By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Tennessee News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Methane isn’t exactly the sexiest greenhouse gas. It’s often trumped in the climate conversation by carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas known for its longevity in the atmosphere. Yet, methane is more potent — it traps about 80 times more heat over a 20-year period. Human activities are responsible for about 60 percent of methane emissions, with the largest offender being food, such as cows belching out methane during digestion. A new report suggests large supermarket chains, including Walmart, have an important role to play in bringing down methane emissions from food — but for now, none of them are taking action.

Supermarkets are the place where we, as consumers, interact with food systems and to a greater extent, those systems emissions. Food-related methane mainly comes from farm animals — their belches and manure — and food waste in landfill sites. A new report from Mighty Earth and Changing Markets Foundation found that none of the 20 top-grossing retailers in the U.S. and Europe — including household names like Lidl, Kroger and Walmart — are addressing methane emissions within their supply chains.

This leaves a crucial blind spot in reaching 2050 net-zero targets — an emissions reduction goal of the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change — which many of these retailers have committed to. U.S. supermarkets performed especially badly, “displaying a stark lack of climate accountability and ambition from their European counterparts,” the report found.

Retailers Omit Indirect Emissions From Climate Promises

Since none of the 20 food retailers surveyed had set a methane reduction target, Mighty Earth designed a scorecard to assess what action on methane emissions retailers have taken within their food supply chains. Only one UK supermarket, Tesco, scored above 50 points while U.S. retailers Kroger and Walmart lagged behind severely at a mere 9.5 and 7 points, respectively.

Many of the retailers named in the report do have climate plans, and goals to reduce their emissions. Walmart, for example, aims “to achieve zero emissions across global operations by 2040” and reduce their scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025. Scope 1 and 2 emissions are what’s directly emitted by the company — the energy needed to keep food cold, for instance. Yet there is scant mention of efforts to reduce scope 3 emissions, which are indirect emissions generated from their supply chain, including methane emissions from foods like beef.

Scope 3 emissions aren’t just a drop in the ocean. For grocery stores, they’re the bulk of their climate pollution, estimated to make up 93 percent of European retailers total emissions profile, with meat and dairy accounting for almost half of all scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, according to the report. In this way, retailers are missing the elephant — or rather the cow — in the room when it comes to creating meaningful climate plans, Gemma Hoskins, global methane lead at Mighty Earth, tells Sentient.

“Supermarkets talk a lot about climate change, but very, very few are acknowledging meat and dairy, given that could be almost 50 percent of their emissions — that is a huge proportion,” Hoskins tells Sentient.

Paul West, senior scientist of Ecosystems and Agriculture at Project Drawdown says most retailers don’t address scope 3 emissions because they can’t directly control them and it requires changing consumers or companies’ behaviors through incentives or penalties. A 2024 decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that retailers aren’t required to disclose their scope 3 emissions.

Despite these challenges, reducing demand for high-emissions foods remains a critical component of climate plans. “Aside from deforestation, supermarkets’ largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in their supply chains come from raising beef and dairy cattle. Changes in manure management, feed additives and other practices can reduce emissions a bit, but the only big way to do it is to reduce demand. Supermarkets, or any business, have little incentive to reduce demand for one of its products unless there is more demand for an alternative,” West tells Sentient.

A Question of Consumer Demand

Mighty Earth’s researchers argue that retailers are in a unique position to initiate the necessary changes in the food environment due to their ability to negotiate with producers, set prices and market directly to consumers.

The U.S. and EU launched the Global Methane Pledge in 2021 committing to reducing methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030. “Since the food sector is the largest source of methane emissions by people, it needs to lead the way to meet this target,” West tells Sentient.

There is a lack of accountability for retailers. Take food waste, for instance — while in the last year of the Biden administration, the USDA and EPA pledged to cut food waste in half by 2030, there are no legally binding targets for retail supermarkets. Companies can play a role by redirecting unsold food to pantries or educating shoppers on how to effectively reduce waste at home.

The report did note that eleven of the supermarkets do call out animal agriculture emissions as a key contributor to climate change, with many suggesting eating more plant-based foods could help, but the researchers also found these companies often fail to implement the kinds of actionable changes that would address their role in fueling emissions.

This is a missed opportunity, according to Project Drawdown scientist Paul West. “Supermarkets are a critical part of the supply chain. The majority of environmental impact happens earlier in the supply chain, mostly driven by what and how food is produced. On the flipside, most of the food waste in the U.S. and Europe is when it reaches people’s households. The big stores are right in the middle. Because they control so much of the market share, larger stores have more influence on what and how food is produced than consumers do,” West tells Sentient.

In Europe, there is more consumer demand for plant-forward foods because of their Green Deal and other initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable food systems. In some European countries, there are efforts to knock VAT off plant-based milk to reach price parity with cows milk and “protein split” initiatives to expand supermarket sales of plant proteins. In much the same way that retailers helped inform consumers on the downsides of single use plastics, Hoskins says they need to be transparent about sources of their emissions.

“If you said to the average shopper, do you realize that half of the emissions coming from a retailer are meat and dairy, I think people would be really shocked by that…and would make people think very differently about what was in their basket,” she says.


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

When it comes to tackling climate change and industrial animal agriculture, a long-standing debate continues to divide advocates - is it better to focus on individual dietary shifts, or demand systemic change? Over the last decade or so, environmental and animal welfare organizations have grappled with how to combine individual behavior change with a broader push for collective action. Is it more effective to urge consumers to eat less meat, or to target meat and dairy companies to transition toward plant-based alternatives? Are individual shopping choices more impactful, or should we prioritize boycotts and pressure campaigns through grassroots activism?

A new report from the World Resource Institute reveals that both strategies can - and in fact must - work together. To combat climate change, the report finds, collective change and individual action require a joint effort.

"This research shows that people really can't do it alone," Mindy Hernandez, one of the authors of the WRI report, tells Sentient. "They need help in order to realize the very significant emissions reductions that are possible." Rather than getting caught up in the idea that "'corporations need to do something, or nothing matters,' systems-level players, specifically policy and industry actors, have a massive role to play." At the same time, Hernandez adds, "that does not give individuals a free pass."

The Surprising Origins of the 'Personal Carbon Footprint'

The idea of a "personal carbon footprint" didn't come from climate scientists or environmental advocates - it actually came from Big Oil, as a means of placing the onus on us. In 2004, British Petroleum (BP) introduced the carbon calculator, reframing the climate crisis as a matter of personal responsibility. The message was simple: Don't look at us. Look at yourself.

We're still grappling with the legacy of that messaging. A little more than 20 years later, global emissions continue to rise yet conversations around food and climate tend to be framed in terms of individual choices - both the effective ones like eating less meat and the not-so-effective ones for climate emissions, like buying local, "climate-friendly," "regenerative" or organic.

Meanwhile, the beef industry continues to pump out emissions, with little political will to tackle these emissions in a meaningful way.

Impact of Diet on the Planet

Around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food, and most of those food-related emissions are driven by meat, especially beef. Americans and other Global North countries must eat less meat and shift to more plant-forward diets, the research suggests. "Plant-based foods - such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, peas, nuts, and lentils - generally use less energy, land, and water, and have lower greenhouse gas intensities than animal-based foods," according to the United Nations.

WRI's research also finds that "pro-climate behavior changes" are enough, potentially, to "theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year - specifically among high-income, high-emitting populations." One of those climate-crucial behaviors, the research reveals, is cutting back on meat and dairy - especially beef and lamb.

Organic or regenerative food have various merits, but these do not include a reduction in climate emissions for beef, because organic and regenerative cattle ranching requires more land, and land has a climate emissions cost. Ultimately, none of these personal actions come close to the environmental impact of shifting away from meat and other animal-sourced products. "Full veganism can save nearly 1 ton of CO2 annually, about a sixth of the average global citizen's total emissions. But even reducing meat intake captures 40% of that impact," the report states.

Why Individual Change Is Not Enough

The WRI research also makes a larger point: focusing solely on individual behavior is not sufficient on its own. Without systemic change, we unlock just a fraction - about 10 percent - of our true climate action potential.

The other 90 percent, according to WRI, "stays locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and our own collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for everyone. (Case in point: It's much easier to go carless if your city has good public transit.)"

Consider a student working to decrease their individual climate impact by eating less meat, WRI's Hernandez suggests. A systemic action the student could take would be to advocate for the school to adopt Meat Free Mondays or WRI's Cool Food Pledge, a program that helps organizations reduce the climate impact of their food offerings by shifting to plant-rich menus.

"Suddenly it's really easy for that student to keep their commitment to eating less meat," says Hernandez, and the collective emissions of the larger student body also then decreases.

The key is to have climate action, at both individual and systemic levels, working in unison. "Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street," the WRI researchers write. "Bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them." And when more of us adopt these behaviors, "we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment."

Taking Action During Difficult Times

As the current administration continues to roll back environmental protections, it's a crucial time for both individual and collective action, Lauren Ornelas, founder of the nonprofit Food Empowerment Project, tells Sentient. "We can't say 'I can rely on the government to pass regulations that are good for the environment or that are good for the welfare of animals,' or 'I can rely on my policymakers to do those things.' It's kind of up to us," she says, "and this is the best time to acknowledge that in every aspect [where] we actually have power."

For those who care about food system impacts, that power can be found in what we choose to eat. "Food choices are always empowering," says Ornelas. So is taking part in a broader collective action, she adds, "to make sure that we are joining our voices with others to demand change."

And what could this look like? "Focus on the one thing that you think you can do in your household," Hernandez says." And then, think about what is the one systems-level thing you can do," like joining a local environmental or food justice group. Shifting diets away from meat and dairy may not solve the climate crisis alone, but eating less meat can be one empowering individual choice that can be made that much stronger by collective action.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

As Florida emergency response officials conduct their annual statewide hurricane preparedness exercise this week, emergency managers are grappling with shifting federal disaster recovery policies and uncertainty about the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

David Richardson, FEMA's acting chief, said he intends to move more disaster-recovery responsibilities to the states, while President Donald Trump has floated "getting rid of" FEMA altogether.

David Merrick, emergency management program director at Florida State University, said it leaves a lot of uncertainty around support and rapid response.

"We don't know exactly what it's going to look like," Merrick acknowledged. "In places like Florida that has such a well-developed emergency management enterprise at all levels of government, I think we're going to be in a better shape than maybe some other states or territories, maybe. That's the only silver lining for us at this point."

This week's tabletop exercises and drills, which run ahead of the June 1 start of hurricane season, bring together state and local agencies to practice response coordination. This year, discussions are shadowed by federal proposals to overhaul disaster recovery, leaving officials focused on shoring up state and local resources.

Merrick takes comfort in a quote he often hears: FEMA has long held disaster response is "locally executed, state managed and federally supported."

"Which means the responsibility is at the local and then the state level to do everything and the federal role is really just support that with funding and grants and resources that we can't get access to," Merrick outlined. "No one believes that the federal support is going to vanish overnight. "

Florida still depends heavily on FEMA resources, from disaster declarations unlocking federal funds to covering 75% of recovery project costs. The timing is critical, with forecasters predicting 17 or more named storms this season.


get more stories like this via email

Congress is set to claw back $6.5 billion in climate-related Inflation Reduction Act investments to help pay for the Trump administration's priorities, including tax cuts and mass deportations but critics said the move would cost jobs and blunt the administration's goal of energy dominance by reducing domestic energy sources.

Saul Levin, campaigns and political director for the Green New Deal Network, said if passed, $580 million in funding would disappear from Colorado's 4th district, represented by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.

"In the 3rd District, which is represented by (Republican) Jeff Hurd, there's an estimated $1 billion that has been invested through the IRA," Levin pointed out. "Regardless of people's exact politics, most people don't want that money to be pulled out."

The House Ways and Means panel plans to revoke tax credits for electric vehicle purchases and home energy efficiency improvements, according to Reuters. The House Energy panel's plan would cut funding for limiting methane emissions at oil and gas facilities, reporting greenhouse gas emissions, reducing air pollution near schools and expanding electric grids to bring wind and solar power to homes and businesses.

Philip Rossetti, senior energy fellow for the think tank R Street Institute, believes the subsidies for clean energy were too costly but did reduce climate pollution. He added the investments will need better transmission infrastructure to be effective.

"Princeton University did a study on this, and they estimated that about 80% of the emission benefits in the electric power sector from the IRA subsidies are locked behind additional transmission infrastructure buildout," Rossetti explained.

President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to put an end to the Biden-Harris administration's efforts to mitigate climate change. Levin noted current proposals in Congress do not cut direct subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

"Even though for decades it's been really clear that there's a huge public health risk to using fossil fuels, we're still giving out subsidies to the tune of $170 billion to oil and gas companies and CEOs," Levin emphasized.


get more stories like this via email