Read on Twitter
You may read that Smithfield, the world's largest pork producer, is aiming to be "carbon negative" by 2030.
You may then scratch your head. Because, of course, that cannot be right. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-03/world-s-top-pork-producer-launches-new-plan-to-cut-emissions?sref=jjXJRDFv
You may then scratch your head. Because, of course, that cannot be right. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-03/world-s-top-pork-producer-launches-new-plan-to-cut-emissions?sref=jjXJRDFv
Smithfield is playing a classic corporate trick. It is choosing a slice of the emissions that it has direct control over and then take that to zero (or even negative).
That slice is about 16% of its emissions, which come directly from the hog farms it controls.
That slice is about 16% of its emissions, which come directly from the hog farms it controls.
The rest of the emissions, called Scope 3, come from contractors and small farmers supplying hogs to Smithfield, the feed that is produced for the pigs, and when customers cook the meat for consumption.
On all that Smithfield aims to cut emissions by 25% by 2025.
On all that Smithfield aims to cut emissions by 25% by 2025.
Cutting emissions when your supply chain is distributed is hard. But if Unilever, which has one of the most complex supply chains in the world, can do it, I don't see why other companies shouldn't be setting similar aims. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-14/unilever-to-cut-emissions-to-zero-by-2039-adopt-carbon-labeling?sref=jjXJRDFv
All climate plans are welcome. Any emissions cut are harms avoided. But do not make plans just for getting marketing plaudits. Do it based on what the best science says. Use resources like @sciencetargets. It's not so hard.
Thanks to @isiscarol14 @mhirtz @milliemun @aaronrutkoff @AggieDeSousa for thoughts that made the story stronger.
