To be precise, the EU spends 82 percent of all agricultural subsidies on polluting agriculture, such as livestock farming and animal products. In doing so, the bloc of countries is undermining its climate goals, researchers write in a study published.
That’s something to seriously consider. Global food production accounts for about a third of total greenhouse gas emissions. Current EU agricultural policy is therefore an “economic disincentive to transitions” to more sustainable practices, the scientists say. “We found that EU agricultural policy disproportionately supports animal products compared to plant-based alternatives,” says lead researcher Anniek Kortleve of Leiden University. “That came as a bit of a surprise. It was slightly more than other studies reported before, and that’s because we correctly included feed subsidies,” she explains.
Animal feed
Direct subsidies to livestock farmers accounted for half of agricultural subsidies, which were budgeted at 57 billion euros in 2013. All support for farmers with high emissions. The rest of the money went largely to the production of animal feed.
For beef, the subsidy increased from 0.71 cents per kilo to 1.42 euros if animal feed was included. Not much has changed in the distribution of subsidies between 2013 and 2020, the researchers write.
That such a mountain of money phone number library goes to such a polluting industry is remarkable when you know that the European Union wants to be climate neutral by 2050. In 2030, CO2 emissions must be 55 percent lower than in 1990. A huge task that is already difficult to accomplish without farmers causing so much emission.
Climate argets unachievable
The researchers also say that the subsidies are seriously hampering the EU’s climate targets. “Globally, the emissions from the food He aha te huarahi pai ki te hoko ratonga? system are enough to push us over the 1.5 degree warming threshold,” they say. That is the agreed target from the 2015 Paris climate agreement: if warming bwb directory remains below 1.5 degrees, the consequences for the earth are still somewhat manageable. “It is very difficult to achieve those targets if you set up the economy in such a way that you stimulate the most harmful products,” says co-researcher Paul Behrens from Leiden.
