An estimate of the monetary, ecological, and health ramifications of continuing with existing practices is included in one of the most complete analyses of our world’s food supply that has been accomplished to this point. To add insult to injury, it outlines the actions that governments may take to boost food production in a manner that is more environmentally friendly, which would result in benefits that would be worth trillions of dollars.
The existing system, which encompasses the production, marketing, and consumption of food, is accountable for expenditures of up to fifteen trillion dollars annually. Expenses that are associated with climate change, the loss of biodiversity, bad eating habits, and other environmental dangers are all included in this category. In a report that was issued today, economists and scientists working for the Food System Economics Commission (FSEC) stated, “In a nutshell, our food systems are destroying more value than they are creating.”
The authors of the paper believe that a redesign might result in health and economic gains of up to ten trillion dollars, which would be equivalent to around eight percent of the world’s GDP in the year 2020. As part of this, financial incentives should be offered to businesses to encourage them to adopt more environmentally friendly procedures and to encourage greener consumption patterns. It’s impossible to avoid having to make choices, isn’t it?
“I think the cost-benefit analysis overall is clear,” Vera Songwe, co-chair of the Financial Stability and Economic Commission for Africa and executive secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa, declared during a press call today. “Either we are throwing away fifteen trillion dollars or we are reinvesting that money into protecting the planet.”
Two very distinct results are predicted by the research for the year 2050. One of these possibilities is based on “current trends,” while the other is based on a “transformation” of global food systems. Every year, the production of food results in the destruction of six million hectares of wilderness. A third of the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming come from this sector, and if the current trends continue, governments will not be able to accomplish the goal of causing a halt to climate change that was established in the Paris Agreement of 2015. Disasters that are caused by climate change, such as drought and extreme weather, pose a far greater risk to the production of food than other types of potential risks.
As noted in the research by the Financial Stability and Economic Council (FSEC), the majority of our current losses, which amount to eleven trillion dollars annually, are directly linked to health costs. Numerous noncommunicable diseases, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer, are among the factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Based on the data, those who are struggling with obesity bear a disproportionate amount of the burden associated with this condition.
Because of a seventy percent increase in the predominance of foods that cause obesity and are excessively processed and high in sugar, salt, and fat, the analysis forecasts that by the year 2050, there will be 1.5 billion obese people, which is equivalent to fifteen percent of the anticipated population of the entire globe. Six hundred and forty million people around the world are underweight as a result of food insecurity; if the current trend continues, the problem of undernutrition will grow considerably more severe.
A different, albeit hypothetical, path ahead is available, which is a fortunate development. Food that is produced more sustainably and is healthier may receive subsidies from the government, and agricultural pollution may be subject to taxation. The utilization of in-field sensors and remote sensing technology are two more potential methods that might be implemented to address the pollutants problem. If the global food production system were to undergo a fundamental transformation, it would be necessary for small farmers to receive subsidies and assistance in gaining access to financing.
It would eventually be necessary for people to alter how they consume food. Even though there is no magic bullet, a significant number of people all over the world have discovered that reducing their consumption of meat has enabled them to live longer and better lives. The consumption of beef around the world increased by a factor of 500 between the years 1992 and 2016. Among the factors that are most sensitive to climate change in the context of food production, livestock is the most important.
A budget of between $200 and $500 billion each year may be necessary to put all of these reforms into effect. The study indicates that the benefits amounting to ten trillion dollars would make it an excellent deal. Undernourishment may do away with itself by the year 2050.
If people did not pass away at an early age due to chronic diseases that are brought on by poor eating habits, the world could save 174 million lives. Additional health advantages would be seen as a result of the increased likelihood that nations would be able to meet the ambitious climate goals that were established in Paris.
To compile the report, the Financial Services and Exchange Commission (FSEC) spent four years researching the subject, reviewing the relevant literature, carrying out case studies, and running economic models. One of the most significant funders of the FSEC, which is an independent academic body, is the Rockefeller Foundation. Other prominent funders include the Ikea Foundation.
Post Source: theverge.com
