ActionAid USA’s Post

Today, 105 civil society organizations from around the world are urging major U.S. banks to halt their financing of industrial livestock production. An open letter was delivered to financial leaders including Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase, stressing the critical role these institutions play in exacerbating the climate crisis by funding meat, dairy, and feed giants. 🚨 The letter outlines the severe environmental impacts of industrial livestock production, including significant contributions to global warming and biodiversity loss, while also highlighting the harm inflicted on animal welfare and human rights. 📢 The organizations call for banks to recognize the industry’s high emissions, set and implement 1.5°C targets for the agriculture sector, and address the broader social and environmental harms caused by this industry. 🌍 This action is part of a larger global campaign aiming to hold financial institutions accountable for their role in industrial livestock production. The time for change is now. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/eVPGc2bJ #Sustainability #ClimateAction #ResponsibleBanking

An open letter to the private banking sector on its role in fueling the climate crisis by financing industrial livestock production Key highlights: -      Research indicates that livestock production alone could consume nearly half of the world's remaining 1.5°C carbon budget by 2030 and up to 80% by 2050. -       An annual average of $76.9 billion credit provided since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. -        The combined GHG emissions from the 55 largest companies surpass those of Japan, the world’s sixth-largest emitter. -        Five of these corporations together produce an estimated 595 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions annually, which exceeds the total emissions of both the UK and Ireland. Read on: https://lnkd.in/dSFsxy4p Credit: S3F Coalition & Friends of the Earth US

Shambles. USDA -- I hope you get on-farm oversight authority. It is central to any progress on the climate-front. I can't believe how brazenly Tyson Foods is getting away with this without publishing any proof. "“Because Congress did not provide USDA with on-farm oversight authority that would enable it to verify these types of labeling claims, companies must use third-party certifying organizations to substantiate these claims,” the spokesperson wrote in an email, directing Inside Climate News to the third-party verifier or Tyson for more information." "“They’re being incredibly obstinate about sharing anything right now,” said Matthew Hayek, a researcher with New York University who studies the environmental and climate impacts of the food system. “Speaking as a scientist, it’s not transparent and it’s a scandal in its own right that the government can’t provide this information.”" "This lack of transparency from the agency worries environmental and legal advocacy groups, especially now that billions of dollars in taxpayer funds are available for agricultural practices deemed to have benefits for the climate. The Biden administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, appropriated nearly $20 billion for these practices; another $3.1 billion is available through a Biden-era program called the Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities. “This is an important test case for USDA,” Faber said. “If they can’t say no to a clearly misleading climate claim like ‘climate friendly’ beef, why should they be trusted to say no to other misleading climate claims? There’s a lot of money at stake.”" "Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the USDA, asking for details about funding to support “low carbon” beef. The agency’s response was heavily redacted and the Center is now appealing." ^^^What??? "Silvia Secchi, a natural resource economist at the University of Iowa and outspoken critic of U.S. agricultural policy, said the environmental groups, universities and corporations taking money from the USDA for climate-focused efforts should all be subject to the same rules. “USDA should have a transparent methodology that’s applicable to everyone—the outsourcing, the monitoring, the verification—for all these groups that have incentives to make things look better than they are,” Secchi said. “There’s no transparency. How are they actually going to verify that farmers are reducing nitrogen? Are they getting GPS coordinates for tractors every day of the year? I think it’s complete bullshit. They’re only looking at select indicators, not the whole system.”" https://lnkd.in/eQkuHEUE

Representatives Jasmine Crockett (TX-30) and Marc Molinaro (NY-19) introduces the EMIT LESS Act which aims to mitigate enteric methane emissions from livestock through USDA supported research, training programs that familiarize agricultural producers with practices that reduce methane emissions and financial incentives. 🗣 It is endorsed by various stakeholders including farming cooperatives, environmental organizations and industry leaders including: Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance, Dairy Farmers of America, Environmental Defense Fund, National Milk Producers Federation, Danone, The Breakthrough Institute, American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), Clean Air Task Force, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Environmental Working Group, International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), McDonald's, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, and National Cattlemen's Beef Association Beef Association. The Act aims to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. 🇺🇸 agriculture in a global climate-conscious economy by promoting voluntary emission reduction practices and fostering technological advancements in livestock management. Read more about it here: https://lnkd.in/gD3sgcFZ

World Bank’s Green Farming Push Needs Action – Not Just Words The international lending giant has pledged to double agriculture funding by 2030, but development banks are so far “failing spectacularly” to invest in sustainable solutions. Animal agriculture is one of the leading drivers of the climate crisis. According to a recent The World Bank report, food and agriculture generate almost a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, of which meat and dairy account for nearly 60 percent. Separate analysis shows that cattle ranching accounts for around 70 percent of the current deforestation of the Amazon. Recognizing the significant problems that animal-based foods are causing, the World Bank’s cafeteria stopped serving meat earlier this year. At the IMF-World Bank annual meetings last month, Bank President Ajay Banga went much further, by announcing plans to create “a comprehensive ecosystem for agribusiness”, with a pledge to double its funding for agriculture to $9 billion a year by 2030. Banga told attendees that finance should be used to advance climate-smart agriculture, which would “grow productivity” while reducing associated emissions. However, while the World Bank appears to be saying many of the right things about sustainable farming, new research we carried out on behalf of Stop Financing Factory Farming (S3F) – a coalition of more than 25 human rights, environmental and animal protection organizations – shows that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks are failing spectacularly to put their money behind sustainable solutions. https://lnkd.in/db7kWMC7 #farming #animalfarming #foodsecurity #meatindustry #beefcattle

Investment in livestock production is essential if we are to realise its potential to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

📜💸 OVER 100 ORGANISATIONS URGE BANKS TO STOP FUNDING LIVESTOCK SECTOR Banks must stop financing meat and dairy producers to fight the climate crisis, halt biodiversity loss, and protect animal rights, says a new letter directed at the world’s biggest financial institutions. Penned by 105 environmental and animal advocacy NGOs – including Friends of the Earth, Changing Markets Foundation, ProVeg International, Feedback Global, and Greenpeace – the open letter highlights the banking sector’s outsized support for planet-harming animal agriculture. Take the US, for instance. Between 2016 and 2023, 58 of its banks provided $134B in financing to meat, dairy and animal feed corporations, with the Big Three – Bank of America, Citi and JPMorganChase – responsible for 55% of the sum. These banks have aided livestock giants like Nestlé, JBS USA ADM, Bunge and Cargill. These producers are among the leaders of an industry that accounts for as much as a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, the climate footprint of the top 56 livestock companies is higher than Japan. Research has found that meat and dairy production accounts for 57% of the food system’s emissions, and the letter references a study that suggests global livestock production will use 80% of our carbon budget by 2050. “The actual emissions are undoubtedly higher than their self-reported emissions because meat, dairy, and feed corporations’ emissions data is often underreported and Scope 3 impacts are largely undisclosed, even though they generally account for 90% or more of these companies’ emissions,” the organisations write. “By financing the world’s largest meat, dairy, and feed corporations, global banks are prioritising corporate gain at the expense of people and the planet.” Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/ehT-SAVe #GreenQueen #climateaction #emissions #sustainability #climatechange

Animal agriculture is one of the leading drivers of the climate crisis. According to a recent World Bank report, food and agriculture generate almost a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, of which meat and dairy account for nearly 60 percent. 📝 Alessandro Ramazzotti is a researcher at the International Accountability Project, an international advocacy organization. https://loom.ly/j3oDIOM

🎉Big news!🎉Feedback have joined with 100+ organisations to call on banks to stop financing industrial livestock companies. According to Feedback's research, banks and financiers have provided $615 billion in credit to the world's largest 55 livestock producers since the Paris Agreement. The letter was signed by orgs including Friends of the Earth, Feedback Global, Changing Markets Foundation, ProVeg International, BankTrack and Greenpeace. I was quoted for the press release, saying: “Alarmingly, our analysis shows that funding to these polluting companies is on the rise, despite scientists’ warnings that global livestock emissions need to start declining sharply. Industrial livestock companies are incompatible with a safe future for our planet, so it is time for banks and investors to turn off the taps and stop providing the finance that is enabling them to grow.” The letter has been delivered to some of the world's biggest financiers of big livestock, like Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase. Read the letter: https://lnkd.in/ed9nYhPE Read Feedback's report 'Still Butchering the Planet' (international focus): https://lnkd.in/eyArn_dA Read FOE US's report 'Bull in the Climate Shop' (US bank focus): https://lnkd.in/ey42a7hp #food #meat #plantbased #lessandbettermeat #climatechange #climatecrisis #biglivestock #defundbiglivestock

Which presidential candidate has the best plan for the future of American agriculture? ❤️💙 🌾 The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has shared responses from Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump on key agricultural policies. For 40+ years, AFBF has provided transparency by collecting input from presidential candidates on issues that matter to farmers. 🌱 Trump's stance: Supports increased commodity price supports, improved crop insurance, and cutting regulations to reduce costs. He aims to boost ethanol production and trade, end Biden’s net-zero policies, and strengthen programs for new farmers. 🌿 Harris's view: Focuses on protecting small farmers, defending critical farming programs, and reducing unfair competition. She advocates for conservation efforts and reforms to benefit both the environment and farmers. Which stance is "better" for farmers depends on whether a farmer prioritizes immediate cost reductions and deregulation (Trump) or long-term program protection and environmental sustainability (Harris). What insight can you add?