribute to a more healthy lifestyle.   Planet Earth will thank you.

Philip Horemans
Chairman
Green Seed Group

Data source: Tessa Avermaete, Bio-Economy University Leuven (B)