Reducing food waste is the only climate action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while unlocking solutions for hunger, nutrition, water scarcity, economic expansion and national security. No other can do the same.

Yet the connection between food waste and climate change is missing from policy discussions and public discourse. Most notably, food waste has a muted presence on the COP21 agenda. It should be front and center.

The global population is forecast to reach 9.5 billion by 2050. At our current rate of growth forecasters believe the Earth must support an increase of 60% to 120% in global crop demands. It doesn’t make sense to continue with the current paradigm, which is to grow more – and throw more away – to try to feed more people.

Farming is already responsible for 14% of global greenhouse gases and significantly impacts our natural resources: 38% of our ice-free land is currently used for farming (compared to just 2% for all cities on the planet) and 70% of all our fresh water is used to grow food.

We already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. The problem is that one-third or more of all food produced is lost or wasted. Two thirds of food loss occurs before it reaches the consumer. It rots in the fields post-harvest or in poor transportation systems to markets and consumers. This is particularly prevalent in developing economies.

Food waste in Asia – a case study

With its huge population and relatively undeveloped temperature-controlled supply chain (known as the cold chain), Asia’s food loss happens across the continent. According the the FAO’s Food Wastage Report, Industrialized Asia absorbs 28% of global food loss and South and Southeast Asia 22%, accounting for 50% of total food loss.

Asia grows and consumes more than 50% of the world’s vegetables, a category representing some 15% of total global loss. In fact, vegetables, fruit, dairy, seafood and meat represent greater than 50% of all food lost or wasted. These five categories have one thing in common – the life of this food can be extended with existing refrigeration technology.

Delhi is home to one of Asia’s largest produce wholesale hubs. Every day dozens of trucks roll into the busy market at Azadpur Subzi Mandi. Each is full of produce waiting to be unloaded and repacked for local delivery.

Much of this activity is done in high humidity under a scorching sun, as Amy Kazmin writes in the FT. Some 40% of all fruit and produce that passes through this important hub will rot before it reaches consumers. Fresh green vegetables will last only two days at 30C or 86F.

The waste in Azadpur Subzi Mandi market is replicated across the country. Like many rapidly developing countries, India does not yet have an extensive cold chain. Of the 104 million metric tons of perishables transported among cities throughout India, only 4 million are transported in refrigerated vehicles and that’s mostly for the transportation of milk.

India’s 6,000 cold storage units accommodate only about 11% of the countries crops. Without temperature control, observers believe India loses up to 50% of its total production of fruits and vegetables a year.

Even saving a portion of what is wasted can have a dramatic impact on reducing hunger, poverty, political instability, water shortages and carbon emissions.

Food waste, climate emissions and water scarcity

Food waste represents 3.3 billion tonnes of embodied carbon dioxide_{emissions every year. That’s the energy needed to produce the food we throw away: the gasoline for tractors, electricity for irrigation pumps, and the power to process harvests.}

If we measured food waste as a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the China and the US. This is stunning, especially when you consider that one in nine people don’t have enough to eat.

And, if today’s food system remains unchanged and global agriculture increases by 70% to satisfy global demand in 2050, greenhouse gas emissions could grow by 30%.

Beyond energy, water is a critical resource literally drained by food waste. Of all the water on the planet, just 1.3% is freshwater that we can drink. Of that, we use 70% to grow our food, but then we throw away more than one-third of our food.

Here’s the stunning reality: the water we use to grow the food we throw away is greater than the water used by any single nation on the planet. Water lost by wasted food can even be measured at the micro level. For example, it takes approximately 20 litres or 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli.

The good news is that reducing food waste and loss will feed the hungry, address global warming and reduce demand on our natural resources. In better news, solutions are readily available for us to do so.

The chilling effect

Only 10% of perishable foods are refrigerated worldwide. A seamless cold chain would measurably reduce food waste. The cold chain is also becoming more energy-efficient, utilizing more environmentally sustainable technologies such as natural refrigerants.

Cold chain technology can also boost economies. According to the University of Nottingham, India produces 28% of the world’s bananas representing just 0.3% of all international traded bananas.

With an upgraded cold chain infrastructure, the number of containers of bananas exported would grow from 3,000 to 190,000 – providing an additional 95,000 jobs and benefitting up to 34,600 small shareholder farmers.

But a growing and more advanced cold chain carries its own emission burden, posing the serious question: Will the climate emissions produced by more refrigerated trucks on the road counter the reduced emissions caused by food waste?

To answer that question we recently commissioned a study into the environmental impact of implementing advanced cold chain technologies in developing countries.

Going forward

If emerging economies adopted cold chain technologies to the level of developed countries, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from food waste would be nearly nine times the environmental impact of the expanded refrigerated transport and storage infrastructure. 

Practical solutions must be supported by a greater global dialogue. The Global Food Cold Chain Council brings together technology providers, suppliers and retailers to green the cold chain, lower its carbon footprint and reduce food loss.

Similarly, efforts such as the inaugural World Cold Chain Summit to Reduce Food Waste last year in London convened economists, journalists and stakeholders in the cold chain industry to discuss strategies for preventing food loss and waste.

Governments also have an opportunity to create and enforce food safety standards. This will ensure proper transport and storage of perishable foods like meat, fish, and dairy, expanding the global food supply and reducing food waste-related environmental impacts.

We must all take responsibility. Let’s buy the food we need so we throw away less. Let’s accept that produce can be delicious if it is imperfect in appearance. Let’s bring meals home that we don’t finish in restaurants. Little changes in our behaviour will yield measurable results.

The way we systematically waste food in the face of the interelated challenges of rural poverty, global hunger and climate change is, meanwhile, one of humankind’s unintended but most foolish practices.

The low-hanging fruit for climate protection is literally rotting. With support from existing technology, local governments and you and me, we can – and must – waste less and feed more.

The book: Food Foolish: The Hidden Connection of Food Waste to Hunger and Climate Change is written by John Mandyck and Eric Schultz, and published by Carrier Corp. It is available from Amazon in Kindle ($5.02) and Paperback ($9.95) editions.

“We wrote this book – with all proceeds going to food charities – to call attention to the extraordinary social and environmental opportunities created by wasting less food.”

John Mandyck is the Chief Sustainability Officer for United Technologies Building & Industrial Systems, the world’s largest provider of technologies and services dedicated to making buildings and cities more energy efficient, safe and secure, and the world’s largest provider of food cold chain technologies. He also chairs the Corporate Advisory Board of the World Green Building Council, and serves as chairman of the Board of Directors for the Urban Green Council in New York. He was appointed by the US Secretary of Energy to co-chair the Department of Energy’s Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee.

Reducing food waste is the only climate action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while unlocking solutions for hunger, nutrition, water scarcity, economic expansion and national security. No other can do the same.

Yet the connection between food waste and climate change is missing from policy discussions and public discourse. Most notably, food waste has a muted presence on the COP21 agenda. It should be front and center.

The global population is forecast to reach 9.5 billion by 2050. At our current rate of growth forecasters believe the Earth must support an increase of 60% to 120% in global crop demands. It doesn’t make sense to continue with the current paradigm, which is to grow more – and throw more away – to try to feed more people.

Farming is already responsible for 14% of global greenhouse gases and significantly impacts our natural resources: 38% of our ice-free land is currently used for farming (compared to just 2% for all cities on the planet) and 70% of all our fresh water is used to grow food.

We already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. The problem is that one-third or more of all food produced is lost or wasted. Two thirds of food loss occurs before it reaches the consumer. It rots in the fields post-harvest or in poor transportation systems to markets and consumers. This is particularly prevalent in developing economies.

Food waste in Asia – a case study

With its huge population and relatively undeveloped temperature-controlled supply chain (known as the cold chain), Asia’s food loss happens across the continent. According the the FAO’s Food Wastage Report, Industrialized Asia absorbs 28% of global food loss and South and Southeast Asia 22%, accounting for 50% of total food loss.

Asia grows and consumes more than 50% of the world’s vegetables, a category representing some 15% of total global loss. In fact, vegetables, fruit, dairy, seafood and meat represent greater than 50% of all food lost or wasted. These five categories have one thing in common – the life of this food can be extended with existing refrigeration technology.

Delhi is home to one of Asia’s largest produce wholesale hubs. Every day dozens of trucks roll into the busy market at Azadpur Subzi Mandi. Each is full of produce waiting to be unloaded and repacked for local delivery.

Much of this activity is done in high humidity under a scorching sun, as Amy Kazmin writes in the FT. Some 40% of all fruit and produce that passes through this important hub will rot before it reaches consumers. Fresh green vegetables will last only two days at 30C or 86F.

The waste in Azadpur Subzi Mandi market is replicated across the country. Like many rapidly developing countries, India does not yet have an extensive cold chain. Of the 104 million metric tons of perishables transported among cities throughout India, only 4 million are transported in refrigerated vehicles and that’s mostly for the transportation of milk.

India’s 6,000 cold storage units accommodate only about 11% of the countries crops. Without temperature control, observers believe India loses up to 50% of its total production of fruits and vegetables a year.

Even saving a portion of what is wasted can have a dramatic impact on reducing hunger, poverty, political instability, water shortages and carbon emissions.

Food waste, climate emissions and water scarcity

Food waste represents 3.3 billion tonnes of embodied carbon dioxide_{emissions every year. That’s the energy needed to produce the food we throw away: the gasoline for tractors, electricity for irrigation pumps, and the power to process harvests.}

If we measured food waste as a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the China and the US. This is stunning, especially when you consider that one in nine people don’t have enough to eat.

And, if today’s food system remains unchanged and global agriculture increases by 70% to satisfy global demand in 2050, greenhouse gas emissions could grow by 30%.

Beyond energy, water is a critical resource literally drained by food waste. Of all the water on the planet, just 1.3% is freshwater that we can drink. Of that, we use 70% to grow our food, but then we throw away more than one-third of our food.

Here’s the stunning reality: the water we use to grow the food we throw away is greater than the water used by any single nation on the planet. Water lost by wasted food can even be measured at the micro level. For example, it takes approximately 20 litres or 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli.

The good news is that reducing food waste and loss will feed the hungry, address global warming and reduce demand on our natural resources. In better news, solutions are readily available for us to do so.

The chilling effect

Only 10% of perishable foods are refrigerated worldwide. A seamless cold chain would measurably reduce food waste. The cold chain is also becoming more energy-efficient, utilizing more environmentally sustainable technologies such as natural refrigerants.

Cold chain technology can also boost economies. According to the University of Nottingham, India produces 28% of the world’s bananas representing just 0.3% of all international traded bananas.

With an upgraded cold chain infrastructure, the number of containers of bananas exported would grow from 3,000 to 190,000 – providing an additional 95,000 jobs and benefitting up to 34,600 small shareholder farmers.

But a growing and more advanced cold chain carries its own emission burden, posing the serious question: Will the climate emissions produced by more refrigerated trucks on the road counter the reduced emissions caused by food waste?

To answer that question we recently commissioned a study into the environmental impact of implementing advanced cold chain technologies in developing countries.

Going forward

If emerging economies adopted cold chain technologies to the level of developed countries, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from food waste would be nearly nine times the environmental impact of the expanded refrigerated transport and storage infrastructure. 

Practical solutions must be supported by a greater global dialogue. The Global Food Cold Chain Council brings together technology providers, suppliers and retailers to green the cold chain, lower its carbon footprint and reduce food loss.

Similarly, efforts such as the inaugural World Cold Chain Summit to Reduce Food Waste last year in London convened economists, journalists and stakeholders in the cold chain industry to discuss strategies for preventing food loss and waste.

Governments also have an opportunity to create and enforce food safety standards. This will ensure proper transport and storage of perishable foods like meat, fish, and dairy, expanding the global food supply and reducing food waste-related environmental impacts.

We must all take responsibility. Let’s buy the food we need so we throw away less. Let’s accept that produce can be delicious if it is imperfect in appearance. Let’s bring meals home that we don’t finish in restaurants. Little changes in our behaviour will yield measurable results.

The way we systematically waste food in the face of the interelated challenges of rural poverty, global hunger and climate change is, meanwhile, one of humankind’s unintended but most foolish practices.

The low-hanging fruit for climate protection is literally rotting. With support from existing technology, local governments and you and me, we can – and must – waste less and feed more.

The book: Food Foolish: The Hidden Connection of Food Waste to Hunger and Climate Change is written by John Mandyck and Eric Schultz, and published by Carrier Corp. It is available from Amazon in Kindle ($5.02) and Paperback ($9.95) editions.

“We wrote this book – with all proceeds going to food charities – to call attention to the extraordinary social and environmental opportunities created by wasting less food.”

John Mandyck is the Chief Sustainability Officer for United Technologies Building & Industrial Systems, the world’s largest provider of technologies and services dedicated to making buildings and cities more energy efficient, safe and secure, and the world’s largest provider of food cold chain technologies. He also chairs the Corporate Advisory Board of the World Green Building Council, and serves as chairman of the Board of Directors for the Urban Green Council in New York. He was appointed by the US Secretary of Energy to co-chair the Department of Energy’s Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee.

Reducing food waste is the only climate action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while unlocking solutions for hunger, nutrition, water scarcity, economic expansion and national security. No other can do the same.

Yet the connection between food waste and climate change is missing from policy discussions and public discourse. Most notably, food waste has a muted presence on the COP21 agenda. It should be front and center.

The global population is forecast to reach 9.5 billion by 2050. At our current rate of growth forecasters believe the Earth must support an increase of 60% to 120% in global crop demands. It doesn’t make sense to continue with the current paradigm, which is to grow more – and throw more away – to try to feed more people.

Farming is already responsible for 14% of global greenhouse gases and significantly impacts our natural resources: 38% of our ice-free land is currently used for farming (compared to just 2% for all cities on the planet) and 70% of all our fresh water is used to grow food.

We already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. The problem is that one-third or more of all food produced is lost or wasted. Two thirds of food loss occurs before it reaches the consumer. It rots in the fields post-harvest or in poor transportation systems to markets and consumers. This is particularly prevalent in developing economies.

Food waste in Asia – a case study

With its huge population and relatively undeveloped temperature-controlled supply chain (known as the cold chain), Asia’s food loss happens across the continent. According the the FAO’s Food Wastage Report, Industrialized Asia absorbs 28% of global food loss and South and Southeast Asia 22%, accounting for 50% of total food loss.

Asia grows and consumes more than 50% of the world’s vegetables, a category representing some 15% of total global loss. In fact, vegetables, fruit, dairy, seafood and meat represent greater than 50% of all food lost or wasted. These five categories have one thing in common – the life of this food can be extended with existing refrigeration technology.

Delhi is home to one of Asia’s largest produce wholesale hubs. Every day dozens of trucks roll into the busy market at Azadpur Subzi Mandi. Each is full of produce waiting to be unloaded and repacked for local delivery.

Much of this activity is done in high humidity under a scorching sun, as Amy Kazmin writes in the FT. Some 40% of all fruit and produce that passes through this important hub will rot before it reaches consumers. Fresh green vegetables will last only two days at 30C or 86F.

The waste in Azadpur Subzi Mandi market is replicated across the country. Like many rapidly developing countries, India does not yet have an extensive cold chain. Of the 104 million metric tons of perishables transported among cities throughout India, only 4 million are transported in refrigerated vehicles and that’s mostly for the transportation of milk.

India’s 6,000 cold storage units accommodate only about 11% of the countries crops. Without temperature control, observers believe India loses up to 50% of its total production of fruits and vegetables a year.

Even saving a portion of what is wasted can have a dramatic impact on reducing hunger, poverty, political instability, water shortages and carbon emissions.

Food waste, climate emissions and water scarcity

Food waste represents 3.3 billion tonnes of embodied carbon dioxide_{emissions every year. That’s the energy needed to produce the food we throw away: the gasoline for tractors, electricity for irrigation pumps, and the power to process harvests.}

If we measured food waste as a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the China and the US. This is stunning, especially when you consider that one in nine people don’t have enough to eat.

And, if today’s food system remains unchanged and global agriculture increases by 70% to satisfy global demand in 2050, greenhouse gas emissions could grow by 30%.

Beyond energy, water is a critical resource literally drained by food waste. Of all the water on the planet, just 1.3% is freshwater that we can drink. Of that, we use 70% to grow our food, but then we throw away more than one-third of our food.

Here’s the stunning reality: the water we use to grow the food we throw away is greater than the water used by any single nation on the planet. Water lost by wasted food can even be measured at the micro level. For example, it takes approximately 20 litres or 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli.

The good news is that reducing food waste and loss will feed the hungry, address global warming and reduce demand on our natural resources. In better news, solutions are readily available for us to do so.

The chilling effect

Only 10% of perishable foods are refrigerated worldwide. A seamless cold chain would measurably reduce food waste. The cold chain is also becoming more energy-efficient, utilizing more environmentally sustainable technologies such as natural refrigerants.

Cold chain technology can also boost economies. According to the University of Nottingham, India produces 28% of the world’s bananas representing just 0.3% of all international traded bananas.

With an upgraded cold chain infrastructure, the number of containers of bananas exported would grow from 3,000 to 190,000 – providing an additional 95,000 jobs and benefitting up to 34,600 small shareholder farmers.

But a growing and more advanced cold chain carries its own emission burden, posing the serious question: Will the climate emissions produced by more refrigerated trucks on the road counter the reduced emissions caused by food waste?

To answer that question we recently commissioned a study into the environmental impact of implementing advanced cold chain technologies in developing countries.

Going forward

If emerging economies adopted cold chain technologies to the level of developed countries, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from food waste would be nearly nine times the environmental impact of the expanded refrigerated transport and storage infrastructure. 

Practical solutions must be supported by a greater global dialogue. The Global Food Cold Chain Council brings together technology providers, suppliers and retailers to green the cold chain, lower its carbon footprint and reduce food loss.

Similarly, efforts such as the inaugural World Cold Chain Summit to Reduce Food Waste last year in London convened economists, journalists and stakeholders in the cold chain industry to discuss strategies for preventing food loss and waste.

Governments also have an opportunity to create and enforce food safety standards. This will ensure proper transport and storage of perishable foods like meat, fish, and dairy, expanding the global food supply and reducing food waste-related environmental impacts.

We must all take responsibility. Let’s buy the food we need so we throw away less. Let’s accept that produce can be delicious if it is imperfect in appearance. Let’s bring meals home that we don’t finish in restaurants. Little changes in our behaviour will yield measurable results.

The way we systematically waste food in the face of the interelated challenges of rural poverty, global hunger and climate change is, meanwhile, one of humankind’s unintended but most foolish practices.

The low-hanging fruit for climate protection is literally rotting. With support from existing technology, local governments and you and me, we can – and must – waste less and feed more.

The book: Food Foolish: The Hidden Connection of Food Waste to Hunger and Climate Change is written by John Mandyck and Eric Schultz, and published by Carrier Corp. It is available from Amazon in Kindle ($5.02) and Paperback ($9.95) editions.

“We wrote this book – with all proceeds going to food charities – to call attention to the extraordinary social and environmental opportunities created by wasting less food.”

John Mandyck is the Chief Sustainability Officer for United Technologies Building & Industrial Systems, the world’s largest provider of technologies and services dedicated to making buildings and cities more energy efficient, safe and secure, and the world’s largest provider of food cold chain technologies. He also chairs the Corporate Advisory Board of the World Green Building Council, and serves as chairman of the Board of Directors for the Urban Green Council in New York. He was appointed by the US Secretary of Energy to co-chair the Department of Energy’s Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee.

Reducing food waste is the only climate action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while unlocking solutions for hunger, nutrition, water scarcity, economic expansion and national security. No other can do the same.

Yet the connection between food waste and climate change is missing from policy discussions and public discourse. Most notably, food waste has a muted presence on the COP21 agenda. It should be front and center.

The global population is forecast to reach 9.5 billion by 2050. At our current rate of growth forecasters believe the Earth must support an increase of 60% to 120% in global crop demands. It doesn’t make sense to continue with the current paradigm, which is to grow more – and throw more away – to try to feed more people.

Farming is already responsible for 14% of global greenhouse gases and significantly impacts our natural resources: 38% of our ice-free land is currently used for farming (compared to just 2% for all cities on the planet) and 70% of all our fresh water is used to grow food.

We already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. The problem is that one-third or more of all food produced is lost or wasted. Two thirds of food loss occurs before it reaches the consumer. It rots in the fields post-harvest or in poor transportation systems to markets and consumers. This is particularly prevalent in developing economies.

Food waste in Asia – a case study

With its huge population and relatively undeveloped temperature-controlled supply chain (known as the cold chain), Asia’s food loss happens across the continent. According the the FAO’s Food Wastage Report, Industrialized Asia absorbs 28% of global food loss and South and Southeast Asia 22%, accounting for 50% of total food loss.

Asia grows and consumes more than 50% of the world’s vegetables, a category representing some 15% of total global loss. In fact, vegetables, fruit, dairy, seafood and meat represent greater than 50% of all food lost or wasted. These five categories have one thing in common – the life of this food can be extended with existing refrigeration technology.

Delhi is home to one of Asia’s largest produce wholesale hubs. Every day dozens of trucks roll into the busy market at Azadpur Subzi Mandi. Each is full of produce waiting to be unloaded and repacked for local delivery.

Much of this activity is done in high humidity under a scorching sun, as Amy Kazmin writes in the FT. Some 40% of all fruit and produce that passes through this important hub will rot before it reaches consumers. Fresh green vegetables will last only two days at 30C or 86F.

The waste in Azadpur Subzi Mandi market is replicated across the country. Like many rapidly developing countries, India does not yet have an extensive cold chain. Of the 104 million metric tons of perishables transported among cities throughout India, only 4 million are transported in refrigerated vehicles and that’s mostly for the transportation of milk.

India’s 6,000 cold storage units accommodate only about 11% of the countries crops. Without temperature control, observers believe India loses up to 50% of its total production of fruits and vegetables a year.

Even saving a portion of what is wasted can have a dramatic impact on reducing hunger, poverty, political instability, water shortages and carbon emissions.

Food waste, climate emissions and water scarcity

Food waste represents 3.3 billion tonnes of embodied carbon dioxide_{emissions every year. That’s the energy needed to produce the food we throw away: the gasoline for tractors, electricity for irrigation pumps, and the power to process harvests.}

If we measured food waste as a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the China and the US. This is stunning, especially when you consider that one in nine people don’t have enough to eat.

And, if today’s food system remains unchanged and global agriculture increases by 70% to satisfy global demand in 2050, greenhouse gas emissions could grow by 30%.

Beyond energy, water is a critical resource literally drained by food waste. Of all the water on the planet, just 1.3% is freshwater that we can drink. Of that, we use 70% to grow our food, but then we throw away more than one-third of our food.

Here’s the stunning reality: the water we use to grow the food we throw away is greater than the water used by any single nation on the planet. Water lost by wasted food can even be measured at the micro level. For example, it takes approximately 20 litres or 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli.

The good news is that reducing food waste and loss will feed the hungry, address global warming and reduce demand on our natural resources. In better news, solutions are readily available for us to do so.

The chilling effect

Only 10% of perishable foods are refrigerated worldwide. A seamless cold chain would measurably reduce food waste. The cold chain is also becoming more energy-efficient, utilizing more environmentally sustainable technologies such as natural refrigerants.

Cold chain technology can also boost economies. According to the University of Nottingham, India produces 28% of the world’s bananas representing just 0.3% of all international traded bananas.

With an upgraded cold chain infrastructure, the number of containers of bananas exported would grow from 3,000 to 190,000 – providing an additional 95,000 jobs and benefitting up to 34,600 small shareholder farmers.

But a growing and more advanced cold chain carries its own emission burden, posing the serious question: Will the climate emissions produced by more refrigerated trucks on the road counter the reduced emissions caused by food waste?

To answer that question we recently commissioned a study into the environmental impact of implementing advanced cold chain technologies in developing countries.

Going forward

If emerging economies adopted cold chain technologies to the level of developed countries, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from food waste would be nearly nine times the environmental impact of the expanded refrigerated transport and storage infrastructure. 

Practical solutions must be supported by a greater global dialogue. The Global Food Cold Chain Council brings together technology providers, suppliers and retailers to green the cold chain, lower its carbon footprint and reduce food loss.

Similarly, efforts such as the inaugural World Cold Chain Summit to Reduce Food Waste last year in London convened economists, journalists and stakeholders in the cold chain industry to discuss strategies for preventing food loss and waste.

Governments also have an opportunity to create and enforce food safety standards. This will ensure proper transport and storage of perishable foods like meat, fish, and dairy, expanding the global food supply and reducing food waste-related environmental impacts.

We must all take responsibility. Let’s buy the food we need so we throw away less. Let’s accept that produce can be delicious if it is imperfect in appearance. Let’s bring meals home that we don’t finish in restaurants. Little changes in our behaviour will yield measurable results.

The way we systematically waste food in the face of the interelated challenges of rural poverty, global hunger and climate change is, meanwhile, one of humankind’s unintended but most foolish practices.

The low-hanging fruit for climate protection is literally rotting. With support from existing technology, local governments and you and me, we can – and must – waste less and feed more.

The book: Food Foolish: The Hidden Connection of Food Waste to Hunger and Climate Change is written by John Mandyck and Eric Schultz, and published by Carrier Corp. It is available from Amazon in Kindle ($5.02) and Paperback ($9.95) editions.

“We wrote this book – with all proceeds going to food charities – to call attention to the extraordinary social and environmental opportunities created by wasting less food.”

John Mandyck is the Chief Sustainability Officer for United Technologies Building & Industrial Systems, the world’s largest provider of technologies and services dedicated to making buildings and cities more energy efficient, safe and secure, and the world’s largest provider of food cold chain technologies. He also chairs the Corporate Advisory Board of the World Green Building Council, and serves as chairman of the Board of Directors for the Urban Green Council in New York. He was appointed by the US Secretary of Energy to co-chair the Department of Energy’s Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee.

Reducing food waste is the only climate action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while unlocking solutions for hunger, nutrition, water scarcity, economic expansion and national security. No other can do the same.

Yet the connection between food waste and climate change is missing from policy discussions and public discourse. Most notably, food waste has a muted presence on the COP21 agenda. It should be front and center.

The global population is forecast to reach 9.5 billion by 2050. At our current rate of growth forecasters believe the Earth must support an increase of 60% to 120% in global crop demands. It doesn’t make sense to continue with the current paradigm, which is to grow more – and throw more away – to try to feed more people.

Farming is already responsible for 14% of global greenhouse gases and significantly impacts our natural resources: 38% of our ice-free land is currently used for farming (compared to just 2% for all cities on the planet) and 70% of all our fresh water is used to grow food.

We already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. The problem is that one-third or more of all food produced is lost or wasted. Two thirds of food loss occurs before it reaches the consumer. It rots in the fields post-harvest or in poor transportation systems to markets and consumers. This is particularly prevalent in developing economies.

Food waste in Asia – a case study

With its huge population and relatively undeveloped temperature-controlled supply chain (known as the cold chain), Asia’s food loss happens across the continent. According the the FAO’s Food Wastage Report, Industrialized Asia absorbs 28% of global food loss and South and Southeast Asia 22%, accounting for 50% of total food loss.

Asia grows and consumes more than 50% of the world’s vegetables, a category representing some 15% of total global loss. In fact, vegetables, fruit, dairy, seafood and meat represent greater than 50% of all food lost or wasted. These five categories have one thing in common – the life of this food can be extended with existing refrigeration technology.

Delhi is home to one of Asia’s largest produce wholesale hubs. Every day dozens of trucks roll into the busy market at Azadpur Subzi Mandi. Each is full of produce waiting to be unloaded and repacked for local delivery.

Much of this activity is done in high humidity under a scorching sun, as Amy Kazmin writes in the FT. Some 40% of all fruit and produce that passes through this important hub will rot before it reaches consumers. Fresh green vegetables will last only two days at 30C or 86F.

The waste in Azadpur Subzi Mandi market is replicated across the country. Like many rapidly developing countries, India does not yet have an extensive cold chain. Of the 104 million metric tons of perishables transported among cities throughout India, only 4 million are transported in refrigerated vehicles and that’s mostly for the transportation of milk.

India’s 6,000 cold storage units accommodate only about 11% of the countries crops. Without temperature control, observers believe India loses up to 50% of its total production of fruits and vegetables a year.

Even saving a portion of what is wasted can have a dramatic impact on reducing hunger, poverty, political instability, water shortages and carbon emissions.

Food waste, climate emissions and water scarcity

Food waste represents 3.3 billion tonnes of embodied carbon dioxide_{emissions every year. That’s the energy needed to produce the food we throw away: the gasoline for tractors, electricity for irrigation pumps, and the power to process harvests.}

If we measured food waste as a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the China and the US. This is stunning, especially when you consider that one in nine people don’t have enough to eat.

And, if today’s food system remains unchanged and global agriculture increases by 70% to satisfy global demand in 2050, greenhouse gas emissions could grow by 30%.

Beyond energy, water is a critical resource literally drained by food waste. Of all the water on the planet, just 1.3% is freshwater that we can drink. Of that, we use 70% to grow our food, but then we throw away more than one-third of our food.

Here’s the stunning reality: the water we use to grow the food we throw away is greater than the water used by any single nation on the planet. Water lost by wasted food can even be measured at the micro level. For example, it takes approximately 20 litres or 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli.

The good news is that reducing food waste and loss will feed the hungry, address global warming and reduce demand on our natural resources. In better news, solutions are readily available for us to do so.

The chilling effect

Only 10% of perishable foods are refrigerated worldwide. A seamless cold chain would measurably reduce food waste. The cold chain is also becoming more energy-efficient, utilizing more environmentally sustainable technologies such as natural refrigerants.

Cold chain technology can also boost economies. According to the University of Nottingham, India produces 28% of the world’s bananas representing just 0.3% of all international traded bananas.

With an upgraded cold chain infrastructure, the number of containers of bananas exported would grow from 3,000 to 190,000 – providing an additional 95,000 jobs and benefitting up to 34,600 small shareholder farmers.

But a growing and more advanced cold chain carries its own emission burden, posing the serious question: Will the climate emissions produced by more refrigerated trucks on the road counter the reduced emissions caused by food waste?

To answer that question we recently commissioned a study into the environmental impact of implementing advanced cold chain technologies in developing countries.

Going forward

If emerging economies adopted cold chain technologies to the level of developed countries, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from food waste would be nearly nine times the environmental impact of the expanded refrigerated transport and storage infrastructure. 

Practical solutions must be supported by a greater global dialogue. The Global Food Cold Chain Council brings together technology providers, suppliers and retailers to green the cold chain, lower its carbon footprint and reduce food loss.

Similarly, efforts such as the inaugural World Cold Chain Summit to Reduce Food Waste last year in London convened economists, journalists and stakeholders in the cold chain industry to discuss strategies for preventing food loss and waste.

Governments also have an opportunity to create and enforce food safety standards. This will ensure proper transport and storage of perishable foods like meat, fish, and dairy, expanding the global food supply and reducing food waste-related environmental impacts.

We must all take responsibility. Let’s buy the food we need so we throw away less. Let’s accept that produce can be delicious if it is imperfect in appearance. Let’s bring meals home that we don’t finish in restaurants. Little changes in our behaviour will yield measurable results.

The way we systematically waste food in the face of the interelated challenges of rural poverty, global hunger and climate change is, meanwhile, one of humankind’s unintended but most foolish practices.

The low-hanging fruit for climate protection is literally rotting. With support from existing technology, local governments and you and me, we can – and must – waste less and feed more.

The book: Food Foolish: The Hidden Connection of Food Waste to Hunger and Climate Change is written by John Mandyck and Eric Schultz, and published by Carrier Corp. It is available from Amazon in Kindle ($5.02) and Paperback ($9.95) editions.

“We wrote this book – with all proceeds going to food charities – to call attention to the extraordinary social and environmental opportunities created by wasting less food.”

John Mandyck is the Chief Sustainability Officer for United Technologies Building & Industrial Systems, the world’s largest provider of technologies and services dedicated to making buildings and cities more energy efficient, safe and secure, and the world’s largest provider of food cold chain technologies. He also chairs the Corporate Advisory Board of the World Green Building Council, and serves as chairman of the Board of Directors for the Urban Green Council in New York. He was appointed by the US Secretary of Energy to co-chair the Department of Energy’s Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee.

Just imagine that your handlebar grips contain toxic chemicals used to make them soft, squidgy and shock absorbing. Have you got the right to know they are there?

Since last week, the answer is: yes you have! The EU’s Court of Justice has just ruled in favour of improved information for the public on the use of toxic chemicals in products. And this is the result.

This was a landmark judgment, overruling previous policies of the European Commission and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) which made it hard for people to know the toxins they were being exposed to.

Manmade chemicals are all around us, and are used to produce many everyday items like bottles, clothes and computers, and yes, even bicycles. But while these chemicals can pose significant risks for our health and the environment, it is sometimes difficult to find out how and when they are used.

Realising the dangers this could cause, EU lawmakers introduced the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals Regulation (REACH) in 2007.

REACH is itself groundbreaking legislation, operating on the basis of ‘no data, no market’. This means no chemical should enter the European market unless extensive data on the risks it poses have been provided to ECHA, and appropriate risk management measures applied.

Particular attention is paid to ‘substances of very high concern‘ (SVHCs) and ‘candidate SVHCs‘. These are chemicals that are exceptionally hazardous to people and the environment like carcinogens, mutagens and chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic.

In order to prevent irreparable damage to health, REACH rules that SVHCs must undergo more stringent checks and controls than other chemicals – including disclosure when they are present.

Lost in translation: exactly what is an ‘article’?

That’s the theory of it – and very good it is too. But the strict theoretical controls REACH places on the use of chemicals in Europe have not always translated into practice. The case before the Court of Justice concerned one of these failures of translation.

Under REACH, where an ‘article’ contains more than 0.1% by weight of an SVHC, there is an obligation to notify the regulator, and to provide certain information on the SVHC to recipients and consumers of the article. This includes members of the public who are considering whether or not to buy it.

But what exactly is an ‘article’? The law defines it as something having a special shape, surface or design which determines its function. So a plastic handlebar grip is an ‘article’, meaning that if an SVHC (for example a listed plasticiser chemical) made up more than 0.1% of its weight, ECHA and the public must be told.

The problem arises when several articles are combined to produce another, bigger article. Handlebar grips, for example, are ‘articles’ that, in combination with many others, make up a bicycle, another ‘article’.

The question before the Court of Justice was whether, in such cases, the 0.1% SVHC threshold that triggers the extra controls applies to each handlebar grip, and every other component that makes up part of the bicycle, or only to the bicycle as a whole.

Applying the 0.1% threshold to the bicycle as a whole would not remove the dangerous chemical from the handlebar grips. But if the dangerous stuff was there at under 0.1% of the whole bicycle, as it would be, the public would no longer have to be told about it – even though their skin was exposed to it every time they rode the bicycle.

And this is the situation that has pertained up until now thanks to regulators’ weak interpretation of the law.

Regulators’ assumption – the law only applies to the entire product

In 2011, both the Commission (4th February) and ECHA (1st April) issued guidance stating that, in order for the controls to be activated, the SVHC had to make up 0.1% of the entire product. In other words, it applied only to the bicycle as a whole.

This interpretation diluted the potential of REACH to protect people against dangerous chemicals. By applying the requirement to finished products rather than individual components, the number of ‘articles’ to which the more stringent controls applied was drastically reduced.

As a result the amount of dangerous substances in circulation was not decreased – just the public’s knowledge about them. But thankfully, the opinion of the Commission and ECHA was not shared by all EU countries. France in particular broke from the regulators’ concensus.

Later in 2011, on 8th June, French government issued a notice saying it would apply the REACH requirements to each component article – thus the screws, not just the bicycle.

Industry in France was unhappy with this position. Two industry groups, the Fédération des Enterprises du Commerce et de la Distribution (FCD, representing retailers and wholesalers) and the Fédération des Magasins de Bricolage et de l’Aménagement de la Maison (FMB, representing builders merchants and DIY shops) brought the legal challenge to the government’s interpretation at the EU Court.

A positive judgment

In a strong judgment that represents a victory for people and the environment, the EU Court sided with the French government, ruling that the information requirements apply where the SVHC makes up 0.1% of the component articles of a product.

In reaching its judgment, the Court rejected arguments from the Commission, and from industry, that indicated their preference for protecting profits before people.

Firstly, the Court dismissed the Commission’s argument that it would be difficult for importers to obtain information about the composition of articles from suppliers outside the EU.

As the Advocate General rightly pointed out, if suppliers from outside the EU want to produce large quantities of their articles for the European market, they should have no problem providing the relevant information.

Secondly, the Court rejected arguments that this interpretation of REACH would significantly raise the cost of placing products on the European market. Industry representatives argued that, by investigating the components, rather than just the whole product, the cost of examining a shoe would rise from €2,400 to €22,800.

This is plainly untrue, as the amount of the SVHC in the components would need to be known in the first place to assess the entire shoe. This line of reasoning reveals either the absurdity of the arguments put forward by industry in an attempt to avoid their obligations – or the fact that they have not been complying with them at all.

REACH was put in place to protect people and the environment. The Court of was the opinion that, if industry’s interpretation were applied, this objective would be missed. This is a sensible decision by the Court, and represents a move towards strengthening our defences against toxic chemicals.

Turning the screws

Predictably, the judgment was immediately met by protests from the retail and wholesale industry group, EuroCommerce, which called for a moratorium on the rule’s application “pending these documents being available before this interpretation is implemented and enforced by member states.

“We also would wish the Commission to look again in the context of better regulation procedures at the relevant provisions of REACH to see whether the burdens arising from the Court’s ruling are proportionate.”

This reaction is not surprising, given that there is evidence that firms were not even complying with the earlier, more lenient requirements. But in fact the most likely effect is not that we will be handed a toxic substance data sheet every time we buy a bicycle – but that these dangerous SVHC substances will be replaced by other less toxic ones.

The next challenge will be to ensure the Court’s judgment is properly applied, and that industry is not allowed to subvert the protections provided by law in favour of profits.

For the moment, however, we have taken a significant step in the right direction – for consumer protection against seriously harmful substances.

Tess Crean is a toxics expert. She joined ClientEarth in 2015 having previously worked  at the Court of Justice of the European Union, and at law firms in Ireland, France, and the United Kingdom.

Court documents:

• Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-106/14
• Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-106/14

Business is booming in Ukraine – agribusiness, that is. Agriculture was the only sector of the economy to grow in 2014, and it remains a source of much-needed foreign reserves.

A free trade agreement signed with the EU in 2014 has assured Ukraine access to European markets for its food producers.

And not surprisingly, investors are queuing to access Ukraine’s nearly 32 million hectares of arable land, equivalent to roughly one third of all arable land in the EU.

The country’s single largest investor, the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), has said that any new investments in Ukraine would be conditioned on reforms and a crackdown on the graft that has continued to run rampant since the Maidan protests erupted in 2013.

But the reforms pursued by the EBRD and other public investors like the World Bank and the European Investment Bank (EIB) may result in the wholesale suspension of regulation in the agricultural sector and increased instances of land grabbing –  leading to a push back from rural communities that find themselves marginalised by massive, foul-smelling agro-industrial complexes.

Feeding the poor? Or enriching Ukraine’s oligarchs?

A report released yesterday details how investments by these banks into one of Ukraine’s largest poultry producers, Mironivski Hliboproduct (MHP), have not only swept rural Ukrainians under the rug, but have also lined the pockets of one of the country’s richest oligarchs.

At 380,000 hectares, MHP has one of the largest land banks in Ukraine, and has benefited from more than €500 million in loans from the EBRD, the World Bank and the EIB. Ukraine’s fifth richest man and MHP founder Yuriy Kosyuk (see photo) owns more than two-thirds of the company.

Kosyuk’s influence on national politics is significant. Once the right hand man to the country’s billionaire president, in 2014, he and eight others were estimated to control nearly 6% of the country’s GDP.

Because poultry produced in Ukraine is now the cheapest in the world, the EBRD has placed a premium on this sector of the economy, and argued that the country has the unrealised potential to help feed the world and its poor.

To this end, MHP had used a part of these loans to build its Vinnytsia poultry complex in southwestern Ukraine, the largest of its kind in Europe, and is now undertaking an expansion to double its size.

Conditions placed on the loans by its lenders require MHP to implement a number of health, safety and environmental improvements, which the company has said repeatedly will follow best international practices.

But locals argue that the company has not honoured its commitments. A visit to the site in May 2015 documented in the report observed that the project’s first phase has led to increased road traffic, noise pollution, and road safety risks, as well as a foul odour that engulfs the villages.

Big stink

As one woman interviewed in the nearby village of Bilousivka puts it, “Why should we agree to the expansion of the farm if we can smell it near Ladyzhyn every day?”

MHP has argued that it is building “long-term relations with locals, providing them with legal support and advice regarding lease agreements (usually higher than on the market – in money and in kind) and social support.”

This because a moratorium has been placed on the sale of land in Ukraine, so MHP needs to secure its expansion by leasing plots from local landowners.

However, a number of locals refute this, alleging that they’ve been pressured by MHP to lease their lands, despite not wanting to be surrounded by chicken rearing houses. They consider it their responsibility to prevent the pollution of their highly fertile soil. Land grabs thus are less about buying the land than outright control of it.

The EBRD hosted an event this week at its Liverpool Street headquarters to bring together investors and decision-makers to secure financing for Ukraine’s agribusiness sector. But the bank and other lenders must balance their agribusiness focus with a genuine view of the deep reforms that can lead Ukraine’s sustainable development and respect the will of its locals.

Though she won’t be in attendance, the woman from Bilousivka said it best: “We want investments and development to bring us closer to civilisation. But we want an investor who will not pollute our water, air and land.”

The report: ‘Black earth – Agribusiness in Ukraine and the marginalisation of rural communities‘ is published by CEE Bankwatch.

Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath is EBRD co-ordinator for CEE Bankwatch Network, which monitors public investments in Central and Eastern Europe, and promotes sustainable alternatives.

This article was originally published by Euractiv and is reproduced by kind permission.

Business is booming in Ukraine – agribusiness, that is. Agriculture was the only sector of the economy to grow in 2014, and it remains a source of much-needed foreign reserves.

A free trade agreement signed with the EU in 2014 has assured Ukraine access to European markets for its food producers.

And not surprisingly, investors are queuing to access Ukraine’s nearly 32 million hectares of arable land, equivalent to roughly one third of all arable land in the EU.

The country’s single largest investor, the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), has said that any new investments in Ukraine would be conditioned on reforms and a crackdown on the graft that has continued to run rampant since the Maidan protests erupted in 2013.

But the reforms pursued by the EBRD and other public investors like the World Bank and the European Investment Bank (EIB) may result in the wholesale suspension of regulation in the agricultural sector and increased instances of land grabbing –  leading to a push back from rural communities that find themselves marginalised by massive, foul-smelling agro-industrial complexes.

Feeding the poor? Or enriching Ukraine’s oligarchs?

A report released yesterday details how investments by these banks into one of Ukraine’s largest poultry producers, Mironivski Hliboproduct (MHP), have not only swept rural Ukrainians under the rug, but have also lined the pockets of one of the country’s richest oligarchs.

At 380,000 hectares, MHP has one of the largest land banks in Ukraine, and has benefited from more than €500 million in loans from the EBRD, the World Bank and the EIB. Ukraine’s fifth richest man and MHP founder Yuriy Kosyuk (see photo) owns more than two-thirds of the company.

Kosyuk’s influence on national politics is significant. Once the right hand man to the country’s billionaire president, in 2014, he and eight others were estimated to control nearly 6% of the country’s GDP.

Because poultry produced in Ukraine is now the cheapest in the world, the EBRD has placed a premium on this sector of the economy, and argued that the country has the unrealised potential to help feed the world and its poor.

To this end, MHP had used a part of these loans to build its Vinnytsia poultry complex in southwestern Ukraine, the largest of its kind in Europe, and is now undertaking an expansion to double its size.

Conditions placed on the loans by its lenders require MHP to implement a number of health, safety and environmental improvements, which the company has said repeatedly will follow best international practices.

But locals argue that the company has not honoured its commitments. A visit to the site in May 2015 documented in the report observed that the project’s first phase has led to increased road traffic, noise pollution, and road safety risks, as well as a foul odour that engulfs the villages.

Big stink

As one woman interviewed in the nearby village of Bilousivka puts it, “Why should we agree to the expansion of the farm if we can smell it near Ladyzhyn every day?”

MHP has argued that it is building “long-term relations with locals, providing them with legal support and advice regarding lease agreements (usually higher than on the market – in money and in kind) and social support.”

This because a moratorium has been placed on the sale of land in Ukraine, so MHP needs to secure its expansion by leasing plots from local landowners.

However, a number of locals refute this, alleging that they’ve been pressured by MHP to lease their lands, despite not wanting to be surrounded by chicken rearing houses. They consider it their responsibility to prevent the pollution of their highly fertile soil. Land grabs thus are less about buying the land than outright control of it.

The EBRD hosted an event this week at its Liverpool Street headquarters to bring together investors and decision-makers to secure financing for Ukraine’s agribusiness sector. But the bank and other lenders must balance their agribusiness focus with a genuine view of the deep reforms that can lead Ukraine’s sustainable development and respect the will of its locals.

Though she won’t be in attendance, the woman from Bilousivka said it best: “We want investments and development to bring us closer to civilisation. But we want an investor who will not pollute our water, air and land.”

The report: ‘Black earth – Agribusiness in Ukraine and the marginalisation of rural communities‘ is published by CEE Bankwatch.

Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath is EBRD co-ordinator for CEE Bankwatch Network, which monitors public investments in Central and Eastern Europe, and promotes sustainable alternatives.

This article was originally published by Euractiv and is reproduced by kind permission.

The UK has dropped out of the top ten of a respected international league table on renewable energy for the first time since it began 12 years ago.

In its quarterly report published on Wednesday, EY (formerly Ernst & Young) said the new Conservative government had sentenced the renewable energy industry to “death by a thousand cuts” and investor confidence in the sector had collapsed because of policy changes over the summer.

An EY energy analyst said that “investors are scratching their heads” to understand the government’s policy changes in recent months, putting at risk the UK’s reputation as a ‘safe harbour’ for investment. When the last rankings were published in June, the UK was sat in 8th place, but it has now dropped to 11th.

Some environmentalists have described the period since the election of the Conservative government in May as the worst for environmental policy in decades.

‘We are entering a really weird phase’

The report cites the early end of subsidies for onshore wind power and large scale solar projects alongside major changes to the climate change levy as the reasons for the loss of confidence. The government has said the changes are necessary to cut the cost of energy for consumers.

Ben Warren, energy corporate finance leader at EY, told the Guardian: “The UK has historically been a safe harbour for investment because of political stability and all sorts of other good reasons. We’ve entered a really weird phase where we’ve almost got government energy policy being set in a vacuum.

“From 2000 to 2003 we went through some very significant reforms; the government at the time was a huge buyer of evidence to support the UK energy market in the long-term. Now we seem to be having very reactionary policies being made almost in isolation of any evidence.”

He added that it is “not very normal” for a country to drop by three places in a single quarter.

EY’s Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index scores 40 countries for their attractiveness to renewable investors, based on an analysis of a wide-ranging factors from government policy, specific projects and climate change targets, energy demand and costs to wider economic factors such as growth and sovereign credit risk.

The knock-on effects could hit nuclear power and fracking

Maf Smith, deputy chief executive of the trade body RenewablesUK, said: “The biggest worry for investors is that of an investment hiatus. Industry is ahead of government in the need to protect the consumer while keeping the lights on and tackling climate change. Without long term clarity, projects will be delayed, investment will go elsewhere and consumer savings will be lost.”

The report warns that the changes are also likely to have a knock-on effect on other parts of the energy sector such as nuclear, shale gas and carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Warren said: “Investors looking at the UK are scratching their heads. The government is saying on one hand that they’re trying to reduce the cost of energy for working families but on the other hand saying they want to go for shale gas and CCS which are unproven markets, new nuclear build and offshore wind which are substantially more expensive than renewables such as on onshore wind and solar PV. Investors don’t know what the government is trying to achieve.”

Since the analysis was undertaken, the government has blocked a huge £3.5bn offshore windfarm planned off the coast at Bournemouth.

Elsewhere, the US took the top spot from China for the first time in a year. The report cites the launch of Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan – described by some as the country’s strongest ever action on climate change – for sending “a strong message” of a shift to low carbon energy.

India pushed Germany out of third place, which analysts put down to state and market reforms in India as well as an increase in foreign investment, and a new auction regime in Germany that is expected to slow deployment in the next few years. Brazil and Chile moved up into 8th and 9th place respectively, following a push to support renewable projects, especially solar.

A spokesperson for the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “We’re taking urgent action to address the projected overspend on subsidies for renewables and protect bill payers. Government support has driven down the cost of renewable energy significantly.

“As costs continue to fall and we move towards sustainable electricity investment, it becomes easier for parts of the renewables industry to survive without subsidies.”

The report: ‘Renewable energy country attractiveness index – September 2015‘ by EY (formerly Ernst & Young).

Emma Howard is a journalist at the Guardian, currently based on the environment desk working on Keep it in the Ground, the Guardian’s climate change campaign. She also writes on social policy, activism and youth. Emma is a trustee at the youth activism charity UpRising. Emma is on twitter@EmmaEHoward

This article was originally published on the Guardian and is republished by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

The Task Force on Shale Gas has today published its report on fracking and climate change. Not surprisingly, it concludes that drilling for shale gas in the UK is a good thing for the climate.

Or rather, in the words of chairman Chris Smith:

“Our conclusion from all the evidence we’ve seen is clear. The UK will only meet its binding climate commitments by moving in the long term to renewable and low carbon energy sources.

“Nonetheless, from the evidence it is apparent that renewables cannot meet the UK’s short term energy needs. Gas must play a role over the medium term. The relative climate impact of shale gas is similar to that of conventional gas and less than that of liquefied natural gas (LNG). It is also much better than coal. Gas will be needed for several decades to come.”

This would seem to give the government the ‘climate clearance’ it’s surely looking for to justify going ahead with the ‘shale gas revolution’ it’s so enthusiastic about.

Except for a few small details … like fugitive methane

Last night I put a few questions to the Task Force. First, I asked, “does the report address the question of fugitive methane emissions from fracking based on US (or other) experience?”

This is a key question as very high fugitive methane emissions from both shale gas and shale oil wells have taken place in the US. As a result some studies produce the surprising result that the warming impact of gas is actually a lot worse than that of coal.

Lord Smith himself provided the answer: “Our third report directly references the recommendation we made in our second report, namely that the process of ‘green completions’ – whereby fugitive emissions are minimised on site – should be mandatory for production shale wells. We referenced that these have been mandated in the US.”

Now this an admirable statement of good intentions, but how feasible is it to achieve the very low emissions that are sought? Note that because methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, if any more than 3.2% of the fracked gas escapes during its journey from deep underground to combustion chamber, gas is a dirtier a fuel than coal.

It has been estimated that, in fact, as much as 9% of fracked gas typically escapes during the production process. At that level, to use fracked gas in power stations is actually about three times more polluting in terms of greenhouse gas emissions than coal.

OK, so there are obviously engineering solutions that can reduce fugitive methane emissions. But they will also add to cost. And there’s a point at which in becomes unfeasible to reduce leakage any further without disproportionate expenditure, or the whole exercise becomes uneconomic.

And let’s face it – 3.2% is a low level of leakage considering the operating conditions of fracking wells and the many opportunities for gas to make its escape. One percent here, half a percent there … it doesn’t take a lot.

And what about the ‘unburnable carbon’?

Then there is the even thornier question of ‘unburnable carbon’. That is, the carbon that, in order for global warming to be constrained to no more than the (we hope) ‘safe’ level of 2C, cannot be released to the atmosphere.

Currently energy companies have five times more carbon in their fossil fuel reserves than the world can burn, and stay within that 2C limit. The figures were set out last January in the scientific journal Nature, showing that in total, a third of global oil reserves, half of the world’s gas and over 80% of its coal reserves should be left untouched for the next 35 years.

Got that? Half of the world’s gas should remain untouched. And that’s the gas we know is there. Note that UK shale gas does not come into that category: we have a very poor idea of how much shale gas the UK has, or how much is exploitable, so it does not even count as a ‘reserve’.

Now which half of the world’s gas should be exploited? And which left underground? A rational discussion would surely conclude that it’s the cleanest, cheapest gas with the lowest energy overhead and the lowest leakage rates that should be extracted, and the dirtiest, highest energy overhead gas we should leave alone. Which is effectively saying, no to fracking.

Another way of looking at it: the world’s gas producing countries and companies will need to leave half their gas underground as is. If the UK starts producing its own dirty, expensive shale gas (on top of our relatively clean North Sea gas) then we have to persuade someone else to leave even more of their clean, cheap gas underground.

Enough background. My question was: “does the report put the UK’s shale gas resources in the context of the existing known gas resource and how much of this is ‘burnable’  to avoid > 2C warming?”

Lord Smith’s answer was admirably brief and clear: “No we haven’t.”

And what about renewables? And energy efficiency?

The other key point is that Lord Smith himself is a great supporter of renewables. He says so himself: “The UK will only meet its binding climate commitments by moving in the long term to renewable and low carbon energy sources.”

And the role he sees for shale gas is a short term one, to last for only two decades at most while renewables are being rolled out on a big enough scale to form the foundation of our sustainable energy future.

Which is great! Except it’s not happening. Indeed the very reverse is happening. The government has launched an unprecedented attack on the entire renewable energy sector, recklessly withdrawing support from wind and solar power, refusing planning permission for offshore wind farms, tightening planning rules for onshore wind, and undermining investor confidence in renewables for many years to come.

So this idea that gas is stopgap while we get our act together on renewables is pure fiction. Renewables are no longer happening. Sure, there’s a few projects in the pipeline to build out, but then finito. The end. No more. At least until a new government takes over with new policies. Perhaps in 2020. Perhaps not.

So developing shale gas is not complementary to renewables, nor will it ease the transition to renewables. It is, in the realpolitik of these dark times, what the government is determined to do instead of renewables.

Fracking the UK is no solution whatsoever to global warming. It will, on the contrary, only dig us in even deeper to our fossil fuel addiction.

The report: ‘Assessing the Impact of Shale Gas on Climate Change‘ is published today by the Task Force on Shale Gas.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.