greenwashing

By Morgan Ody, Andoni Garcia Arriola, Vitor Rodrigues - EuroVia, February 26, 2024

ECVC demands an obligation at the EU level to ensure prices paid to farmers cover the costs of production, including a decent income for the work of farmers and agricultural workers and their social security contributions.

In recent months farmers protests have blocked cities all over Europe. ECVC firmly believes that the Spanish translation of the EU Unfair Trade Practice (UTP) directive is a good way forward to reply to the demand unifying most of the protests: fair prices for farmers’ products. While some other national translation may be interesting, it is only in Spain that this law has been effective and actually made a difference in the price of the farmers: it actually obliges each link of the food chain to cover its production costs, starting with producers. Some key features are developed here, which should be taken up at the EU level of the directive in order to strengthen it.

Through the law, producers have the right to anonymously report anyone who purchases their produce at a price below their production costs, which they self-determine for their products on a case-by-case basis. Thus, purchase of produce at a loss can be punished with a fine of €3,000 to €100,000. It is important to have truly dissuasive fines. Repeat offenders can be fined at a higher rate, from €100,000 to €1 million euros. During the first quarter of 2023, the Spanish government announced that 55 companies had been sanctioned[1] .

An instrument, created by COAG – one of the Spanish member organisations of ECVC and La Via Campesina - in 2008, together with two consumer associations, has been very important in giving transparency to the market:

- The Origin-Destination Price Index (Indice de precios origen-destino - IPOD) publishes an index every month to denounce the abuse of power and the imposition of prices below production costs by industry and distribution. This index started off back in 2008 as an initiative of farmers and consumer organisations, and it illustrated the difference between prices paid to farmers and by consumers. This amounted to more than 500%, indicating that the greatest beneficiaries of market deregulation have been the strongest operators (generally large-scale distribution) and the most disadvantaged were farmers and consumers, for whom prices at source are very low and yet consumers pay a much higher price than they would have to in a regulated market situation.

The core of the law are the two following functional instruments:

- First, the Food Information and Control Agency (FICA) which is the legal body of control, dedicated to collecting anonymously complaints and sanction from farmers, farming organisations, cooperatives and other entities in the chain. It also has its own capacity to carry out ex officio inspections of compliance and execution of contracts, on price abuses, lack of agricultural contracts, failure to meet payment deadlines and other abusive practices. It publishes the sanctions when they are final.

- The Chain Observatory, which is responsible for carrying out price and cost studies along the value chain of each agricultural and animal production. These studies are important as they are part of the possible references for farmers when they negotiate contracts. It also has to publish studies of costs, evolution of consumption and evolution of food prices.

Another key element is that in Spain, contracts – which are obligatory - must be deposited in an official register so that no changes can be made once complaints have been articulated.

The EU should include this high level of public control and price transparency. It should also pay attention to the following elements:
- Prices by law must cover production costs in each link of the chain, starting with the farmer and the cost must include a decent income for farmers and all agricultural workers.
- Selling at a loss is prohibited.
- Farmers must be paid in a maximum of 30 days when they sell a perishable product and 60 days if products are processed.
- Sanctions must be significant if the above points are not complied with.
- Price observatories at national and European levels must provide net margin levels by brand and manufacturer.
- There must be transparency on commercial negotiation conditions.

Finally, this law will not be completely effective without addressing international trade, removing the WTO from agriculture and stopping free trade agreements. A new trade framework based on food sovereignty should be implemented to enable the relocation of agricultural production and prevent national production from competing with imports that maintain low prices. Furthermore these free trade agreements deepen the climate and biodiversity crises and damage food systems in Europe and the rest of the world.

The European Union adopted it last revision of the Directive on Unfair Trading Practices (UTP) in the agricultural and food supply chain in April 2019[2]. The Directive bans certain „Unfair Trading Practices“ imposed unilaterally by one trading partner on another at the EU level in the agricultural and food supply chain. However, even though the directive is a step in the right direction, it does not go so far as to legally cover production costs. As seen in the farmers protest the national implementations did so far not improve the barging power of farmers. Hence ECVC is calling the EU commission to strengthen the directive at EU level and a national implementation based on the chain law in Spain.

By Emma Foehringer Merchant and Joshua Yeager - Inside Climate News, February 21, 2024

On a recent Tuesday evening, several oil workers in Kern County, California, spoke out in support of a project that they hope will create much-needed jobs.

“What I’m hoping to get out of this is hope for my grandson’s generation,” said Allen Miller, a third-generation oilman who came to work in the petroleum-rich region in 1984. “That they can provide for their family the way my grandpa did and the way I did.”

The audience applauded Miller’s comments during a crowded public meeting in Taft, a city of about 8,500, in the heart of the state’s oil country. 

The proposed project, known as Carbon TerraVault 1, would store millions of tons of planet-warming carbon a mile beneath the nearby Elk Hills Oil Field. Oil production in that field and others nearby has sustained the county’s economy for over a century. 

“This is our oil field,” said Manny Campos, a longtime Taft resident and businessman. “I’m glad to see we are being intentional about keeping it that way and keeping the benefits local.”

Some environmental advocates are skeptical of the carbon removal industry — and its ability to create a significant number of jobs — but California policymakers view carbon removal and storage as a necessary tool to manage greenhouse gas emissions. 

The fledgling technology is a key part of the state’s plan to fight climate change, which also includes phasing out oil drilling by 2045. The county and California Resources Corporation (CRC), the oil company hoping to build the TerraVault, see carbon management as a vital new revenue stream. Kern County stands to lose thousands of jobs and millions in tax dollars as drilling declines 

But carbon storage facilities themselves are not currently projected to generate large numbers of jobs, according to a report prepared for the county. Kern’s own analysis shows the initial phase of the TerraVault project will only produce five permanent positions.

By Sam Black and Josh Hirschfeld-Kroen - More Perfect Union, February 20, 2024

By Lois Ross - Rabble, February 16, 2024

It has not been making the mainstream news in Canada, but across Europe farmers are gathering in major cities with their tractors, blocking roads and encircling major cities, protesting a host of national and international issues.

It is complicated, because these protests are not based on a single issue, but rather an entire host of agricultural and trade policies, coupled in some cases with the impact of war, new and pending trade deals, cheaper imported foods, climate change regulations, inflation, and increased costs of production topped by increasingly diminishing returns for farmers.

Across the European Union – from the Netherlands, through Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and into Poland and Romania, farmers are visibly confronting a food system that they feel has turned on them.

Issues cited by farmers are cheap food imports, in others rising production costs and decreasing margins for the farm. Drought, along with policies that would increase farm concentration and escalate the loss of farm livelihoods, also have been cited.

In many ways it is a perfect storm — and one that has been a long-time in the making. Some of the same issues leading European Union farmers to protest are bubbling to the surface here in Canada.

It is hard to find detailed information on the tensions surfacing in each country, but the general malaise has been described in a recent article by The Guardian:

“Farmers have said they face falling sale prices, rising costs, heavy regulation, powerful and domineering retailers, debt, climate change and cheap foreign imports, all within an EU agricultural system based on the premise that ‘bigger is better’.”

By Preston Arrow-Weed, Christian Torres, Jared Naimark, Daniela Flores, and Dustin Mulvaney - Earthworks, February 15, 2024

By Yago Álvarez Barba - La Via Campesina, February 15, 2024

Peasant organizations demand that free trade agreements that have been opening the doors to unfair competition for years be halted, which materialize in their current problems.

Tractors continue to block the roads, new mobilizations are announced, and the problems that the agricultural sector has put on the table are beginning to dominate the center of political debate and media attention. Among the demands of one side and the other, and among those that the far right wants to co-opt and exploit for its own benefit, there is one that is a well-known issue among many activists and social organizations that did not necessarily have to be part of the agricultural sector: free trade treaties.

As one of their main demands, the three farmers’ associations – Asociación Agraria de Jóvenes Agricultores (ASAJA), Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos (COAG) and the Unión de Pequeños Agricultores y Ganaderos (UPA) – have demanded that negotiations for one of the major agreements on the table, the Mercosur agreement with the European Union, be completely halted. This agreement would eliminate barriers and further open trade with Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. They also demand the “non-ratification of the agreement with New Zealand,” which is pending its final ratification by the Parliament of New Zealand and, according to COAG, “opens the door to the importation of meat and milk from the other side of the planet.” Additionally, they also demand that “negotiations with Chile, Kenya, Mexico, India, and Australia” be halted, all of which have been signed by the EU in recent years.

These proclamations are not new, even if it’s when farmers have paralyzed the roads that they have jumped into public debate. Social movements and campaigns against free trade agreements have been warning for years that these trade agreements would have devastating consequences for agriculture, livestock, economies based on these sectors, the planet, and our own bodies. The campaign against the free trade agreement(FTA) between the European Union (EU) and the United States, known as the TTIP, was the focal point of hundreds of social movements, farmers, ranchers, and environmental and human rights defenders across Europe. That FTA was frozen after Trump’s victory, but others like the agreement with Canada, the CETA, and those signed in the following years are now being demanded by farmers’ organizations to be halted and renegotiated. From those free trade agreements, these protests.

By Tom Heap - Climate Cast, February 9, 2024

By Clare Carlile, Adam Barnett and Phoebe Cooke - DeSmog, February 8, 2024

Producers say ‘No Farmers, No Food’ is a populist initiative that serves to “whip up indignation and anger”.

Producers say ‘No Farmers, No Food’ is a populist initiative that serves to “whip up indignation and anger”.

A network of climate science deniers has been accused of “hijacking” rural concerns over a new social media campaign “to save the farming industry”. 

‘No Farmers, No Food’ has gained over 50,000 followers on X in the fortnight since its launch, which was framed as a response to the widespread farmers’ protests sweeping across Europe.

The campaign, which started in the UK, has rapidly won support from a number of international pundits, from Canadian climate science denier Jordan Peterson, to Fox News contributor and host Tomi Lahren, who has called climate change a “hoax”. Populist politicians in the UK and elsewhere have also declared their support. 

Conspiracy theorists have jumped to support the social media account, which has boosted false claims about people being forced by the World Economic Forum to “eat bugs”.

The campaign has expressed scepticism around climate targets, claiming that “Farming is being sacrificed on the altar of net zero.”

Sporting a distinctive black and yellow tractor logo, the campaign’s hashtag trended on X a week after its launch on 23 January. Its founder James Melville told DeSmog that the campaign, which claims to represent the voices of farmers, plans to target national and local legislation on issues like pricing and food security as well as “aspects of net zero”.

James Melville is a PR consultant who has appeared as an anti-lockdown campaigner on right-wing broadcaster TalkTV and a farming commentator on GB News. A former journalist who grew up on a livestock and arable farm, he said he started the campaign to put “pressure on governments to help farmers … and shape the messages that will build public support”. 

“I think it’s time for a national debate on climate and net zero,” Melville told DeSmog. The campaign is due to launch a new mission statement in the coming days.

Scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is equivalent to that on evolution. 

The UK’s legally binding target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 is part of an international effort to limit global warming to 1.5 C. Food production accounts for around a quarter of global emissions. 

But while Melville’s campaign claims to speak for farmers, arable and livestock farmer Joe Stanley says the initiative does not represent his industry.

“There is massive discontent in the farming community,” he said. “But this does not seem to be a farmer-generated movement.”

“Populism whips up indignation and anger,” Stanley added. “That is what ‘No Farmers, No Food’ is doing, clearly with the hope of creating a wider movement as we’ve seen in Ireland and Holland.”

Journalist Peter Geoghegan, author of ‘Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics’, said that ‘No Farmers, No Food’ had “all the hallmarks of a classic astroturf campaign” – a supposedly ‘grassroots’ campaign that provides a front for political or commercial interests. 

“As we can see here you don’t need any grassroots support to be able to push an agenda straight into the media and the political system,” he said.

James Melville denied that the campaign was a front for political interests, adding that ‘No Farmers, No Food’ was “non-partisan”. “I welcome all sides of the debate,” he said.

By Nick Messenger, Kathy Hipple, and Anne Keller - Ohio River Valley Institute, January 25, 2024

In November 2022, over ten years after Shell’s first public announcement of site selection for the project, and after five years of construction, Shell Chemical Appalachia Polymers opened its ethane cracker plant in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The plant, which refines ethane, a natural gas liquid, into plastic pellets used to produce single-use plastics, was heralded as the beginning of a plastics industry renaissance in Appalachia. At least one local economic development organization estimated it would support nearly 600 direct employees and could generate 11,000 jobs in the Pittsburgh area.

Now, just over one year since production officially began, the plant has been mired in problems. The facility exceeded its allotted pollution limits within months of operating and repeated flaring has deepened air quality and health concerns of Beaver County residents. Furthermore, the plant seems to have fallen short so far in generating the economic benefits promised to residents, as Beaver County continues to trail the state across most economic metrics. This poor economic and environmental performance comes despite Shell receiving billions of dollars in state and local tax exemptions that carry an opportunity cost for taxpayers—namely, that alternative uses of the funds could have been used to grow the regional economy in more direct ways, such as to support small businesses, improve workforce development, or develop projects within industries that already have a strong history, complete with supply chains, in the region.

Download a copy of this publication here (PDF).

By Abbe Ramanan, Amanda McKay, David Schlissel, Anika Juhn, et. al. - Clean Energy Group, January 18, 2024