Is Growth Bad? / Thought Leader Spotlight on Anna Lappé
Is Growth Bad? / Thought Leader Spotlight on Anna Lappé
The Growth Can be Good (39th) Edition of the Negative Foods Newsletter
[Anna Lappé is in this week’s Thought Leader Spotlight - scroll down!]
Last week I explained that we don’t need a new finance system in order to create a new food system. This week’s newsletter considers whether growth is inherently bad.
In 2005, during a long and thoughtful hike along the banks of Lake Powell, Peter Lemieux (of Dero bike parking) asked why growth was important and if it was necessary. I was hyper focused on growing a supply chain software company I was running at the time. Peter was, I imagine, thinking more about economies and systems. At the time, I thought it was a silly question. “Of course growth is good!” But over the years, Peter’s question has lingered.
Economic growth has lifted more people out of poverty than any other force. Similar to man-made carbon emissions, there was no meaningful economic growth throughout human history until the industrial revolution.
Economic growth was created by fossil fuel generated energy. More goods and services could be produced with less labor, which resulted in a higher rate of productivity, which generated more economic activity. But economic growth is also correlated with more pollution, including carbon emissions.
As an example, let’s consider China. “In 1990 there were more than 750 million people in China living below the international poverty line.” By 2016 only 7.2 million people remained at that level of poverty. People were lifted out of poverty by long periods of sustained economic growth. But the environmental costs have been staggering. “From 1990 through to 2019, carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion in China increased by 370 percent.”
The industrial revolution and economic growth also brought us antibiotics, the printing press, the ability to travel, the ability to feed a growing population, mountain biking, vaccines, alpine touring, and many other things that have been positive for society.
Are we forced to choose between all the benefits of economic growth, on one hand, and preserving the planet, on the other? Is all growth bad?
No, not all economic growth is bad for the environment, but much of it is. It is important to recognize which economic activities are good and bad. This quadrant can help us think about the categories.
Top Right: Necessary / Not Emitting. This is what this newsletter is about, figuring out how to bring food to market that generates no emissions on a net basis (or better). Jigar Shah at the DOE is pushing on the same for energy, as are so many other people in the high growth renewable energy industry. Our mandate is to double, triple and quadruple down on these activities as quickly as possible. These will be some of the best investment opportunities of our lifetime.
Bottom Left: Not Necessary / Emitting. These activities are harmful and not necessary for society. These are things that we don’t need, that often make us unhealthy, and that are generating unneeded emissions. This is what Patagonia was talking about in the “Don’t Buy this Jacket” ad campaign. Economic activity related to items that are beyond what we reasonably need (and I’m talking to you, Americans) is bad and it doesn’t make you happier. Unfortunately, that’s much of what we produce today. Our mandate is to eliminate these activities as quickly as possible, by simply ending one-use plastic items, for example, or by replacing coal with wind, solar and geothermal. Ending our consumption of foods in this quadrant is a huge and meaningful part of society’s transition to a net zero future. Any patient short sellers reading this?
Bottom Right: Necessary / Emitting. Here in 2022, and in the near and medium term future, there are many necessary activities that generate emissions. Until we convert the world’s electricity grids to renewable sources, for example, heating and cooling buildings will generate emissions. As will lifting people from poverty. Perhaps it will take decades to eliminate emissions from the production of steel and concrete, or from air travel. Our mandate is to shift these activities up to the right as quickly as possible. When it comes to food, this means converting our farms to regenerative practices, and adopting the technologies and techniques to eliminate emissions as quickly as possible.
Top Left: Not Necessary / Not Emitting. There is no reason to be concerned about activities, in the top left quadrant, that generate economic activity but that don’t generate emissions. These can be harmless and enjoyable, so have fun and feel good and make money and improve your business and life.
Our Mandates. At some future point, nearly all economic activities will be in the top quadrants. Our mandate as a society is to push as many of our activities up the quadrant as quickly as possible. Some activities may remain in the bottom right for the foreseeable future, and we’ll need to find a way to draw down an equivalent amount of emissions through activities such as reforestation, regenerative agriculture or DAC.
Should we Slow Growth? Does this mean we don’t want economic growth in our society? It means we don’t want bad economic activity (from the bottom two quadrants) fueling our growth, except to the degree that they are necessary while we are transitioning to a global net zero society. This might mean that wealthy countries like the United States should learn to live with a bit less growth for the next two decades. While that might sound costly, I think most economists would agree that it will cost a lot less than the alternative.
Creative Destruction. This does not mean that companies can’t have high rates of growth. Imagine the top line growth of renewable energy companies over the next ten years. Or food companies only using grains grown on regenerative farms. Or beef produced on regenerative grass pastures. Or the experts advising those companies on their growth strategies. These businesses will experiences meteoric rises (at the expense of businesses in the bottom left quadrant) and that’s a good thing. My plan is to invest in and support businesses like that going forward, a chance to do good and do well.
The beauty of this transformation is that it doesn’t require people to change everything about their lifestyles. You can still eat delicious food. You can still go scuba diving. You can still drive your car. You can still eat beef (although perhaps less than Americans do today). You can make choices that make the world better without making choices that make your life worse.
Thought Leader Spotlight: Anna Lappé
Anna Lappé, advisor to Real Food Media and author of Diet for a Hot Planet: The Climate Crisis at the End of Your Fork and contributor to Diet for a Small Planet-50th Anniversary edition
What are the top three changes eaters can make to reduce carbon emissions?
The top three principles for eating with the climate at heart are—no surprise!—the same as those for what's best for our health. Michael Pollan famously summed it up as: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." Add the modifier organic to “food” and you’re golden.
Want to reduce your carbon foodprint?
Cut back on meat, seek out organically produced or ecologically grown foods, and eat real food—not packaged ultra-processed junk—as much as possible. But like any individual climate action, the real impact will come when we act together as members of global social movements calling for the transition from fossil fuel-dependent food and energy systems to regenerative ones. So eat to reduce your emissions, yes, but also speak up in your communities, your schools, and with your elected officials, too, and call for the bigger changes we need to address the scale of the crisis.
When it comes to foods that sequester carbon:
The science is clear that the global food system contributes as much as 37 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Using ecological practices like planting cover crops instead of leaving soil bare, planting diverse crops, and using natural techniques for managing weeds and pests instead of toxic pesticides, farmers can foster healthy soil—and healthy soil stores more carbon. By choosing a diverse diet, choosing foods grown without pesticides and synthetic fertilizer (organic-certified, if you can find it), and supporting your local farmers to adopt these ecological practices, we as eaters, in turn, can help increase carbon in the soil.
What are the hottest products?
Haven’t you heard about the run on Rancho Gordo? Beans! They’re hot. Seriously, beans might not be the sexiest product out there, but more and more people are discovering the incredibly diverse and delicious world of beans—and that’s a good thing for our health and for the climate. With over 400 varieties, of differing colors and textures and shapes and sizes, beans are a gorgeous source of protein and nutrients—and good for the planet, too.
What’s your favorite story from 2021?
Despite the darkness of this year, there are so many great stories, actually. I find myself seeking out these examples as a balm for the woes of the world. Top of mind today? I just watched the glorious video of Starbucks' workers cheering the news that Buffalo workers had just voted in the company’s first U.S.-based union, so I’m thinking of this year’s meta story: Workers across the food chain—and the eaters in solidarity with them—standing up for fair pay and better conditions. For me, the heartbeat of a sustainable food system is a supply chain that’s good for climate and for communities, which means workers treated fairly and paid well. This year, we’ve seen renewed organizing to ensure that the 21.5 million food workers in this country have decent jobs and safe workplaces—and that’s one of my favorite stories of the year.
What are your predictions for 2022?
When I wrote Diet for a Hot Planet a decade ago, I was shocked that despite how much food was driving the climate crisis, there was very little no reporting on this outsized impact. Today, there are countless news stories about how the food system is one of the key drivers of the crisis. The food world, particularly industrial meat, is finally in the climate cross-hairs, and policy makers are taking notice. So, it’s no surprise, we’re seeing a ramp up of marketing spin and lobbying about how food companies can be part of the solution, too. My prediction for 2022 is a lot more greenwashing and shady packaging claims about “carbon neutral” and “climate-friendly” foods. We’re all going to have to get our Spidey senses attuned to this kind of spin and demand companies really clean up their supply chain—not just create a shiny new label claiming they have.
For Your Consideration:
Industry-funded study of the week: methane-reducing supplements for cows
From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste
FBN ANNOUNCES REDUCED OPERATING CREDIT LINE FOR REGENERATIVE AG PRACTITIONERS
How COP26 Methane and Carbon Pledges Will Impact Agriculture
Sodexo’s Good Eating Company Commits 15% of its Food Budget to Regenerative Agriculture Practices
CARBON BRIDGE PROGRAMS DE-RISK AND SCALE REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE ADOPTION
Daily Harvest Launches Ads to Raise Awareness About Food Choices and Climate
DOE Establishes New Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Regenerative Agritourism: Linking Producers to Consumers
An Olive Oil Miracle in Cyprus
The Corn Belt Is Losing Topsoil, Increasing Carbon Emissions and Lowering Yields
The views in this newsletter belong solely to Paul Lightfoot (and not to BrightFarms or other organizations). This newsletter accepts no advertising. Learn more about this newsletter at https://paullightfoot.substack.com/about.
Paul Lightfoot's newsletter is always intriguing, and this one particularly so. Aiming for growth that benefits humanity with minimal extraction is one way of framing the economy and our lives. For more on this topic, check out LIFT Economy's proposed direction and the circular economy focus of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation: https://www.lifteconomy.com/about and https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview. Keep the good stuff coming, Paul. Let's regenerate!