Lecture Notes: Beef Industry's Secret Climate Plan

Introduction

• Oil companies have long known about fossil fuels' role in climate change and obstructed policy.
• Similar tactics were employed by the US beef industry, as revealed by new research.

Historical Context

• February 1989 EPA Workshop: Focus on reducing livestock methane emissions.
  • Cattle contribute significant methane emissions (more than carbon dioxide).
  • Almost one-third of methane emissions come from cattle.
• Awareness of Livestock's Environmental Impact: Impact on water pollution and biodiversity loss.

The National Cattlemens Association (NCA)

• Attended the EPA workshop and began crafting a defensive plan.
• Strategic Plan on the Environment: A 17-page memo to influence public perception and legislation.
  • Focused on public relations rather than addressing cattle pollution.
• Hired experts to respond to critiques, similar to strategies by the fossil fuel industry.

Industry Response and Evolution

• 1996 Merger: NCA becomes National Cattlemens Beef Association.
• Long-term Impact: The plan influenced industry responses for over 35 years.
  • Industry largely unregulated despite environmental impact.
  • Public underestimates the environmental toll of meat.

Comparison with the Fossil Fuel Industry

• Fossil companies focus on individual responsibility to deflect accountability.
• Beef industry avoids promoting reduced meat consumption.
  • Hired scientists, pressured media, formed coalitions to obstruct dietary change initiatives.

Case Studies

• Jeremy Rifkin's Campaign (1990s): Faced industry backlash for promoting reduced beef consumption.
• Beef Industry's Counter-Campaign: Included ads and an alliance of industry groups.
• "Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner": A significant marketing campaign.

Continuing Opposition by the Meat Industry

• Meatless Monday Campaign: Met with industry resistance.
• 2015 US Dietary Guidelines: Industry successfully lobbied against reduced meat recommendations.
• EAT-Lancet Report (2019): Coordinated counter-campaign against reduced meat recommendations.

Differences in Industry Strategies

• Fossil fuel use is less flexible for consumers, unlike food choices.
• Dietary changes are a significant threat to the meat industry.

Conclusion

• Individual dietary change alone won't wholly reform the system but can drive regulatory change.
• Eating less meat is a powerful action to reduce carbon footprints.
  • It signals the industry to reduce animal farming.
  • Positive cascading effects on water, air pollution, and animal welfare.

Key Takeaways

• Individual decisions matter and can influence industry practices.
• Awareness and public support are crucial for policy change.