Maybe you heard that the Climate Summit in Paris had lead to an “landmark deal,” and you were as skeptical as we were. Maybe you also wondered how often the word “agriculture” appeared in the climate deal or how indigenous groups were responding to the agreement.
Feed your skepticism! Danny Chivers and Jess Worth of The New Internationalist provide a well-reasoned, data-driven, alternative perspective on the deal as a whole, that is a must read for anyone concerned about climate chance.
In order to have a decent chance of reaching that 1.5° target, we need to keep at least 80 percent of known fossil fuels in the ground, and urgently halt the exploration and extraction of new sources. We need to stop deforestation and reduce other greenhouse gases such as methane, by tackling major drivers such as the growth of animal agriculture. But the Paris agreement contains no mention of the words ‘fossil fuel’ – no coal, no oil, no gas – and not a whisper about the livestock, palm oil and other industries driving deforestation either. (Read more here!)
For Greenhorns, the absence of agriculture from the agreement is deeply troubling, as we agree with Slow Food, who released this press release over a month ago arguing that “only through a radical paradigm shift in the current system of food production, processing, distribution, consumption and waste can we hope to mitigate climate change.”