These words, from Canadian philosopher and futurist Marshall McLuhan, emphasize both the necessity of a collectivist attitude and the necessity of coordinated action toward climate change. As the world rapidly approaches the disaster barrier that is 1.5 degrees celsius, it is imperative that the United States takes steps to reach critical climate targets such as net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050. 

Though these may seem like lofty goals, they are now considered essential by many climate experts, if we are to avoid major climate catastrophes that will cost millions of lives, destroy ecosystems and environments and affect trillions of dollars in global revenue. 

Given the extent to which oil and natural gas lobbyists are entrenched and hold influence in American politics, implementing large-scale renewable energy may be difficult to accomplish within the next 10 years. Alternatively, other avenues must be considered to reduce our carbon footprint. A course of action that has been seemingly overlooked is legislation to reduce methane emissions by decreasing the number of cows consumed — essentially, legislation to tackle the meat industry. If deemed politically feasible and in the interest of the administration, President Joe Biden currently faces several alternatives and options for reducing emissions from livestock in order to meet emissions targets.  

Agricultural emissions in the United States account for approximately 10% of all GHG emissions. The largest culprit within the agricultural industry is cattle which — through digestive methane production, transportation, packaging and distribution — directly contributes approximately 30% of all agricultural emissions. The most concerning of these emissions is methane (CH4) — which has a global warming potency 86 times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

Cattle contributes to methane emissions primarily in 2 ways. The first is through a process known as enteric fermentation, which is a natural digestive process in which food is decomposed and fermented, creating a by-product of methane. The second primary contributor is cow manure, which often releases methane as it decomposes under anaerobic conditions in piles or open-pit lagoons. 

Combatting methane emissions is a nuanced issue, and agricultural organizations and scientists alike have been doing their best to tackle the challenge for the past 30 years. Many have sought to reduce emissions through intentional alterations of a cow’s rumen, the stomach chamber in which microbes ferment feed hence producing methane. Others have focused on selective breeding for cows with less methane-producing microbes, as well as experimenting with different feeds that promote better digestion. Nevertheless, emissions from agriculture have actually increased despite efforts in many developed countries to actively reduce methane production in cows.

There are several critical reasons why, even with an average reduction of methane emissions per cow, global methane emissions from cattle have still increased by 10% within the last 30 years. First is the phenomenon known as “meatification” in regions like Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Demand for meat has skyrocketed as purchasing power has increased within these regions, and, as a result, global meat production has nearly doubled since 1990. 

Second, measures adopted have been inefficient at reducing overall methane and GHG emissions. While they have made some difference in reducing emissions per cow, raising cows is still a massively inefficient process. In order to raise a cow for slaughter, you must raise it for two to three years as well as provide it with an exceptional amount of land, water, and food. Moreover, cows produce about up to 21 tons of manure per year, and ineffective manure management can lead to greater methane emissions. On top of that, many of these measures have been adopted inconsistently throughout the globe, given that wealthier nations are more equipped to fund the research and supplies needed to successfully implement these measures. 

Yet, research still continues in these areas despite the limited effectiveness of the measures being developed. Why? The larger answer lies in the fact that improvements and advancements in these areas allow the animal agriculture industry to expand. 

But these scientific advancements cannot fix an industry that is inherently destructive – not only to the planet, but to the health of citizens as well. If the United States is serious about combating the negative externalities created by animal agriculture — including methane emissions from cattle — a new agricultural landscape must be constructed rather than focusing improvements to the current one.

There are several paths the Biden administration can pursue if it wishes to significantly reduce the cattle industry’s methane emissions. The first alternative is cut from the old cloth, but worth exploring nonetheless. It involves feeding cows a specific type of seaweed. A 2018 study from the University of California, Davis suggests that feeding cows seaweed could reduce methane emissions from beef cattle by as much as 82%. Unfortunately, implementing this on a massive scale is near impossible because there is simply not enough of that type of seaweed to sustain a cow’s diet, and there are several logistical challenges with providing seaweed supplements to cows grazing on an open range. 

A second policy Biden mught consider is focusing on supporting the growth of businesses that produce plant-based protein substitutes. Plant-based meat alternatives have historically been frowned  upon, but their popularity has absolutely exploded in the past few years with the success of companies like Beyond Meat. Two out of five Americans have tried plant-based meat, with that figure stretching to over 50% for those 25 and younger. Moreover, plant-based substitutes are expected to achieve a whopping 85 billion dollars in sales in 2030, an 1,847% increase from 2018. This growth has only accelerated throughout the pandemic, as the unsafe COVID-19 conditions endured by many meat processing workers have increased calls for more meat-free alternatives.

Another promising innovation the Biden administration could support is lab-grown meat. Currently, lab-grown meat is still in its infancy in the United States, with plans to serve cultured meat still several years away. However, in the United Kingdom the process is a little further along. There are currently 15 startups focusing on lab-grown meat and they have plans to expand to mass production in the coming years. CE Delft expects that by 2030, lab-grown beef could be just as inexpensive as agricultural beef. Even better news, if lab-grown factories were funded by renewable energy it would reduce total beef emissions by 93%. Lab-grown beef may be the best potential alternative because not only does it allow us to reduce our methane emissions and assuage ethical concerns about animal farming, but it also allows consumers to keep the taste and nutrients of meat readily available in their diet.  

But one notable hurdle the United States faces with both plant-based proteins and lab-grown beef is the political strength of the U.S. agribusiness industry. According to research from New York University, major meat and dairy producers have spent millions on lobbying efforts and campaigns aimed at discrediting links between climate change and animal agriculture. Over the last two decades, ‘Big Ag’ has spent $750 million on supporting national political candidates who hold similar policy stances, with Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Joni Ernst among their top recipients. 

Unsurprisingly, these major conglomerates have been able to get away with highly carbon-intensive methods of agriculture, as well as produce food at a very cheap rate due to large agricultural subsidies. The Barack Obama administration tried to check the advances of Big Ag, promising millions of rural farmers that they would fight back against the most powerful players in the industry, only to stop when the major agricultural conglomerates banded together with their congressional allies. 

Nevertheless, the emergence of climate change as a central political issue will facilitate Biden’s ability to check the power of Big Ag. As more and more American citizens express their concern about climate change, Congress will have to listen to its constituents or risk losing popular support. Additionally, with Democratic control over the House, and the Senate nearly equally split, climate policies will face less hurdles than they did under former President Donald Trump. Biden should take advantage of these circumstances to steadfastly push climate action.

And as such, I believe the Biden administration should consider adopting the following measures to mitigate the effect of the meat industry on climate change.

1. Increase investment in seaweed farming products;
2. Increase subsidies to plant-based protein companies in order to promote industry growth and reduce prices; 
3. Decrease or eliminate subsidies to animal agriculture, which keep the price of beef and other animal products artificially low; 
4. Have the EPA classify methane as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA);
5. Fund research, infrastructure, and production capacities for lab-grown beef;

The climate crisis grows more grim every day. If substantial action is not taken by the Biden administration to fundamentally reduce American beef consumption and minimize animal agriculture in general, the United States will struggle to reach its emission targets, thereby hampering the global climate fight and bringing the world closer to environmental catastrophe. 

The post The Biden Administration Ought to Reduce Meat Consumption appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

After more than a year of negotiations, the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) went into effect on July 1, 2020. Earlier last summer, while President Donald Trump moved quickly to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the USMCA, his opponents were eager to criticize this as a shift towards protectionism. In practice, both NAFTA and its successor, the USMCA, are hard to reconcile with the United States’ traditionally conservative and liberal alignments. 

Those with more left-leaning views denounced the end of NAFTA, as it signaled a shift away from free trade policies. Support in favor of free trade is tied to a desire to remove barriers to movement amongst member states, whether it be for goods or people. It is precisely this free movement, however, that is detrimental to smallholder (subsistence) farms in Mexico. 

On the other hand, the right moved to replace NAFTA, claiming that the adverse effects outweighed any benefits of free trade. These same individuals have been simultaneously lobbying for tighter immigration control from Mexico to the United States, yet it is these very policies which have continued under the USMCA which have pushed people to immigrate in the first place. A large portion of these immigrants are smallholder farmers left with no option but to abandon their plots in search of new employment .

With the USMCA already depleting the livelihood of smallholder farms, there is a desperate need for action to help these farmers. We argue that recent advances in satellite imagery could protect the livelihoods of these farmers under the USMCA.

The Flip Side of Subsidies

Both NAFTA and the USMCA attempt to promote free trade through a restriction on tariffs. However, this agreement does not place a limit on subsidies that national governments can provide within their own borders. 

Subsidies under both agreements were intended to support domestic agriculture. However, with the continued limitation on tariffs, Mexican farmers have been left vulnerable to the increased productivity of subsidized American commercial farming. Whereas a Mexican farmer would have to sell their product at a high price to profit, the same product can now be imported and sold at a lower price from subsidized American farms. To the Mexican consumer, an item of produce is the same whether it is from the United States or Mexico, so they naturally will choose the cheaper option, resulting in lost income for Mexican farmers. Therefore, though the USMCA has attempted to remedy the faults of NAFTA in certain aspects, the component of NAFTA that was most detrimental to Mexican farmers in particular has remained a problem under the new USMCA. 

Government subsidies are not the only factor causing the price disparity between American and Mexican produce. The differing agricultural systems and resulting resource inequalities between commercial farms in the United States and smallholder farms in Mexico only serve to exacerbate this problem. Understanding the differences between two systems with the same end product is essential to comprehending our call to help smallholders. 

Different Farms, Different Consequences 

Commercial farms often span hundreds of acres and grow a single crop for industrial use at a wide profit margin. And while a commercial farmer may never eat their own crops, a smallholder farmer depends on their harvests for their livelihood. Smallholders typically grow a small amount of a wide variety of crops, only selling excess harvests after their family’s needs are met. 

Although the size and function of smallholder farms are vastly different from commercial farms, the most salient distinction is in access to resources. The most sophisticated commercial farms are multi-million dollar technological supersystems, often equipped with drones collecting data on crop performance and using artificial intelligence to precisely deploy irrigation and fertilizer in real time. In contrast, smallholder farms are rain-fed systems relying on climatic whims for the success of their crops. Aside from technological resources, commercial farms often have legal and fiscal resources to insure their crops and lobby for policies that will secure demand for their product. These resource inequities leave smallholder farms less equipped to compete with commercial farms and contend with rapidly changing climatic conditions. 

When smallholder farms are placed in global political systems, the negative consequences of political agreements are compounded by pre-existing inequities. Unfortunately, with the agreement’s negotiations, these negative consequences were often ignored or unforeseen from the start. NAFTA was embraced as a method of economic integration meant to elevate wages in Mexico to the levels that were seen in the United States and Canada. 

However, the removal of protective tariffs resulted in previously unseen competition between domestic farmers in Mexico and commercial farming both in Mexico and in the United States. Smallholder farmers have since struggled to compete, and the unemployment rate among family farms in Mexico increased sharply. Since 1991, the number of people employed in family farming in Mexico has decreased by more than 58%. This massive job loss that may continue under the USMCA could be prevented with satellites. 

Why Satellite Imagery?

Satellite imagery, commonly referred to as remote sensing, presents a way to ensure the livelihoods of smallholder farms under the USMCA. While satellites provide countless benefits to farmers, the three benefits that will make them resilient to the negative consequences of the USMCA are the following: (1) the global coverage of satellite imagery, (2) the detection of crop properties and (3) the ability to secure farming insurance.

1. Global Coverage

Satellites scan every corner of the globe, providing researchers with limitless information about agricultural production. Prior to satellites, researchers would have to visit remote study sites to collect data by hand on agricultural-ecological metrics. This often involved a length and costly process of collecting ecological samples to be analyzed in a lab. Accessing these remote locations is often difficult given the lack of infrastructure to reach rural areas. With satellite imagery, data collection is no longer dependent on the quality, or more often paucity, of transportation infrastructure. 

2. Crop Property Detection

With this abundance of data, researchers are able to use satellite imagery to detect properties of plants invisible to the naked eye. Biophysical differences between crops like nutrient deficiencies, water stress, or chlorophyll content, can only be detected in the infrared spectrum. Unlike humans, satellites collect imagery in the infrared spectrum to “see” these differences. Using this data, researchers are able to map agricultural metrics that allow farmers to assess the “invisible” crop stresses of their farm. With this data, farmers can detect the specific parts of their farms that need expensive inputs like fertilizer or pesticides. By more efficiently allotting these inputs, smallholders save money enabling them to price their goods competitively and compete with subsidized farms.

3. Satellite Imagery for Agricultural Insurance

Another barrier for smallholder farmers in Mexico is the inaccessibility of agricultural insurance. Agricultural insurers typically rely on many years of meteorological and agricultural data to decide who to insure. Smallholder farms typically lack this data rendering them ineligible for insurance. With satellite imagery, farmers can provide remotely sensed meteorological or agricultural data to insurers. 

Since the USMCA’s recent ratification, the damage that has resulted has already started to resemble that of NAFTA. The very same subsidies that were detrimental to smallholder farms have continued under this new agreement. However, advances in satellite imagery have the potential to play a key role in saving smallholders farmers’ income by informing efficient resource allocation and securing agricultural insurance. Unfortunately, this data is a valuable resource currently accessible only to commercial farms. 

Despite this current imbalance, in the near future smallholder farmers will be able to access the benefits of satellite imagery as easily as the American consumer can purchase Mexican produce.

This article was written by Glimpse from the Globe’s guest contributing authors.

The post Satellite Imagery Will Secure the Future of Mexican Farmers Under the USMCA appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On December 19th, the EU, on behalf of Airbus, filed a complaint with the WTO accusing the US of providing billions of dollars in subsidies to Boeing in violation of international trade law. These allegations are the latest incident in the now decades-long rivalry between the two aerospace giants who collectively form the world’s largest duopoly.

History

Competition between the two firms began when members of the former European Economic Community established Airbus in 1969 to counteract the domination of US firms such as Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas. By the 1990s, losses and mergers left Boeing as the sole large-scale producer of passenger aircraft in the US, tearing the bulk of the international airliner market between the American company and Airbus.

The rivalry has since largely been driven by each company’s ability to sell new manufactured aircraft to the world’s major airlines. A recent surge in international travel and the rapid growth of airlines such as Lion Air (Indonesia), Emirates (UAE) and IndiGo (India) has intensified competition. Airline expansion is particularly focused in emerging economies where growth far outpaces that of developed countries.

Products

One of the earliest incidents of competition between Boeing and Airbus is that of the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 family rivalries. Boeing’s release of the first 737 in 1968 marked the beginning of what would become the world’s most successful airliner series. The 737, along with its successors in the 737 Next Generation family (released in 1997), made use of a narrow-body twinjet model designed for flying short to medium distance routes. Airbus’s answer to the 737 came in 1988 with the A320 series, following a similar design and capable of carrying roughly the same number of passengers (approximately 210).

One of the most publicized instances of product rivalry centers around to the two company’s jumbo jets. In 2007, Airbus released the A380 to compete with what was previously the world’s largest airliner, the Boeing 747. Both four engine, double decked, wide bodied aircraft are used primarily for international long distance flights and can each carry over 400 passengers. Recently however, fuel efficiency concerns have called the viability of both aircraft into question, making their fate in the future of aviation uncertain. Forecasts predict limited profitability in upcoming years for the A380. Airbus recently hinted at the possibility of discontinuing the model altogether by 2018. The 747 has witnessed a similar trend and has recently fallen out of favor among major airlines that are opting instead for more efficient long-distance, wide-body, twin jet alternatives.

For Boeing, these alternatives come in the form of the preexisting 767 (introduced in 1982) and 777 (introduced in 1995), the latter of which recently gained minor notoriety for its involvement in two fatal Malaysia Airlines incidents in 2014. The 787 “Dreamliner” (released in 2010) and the 777x (to be released later this decade) will replace 767 and 777 respectively. Airbus’s competing long-distance twin jet airliners primarily consist of the A330 series (released in 1992) and its successors, the A350 XWB (introduced in 2013) and the A330neo (expected release in 2017).

Litigation

In addition to releasing a constant stream of new airliners, each firm has turned to international courts to stifle their competition. In multiple instances, the two have leveled accusations that its rival has been receiving illegal and anticompetitive assistance from its respective government(s).

Airbus, headquartered in Toulouse, France, consists of a manufacturing network involving France, Germany, the UK and Spain and is thus characterized by high levels of international cooperation. Since 1992, these governments have provided as much as $15 billion in “launch aid,” preferential loans (below commercial rates) granted to Airbus to be paid off with interest.

In 2004, launch aid materialized into a legal controversy upon complaints issued by the United States Trade Representative (USTR), initiating one of the longest and most complicated WTO cases to date. Boeing and the USTR argued that Airbus’s launch aid violated international free trade laws and illegally benefited Airbus at Boeing’s expense. The USTR further targeted loans from the European Investment Bank, research and technology funding, and several specific infrastructure improvements as additional forms of unlawful assistance.

Subsequently, Airbus and the EU denied that launch aid constituted an illegal subsidy and in turn leveled their own allegations against the US and Boeing. The EU also filed a parallel complaint to the WTO, arguing that tax breaks granted to Boeing by Washington state, Kansas and Illinois, and research and development programs between Boeing and NASA (among other federal programs) constituted illegal subsidies totaling over $19 billion.

The WTO treated the two complaints separately and released its decision on Airbus’s launch aid in June 2010 and its decision on Boeing’s tax breaks in March 2011. After an arduous appeals process, the organization’s appellate body ultimately reached a conclusion in March 2012 ruling that both parties had received various forms of illegal subsidies. However, technicalities in the report obscured its true meaning; both companies, each seeking to spin the outcome in their favor, claimed victory.

Since the latest ruling, neither the US nor the EU has taken considerable measures to reform their policies. Pre-existing agreements (e.g., contracts predating the WTO decision) offer each rival ample justification to carry on unfazed. Launch aid to Airbus persists while Boeing continues to benefit from generous tax breaks. The trade conflict lingers on.

On December 19^th, 2014, the EU revived the unresolved dispute going once again to the WTO. In its latest charge, the EU and Airbus accused Washington state of continuing to provide illegal subsidies to Boeing through the extension of the previously condemned tax breaks.

Other Controversies

Aside from the subsidy dispute, the two aerospace companies have long been subject to controversy regarding illicit or otherwise morally questionable activities, including bribery. This may be particularly true for Airbus, which has been caught in countless scandals involving the use of bribery to win contracts with foreign governments at Boeing’s expense. These activities have been all but condoned by the French government, which treated the bribery of foreign officials as a tax-deductible expense until 1997. In contrast, the US made bribing foreign officials a federal offense in 1977. France continues to receive criticism from organizations like the OECD for its lax attitude towards bribery.

This isn’t to say that Boeing is guiltless when it comes to surreptitious business practices. Boeing has been involved in several of its own high profile bribery cases, including a scandal surrounding a $23.5 billion Airtanker deal with the Air Force in 2003 in which Airbus was a competitor. Even more damaging is Boeing’s relationship with US security agencies, which has lead to allegations of economic espionage. Though agencies like the NSA make no secret of spying to advance US economic interests, the true extent to which they do so to benefit specific US companies is unclear. It is clear, however, that NSA intelligence through the ECHELON program cost Airbus a $6 billion deal with Saudi Arabia, which was later picked up by Boeing instead.

Future

Based on previous outcomes, it seems unlikely that the EU’s latest complaints with the WTO will be conducive to any meaningful policy changes on either side of the Atlantic. As the WTO lacks serious mechanisms to enforce international trade law, the US and EU would need the willpower to initiate a trade war or reach an out of court settlement if the conflict were to finally be resolved. As the US and EU subsist on high levels of mutual dependence in both a political and economic sense, the former option is exceedingly unlikely.

Both Boeing and Airbus represent massive shares of the US and EU economies, with each employing hundreds of thousands of workers and bringing in billions in export revenue. These factors, coupled with immaterial and emotional elements of the rivalry (e.g., the national pride associated with manufacturing extraordinary aircraft), have the effect of making private sector aircraft production inevitably tied to government involvement.

It therefore seems out of the question to expect either company to completely remove itself from the hand of public assistance. In order to reach a resolution, the US and EU must come to an agreement which minimizes the role of subsidies in the rivalry and balances the effects of whichever subsidies persist. Such an agreement should ultimately allow the products themselves to set the stage for airliner competition rather than government aid.

Additional causes for animosity, such as bribery or the use of industrial espionage, will be more complicated to resolve. With each firm offering similar and reliable products, contract negotiations inevitably involve political and economic favors. But one can hope that efforts by the OECD to curtail the use of bribes as a bargaining chip and trends indicating global poverty reductions will reduce the significance of illicit negotiations as a competitive tactic. And in light of Snowden’s NSA revelations, which cost Boeing a $4.5 billion contract with Brazil, it may be beneficial for US companies if industrial espionage efforts were restrained.

With Boeing and Airbus each continuing to churn out advanced and competitive aircraft, it seems that the airline industry will continue to be dominated by the American and European companies for the foreseeable future. But any major misstep in the production process, a severe loss litigation front or a crippling scandal could lead to either side gaining total control of the market or could potentially make way for a new competitor. With countries such as Japan, Russia and China each seeking to increase their foothold in the airline market, the latter possibility is not implausible. But as is the case with most matters of this nature, the future cannot easily be forecasted.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Correction: The previous version of this article mistakenly identified Lion Air as “Air Lion.” The article has been corrected. 

The post Explaining the Airbus-Boeing Rivalry appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.