In September, academics from the University of Edinburgh and across the UK signed a letter calling for universities and student unions to ‘begin the transition to 100% just and sustainable plant-based catering’. However, a policy to this very end was resoundingly rejected at a EUSA Student Council meeting last March. I argue this was bad climate policy, since good policy passes.
The policy urged EUSA venues to rachet up the proportion of plant-based food on offer from 50% in the 2024-25 academic year to 100% by 2026-27. Despite other universities, such as Kent and Stirling, passing similar policies, here it proved deeply unpopular, with only 152 (19%) voting in favour, compared to 645 against. This policy would have had fantastic environmental benefits, so what lessons can be drawn from its failure?
Firstly, when discussing the transition to increasingly plant-based diets, it helps to distinguish the two broad motivations: ethical and environmental concerns. The former are motivated by the perceived immorality of livestock farming, the latter by the environmental impact of agriculture, particularly from livestock. These motivations do significantly overlap, for example regarding climate justice, the concern that changes in climate will unjustly exacerbate global inequalities. However, whilst similar, each concern could be alleviated without the other – one can imagine a world where agriculture remains within environmental limits, whilst livestock farming persists, or vice versa. Therefore, to evaluate the success of a policy, the primary motivation must be identified.
I believe environmental concerns are far more pressing than the ethical. The climate crisis has an urgency unlike almost any other issue – actions must be taken now to avoid catastrophic consequences. For me, this urgency renders ethical concerns (over agriculture) secondary. A good climate policy addresses the issue, but this is impossible if it does not pass. Effective policies have effects.
Therefore when proposing climate policy, the political feasibility must be evaluated alongside the environmental benefits. Despite concerns about dietary requirements and consequences for Scottish agriculture, I believe the primary objection to the plant-based policy was the move to 100% plant-based menus, and the resulting lack of choice for meat-eaters. Regardless of one’s sympathies to this objection, if it prevented climate policy passing then it should concern environmentalists.
Whilst both ethical and environmental concerns can motivate a 100% transition, it is only essential for the ethical. A move to 75% plant-based, but no more, would have 75% of the environmental impact. Further, it might avoid the seemingly poisoned pill of a totally plant-based campus. Given this, it is ironic that during the meeting the main proposer stated, ‘animal welfare was not a factor’ and that sustainability concerns were their sole motivation, yet due to an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach for a 100% transition, their policy failed, and sustainability will not increase.
All this is not to say climate policies should not be bold and progressive, just that this cannot come at the expense of being unpassable. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, I believe student environmentalists should decouple their cause from others and avoid an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach if there is a significant risk of ‘nothing’. Frankly, the university and EUSA could unilaterally adopt an identical policy, suffer a few weeks of protests, and then the issue would be forgotten. However, I believe the lesson from this policy’s failure can be extended to the environmental movement more broadly: constructive policies which are canny and passable now will help the planet far more than further reaching policies which fail. Systemic change will be achieved by imperfect environmentalism.
“University of Edinburgh, Teviot” by No machine-readable author provided. Maccoinnich~commonswiki assumed (based on copyright claims). is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Related
Where did EUSA go wrong with their plant-based climate policy?
In September, academics from the University of Edinburgh and across the UK signed a letter calling for universities and student unions to ‘begin the transition to 100% just and sustainable plant-based catering’. However, a policy to this very end was resoundingly rejected at a EUSA Student Council meeting last March. I argue this was bad climate policy, since good policy passes.
The policy urged EUSA venues to rachet up the proportion of plant-based food on offer from 50% in the 2024-25 academic year to 100% by 2026-27. Despite other universities, such as Kent and Stirling, passing similar policies, here it proved deeply unpopular, with only 152 (19%) voting in favour, compared to 645 against. This policy would have had fantastic environmental benefits, so what lessons can be drawn from its failure?
Firstly, when discussing the transition to increasingly plant-based diets, it helps to distinguish the two broad motivations: ethical and environmental concerns. The former are motivated by the perceived immorality of livestock farming, the latter by the environmental impact of agriculture, particularly from livestock. These motivations do significantly overlap, for example regarding climate justice, the concern that changes in climate will unjustly exacerbate global inequalities. However, whilst similar, each concern could be alleviated without the other – one can imagine a world where agriculture remains within environmental limits, whilst livestock farming persists, or vice versa. Therefore, to evaluate the success of a policy, the primary motivation must be identified.
I believe environmental concerns are far more pressing than the ethical. The climate crisis has an urgency unlike almost any other issue – actions must be taken now to avoid catastrophic consequences. For me, this urgency renders ethical concerns (over agriculture) secondary. A good climate policy addresses the issue, but this is impossible if it does not pass. Effective policies have effects.
Therefore when proposing climate policy, the political feasibility must be evaluated alongside the environmental benefits. Despite concerns about dietary requirements and consequences for Scottish agriculture, I believe the primary objection to the plant-based policy was the move to 100% plant-based menus, and the resulting lack of choice for meat-eaters. Regardless of one’s sympathies to this objection, if it prevented climate policy passing then it should concern environmentalists.
Whilst both ethical and environmental concerns can motivate a 100% transition, it is only essential for the ethical. A move to 75% plant-based, but no more, would have 75% of the environmental impact. Further, it might avoid the seemingly poisoned pill of a totally plant-based campus. Given this, it is ironic that during the meeting the main proposer stated, ‘animal welfare was not a factor’ and that sustainability concerns were their sole motivation, yet due to an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach for a 100% transition, their policy failed, and sustainability will not increase.
All this is not to say climate policies should not be bold and progressive, just that this cannot come at the expense of being unpassable. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, I believe student environmentalists should decouple their cause from others and avoid an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach if there is a significant risk of ‘nothing’. Frankly, the university and EUSA could unilaterally adopt an identical policy, suffer a few weeks of protests, and then the issue would be forgotten. However, I believe the lesson from this policy’s failure can be extended to the environmental movement more broadly: constructive policies which are canny and passable now will help the planet far more than further reaching policies which fail. Systemic change will be achieved by imperfect environmentalism.
“University of Edinburgh, Teviot” by No machine-readable author provided. Maccoinnich~commonswiki assumed (based on copyright claims). is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related