Can the Impossible Burger Lower Municipalities' Carbon Footprints?

• Author: Linda K. Breggin
• Position: Director of ELI's Center for State, Tribal, and Local Environmental Programs
• Pages: 11-11

MAY/JUNE 2021 | 11

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, May/June 2021.

Copyright © 2021, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Around the States

T housands of cities have joined

initiatives such as the Global

Covenant of Mayors for Climate

and Energy, pledging to reduce their

carbon footprints. Cities are pursuing

a range of actions to reach their targets

but until recently have largely ignored

measures to advance plant-based pro-

teins — despite the conclusion of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change and other experts that reduc-

ing meat consumption plays a key role

in addressing climate change.

Recently, however, municipalities

are paying more attention to the miti-

gation potential of plant-based pro-

teins — not only in their climate action

plans but in other governance tools as

well. Measures range from procure-

ment practices to Meatless Monday

campaigns to education and outreach.

is trend coincides with the rollout

of what the Good Food Institute calls

the “next-generation

of plant-based meat,”

which “looks, cooks,

and tastes like con-

ventional meat.” ese

products, which “bio-

mimic” meat, appeal

to most consumers

and are being successfully marketed in

stores and restaurants.

e climate mitigation payo can

be substantial. Life-cycle assessments

nd that the Impossible Burger and its

competitor the Beyond Burger stack

up well against their beef counterpart

— with 89 percent less greenhouse gas

emissions. Even small adjustments can

be signicant. According to the Green

Cincinnati Plan: “If 10 percent of Cin-

cinnatians ate meat one less day per

week . . . [carbon] emissions would be

reduced by 75,000 tons per year.”

Cost-savings are also a factor. A

Friends of the Earth study nds that

the Oakland Unied School District

“slashed the carbon footprint of its

food service 14 percent by reducing

its purchases of animal products by 30

percent and replacing them with plant-

based proteins and more fruits and veg-

etables.” In addition, there are substan-

tial health benets in eating less meat.

Nevertheless, cities have been slow

to promote plant-based proteins in

part because of the practical and po-

litical challenges associated with con-

vincing residents to change their diets.

e global sustainability organization

ICLEI USA’s Angie Fyfe notes that it

is “really hard to impose restrictions on

diets” and ags “the perils of dictating

what people can eat,” citing former

New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s

eorts to ban large sugary drinks. As a

result, she observes that cities tend to

“look to options that incentivize” rather

than mandate changes.

To be sure, it is easier for cities to

introduce plant-based proteins in their

own operations, such as hospitals and

prisons. However, emissions associated

with food consump-

tion are not typically

considered in calcu-

lating a city’s carbon

footprint — unless

the food is produced

within its geographic

boundaries. Because

meat is not commonly produced in cit-

ies, municipalities may be more likely

to focus on reducing the emissions they

are required to report.

Despite these barriers, cities are

moving forward — driven in part by

cost savings, public health, and sustain-

ability goals. Among their approaches

is exercising the power of the purse.

In their Municipal Guide to Climate-

Friendly Food Purchasing, FOE and

the Responsible Purchasing Network

emphasize that procuring less meat in

operations is “a triple win for commu-

nity well-being, local budgets, and the

planet”— and can also motivate the

private sector to take similar actions.

According to the guide, several mu-

nicipalities include “climate friendly

food procurement” measures in their

climate action plans, including Port-

land and Eugene, and some specically

address reduced meat consumption,

such as Santa Monica (15 percent re-

duction target for meat and dairy pur-

chases) and Carrboro (50 percent tar-

get for emissions reductions associated

with meat consumption). And cities

like Boulder, Portland, San Diego, and

Philadelphia provide guidance on of-

fering plant-based meat alternatives at

municipal facilities.

Procurement standards for plant-

based proteins also can be incorporated

into broader sustainable purchasing and

healthy food standards. For example,

numerous cities follow the Good Food

Purchasing Program’s environmen-

tal sustainability and animal welfare

standards, which include a strategy to

promote “plant-forward menus” with

smaller portions of animal proteins.

In addition, a large number of mu-

nicipalities, and in some cases their

school districts, are adopting various

forms of Meatless Monday campaigns

pursuant to proclamations, resolutions,

policies, and climate action plans.

Education and outreach initiatives

are also common. Iowa City’s climate

action plan supports eorts to promote

the benets of a “plant-rich diet” and

Carrboro’s plan includes outreach to

residents on climate-friendly diets.

Innovative governance measures to

advance plant-based proteins, coupled

with omnivore-friendly products, may

mark an inection point in addressing

a seemingly intractable climate mitiga-

tion challenge.

Can the Impossible Burger Lower

Municipalities’ Carbon Footprints?

Governance, coupled

with omnivore-friendly

products, may mark

an inlection point

Linda K. Breggin is director

of ELI’s Center f or State, Tribal, and

Local Environ mental Progra ms. She

can be reache d at breggin@eli.org.