Stakeholders on Meat Production, Meat Consumption and Mitigation of Climate Change: Sweden as a Case

  • Henrik Lerner
  • Bo Algers
  • Stefan Gunnarsson
  • Anders Nordgren
Articles

Abstract

In this paper we analyse and discuss the views of Swedish stakeholders on how to mitigate climate change to the extent it is caused by meat production. The stakeholders include meat producer organisations, governmental agencies with direct influence on meat production, political parties as well as non-governmental organisations. Representatives of twelve organisations were interviewed. Several organisations argued against the mitigation option of reducing beef production despite the higher greenhouse gas intensity of beef compared to pork and chicken meat (according to life cycle analysis). Regarding feed production some organisations proposed use of the best available industrial fertilizers, others were against all use of such fertilizers. Several organizations suggested domestic production of more protein-rich fodder and use of manure for biogas production. Regarding meat consumption the focus was on throwing away less food as waste and on eating less meat but the best (most climate friendly) meat, which was considered to be Swedish meat in contrast to imported meat. There was agreement on many issues. Most disagreement was found regarding political steering. We find many of the stakeholders’ mitigation proposals regarding meat production and consumption acceptable. However, we are to some extent critical to their defence of Swedish beef production. We also point out certain problems with the suggestion to reduce consumption of imported meat but not of domestically produced meat.

Keywords

Climate change Mitigation Meat production Meat consumption Stakeholders Sweden 

References

  1. Alcott, B. (2008). The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecological Economics, 64, 770–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard, V., Soussana, J.-F., Falcimagne, R., Berbigier, P., Bonnefond, J. M., Ceschia, E., et al. (2007). The role of grazing management for the net biome productivity and greenhouse gas budget (CO2, N2O and CH4) of semi-natural grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-Bokern, D., Webster, C., & Williams, A. (2009). How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope to reduce them by 2050. FCRN-WWF-UK. http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/how_low_report_1.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  4. Cederberg, C., Flysjö, A., Sonesson, U., Sund, V., & Davis, J. (2009a). Greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish consumption of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK). Report No. 794. www.sik.se/archive/pdf-filer-katalog/SR794.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  5. Cederberg, C., Meyer, D., & Flysjö, A. (2009b). Life cycle inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and use of land and energy in Brazilian beef production. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK). Report No. 792. www.sik.se/archive/pdf-filer-katalog/SR792.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  6. Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Henriksson, M., Sund, V., & Davis, J. (2009c). Greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish production of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK). Report No. 793. www.sik.se/archive/pdf-filer-katalog/SR793.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  7. Deutsch, L., Lannerstad, M., & Ran, Y. (2011). Responsible environmental choices for a sustainable “Livestock Revolution”. Background paper for The Stockholm Dialogue on Global SustainabilitySeizing Planetary Opportunities, May 19, 2011. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  8. Federation of Swedish Farmers. (2008). Affärsutveckling för gårdsbaserad biogas. Stockholm: Lantbrukarnas riksförbund (LRF).Google Scholar
  9. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2009). The state of food and agriculture: Livestock in balance. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Organization, Rome, www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e00.htm. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  10. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2012). Statistics. http://faostat.fao.org/site/610/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=610#ancor. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  11. Garnett, T. (2009). Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: Impacts and options for policy makers. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report, www.ipcc.ch. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  14. Lerner, H. (2008). The concepts of health, well-being and welfare as applied to animals. A philosophical analysis of the concepts with regard to the differences between animals. Ph. D. Thesis. Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 438. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Health and Society, Linköping University, Linköping.Google Scholar
  15. McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D., & Uaua, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet, 370, 1253–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordgren, A. (2012a). Ethical issues in mitigation of climate change: The option of reduced meat production and consumption. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 563–584.Google Scholar
  17. Nordgren, A. (2012b). Meat and global warming: impact models, mitigation approaches and ethical aspects. Environmental Values (accepted).Google Scholar
  18. Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2007). Nursing research. Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (8th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  20. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, www.fao.org. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  21. The Swedish Board of Agriculture. (2010). Inlagring av kol i betesmark. Rapport, 2010, 25.Google Scholar
  22. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Environmental objectives portal. http://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  23. Williams, A. G., Audsley, E., & Sandars, D. L. (2006). Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield University and Defra. www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk, and www.defra.gov.uk. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  24. Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F., & Mohlin, K. (2011). Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: Rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Climatic Change, 108, 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik Lerner
    • 1
  • Bo Algers
    • 1
  • Stefan Gunnarsson
    • 1
  • Anders Nordgren
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Animal Environment and HealthSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesSkaraSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Applied EthicsLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations