Nature negative according to this article = many of the things that keep humans alive and food on the table. Construction using concrete, fertilizer that grows crops to feed people. I’m all for improving nature-positive solutions, that are also pro-human.
If I understood the article correctly there are subsidies being provided for some of these activities. It may be possible to still grow enough food while not causing so much emissions. For example, corn is (was?) apparently majorly subsidized in the US. It might be much better for the environment to grow a different crop instead. Another common example is the greenhouse emissions of different meats, where switching to eggs may be much easier on the environment than a similar amount of beef.
(Someone might ask - I want to eat corn-based food and taking away subsidies may change that - a, corn would still be available, just likely at a different price, and b - your dietary preferences are already shaped by economics and global food trade etc. You never truly had a free choice unless you're a billionaire who was comparing ramen to caviar for fun.)
You are right. As to why certain foods get picked over others, environmental factors are only a part of the decision. In agriculture, unlike in software development, changes and adaptations take much longer to implement. If a farmer cultivates a type of crop that isn't favored by consumers, it could lead to financial ruin.
These subsidies are mainly intended to provide affordable food for large populations. The government acknowledges the public's preference for certain foods that are easily stored, widely distributed, and can grow in diverse environments.
this is chapter and verse rationalization -- since the Green Revolution of fertilizer inputs, food shortage is not really a thing for the parts of the world I know about. What is also a thing is highly processed food with colorful packaging, and specialty foods with more commercial profits, and aggregation by Big Agriculture.
Do you really live in Ethiopia or South-central India? or there are other (unstated) motivations
Your example of being food secure during your lifetime, a very pro-human thing, shows how investment in fertilizer is net good. However, this article equates fertilizer to being nature-negative. The government in Sri Lanka, using ideology similar to that used in this article, switched to a different farming system, which has devastated their food security. [1]
>b - your dietary preferences are already shaped by economics and global food trade etc. You never truly had a free choice unless you're a billionaire who was comparing ramen to caviar for fun.)
This doesn't make any sense. The popular meats that people eat are already the cheapest ones. While they're probably subsidized to some extent, I doubt the non-popular ones (caviar? kangaroo?) are going to be cheaper and/or better for the environment.
What I meant is that what your "favorite" food/dish is is influenced by a huge number of factors outside your control, for example an Italian may like olives much more than a Russian might, simply because of where (climate & geography) olives grow.
For meats, I don't think there's that much of variation as grains/vegetables as it appears that the "main" meats (poultry, fish, pork, beef) are relatively common globally. But there have been several "uncommon" grains that were popular but were pushed down as governments pushed for specific crops to meet short term food security. For example India pushed for high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice in the green revolution, while some other grains (buckwheat iirc) have been around for a long time but have fallen out of favour (due to cost, I would guess).
> The GRI Standards help organizations understand their impacts on the economy, environment, and society - including those on human rights. This increases accountability and enhances transparency on their contribution to sustainable development.
Do (UN SDG GlobalGoals aligned) [GRI] Sustainability Reports help firms identify where their business and production methods are the problem, and how could they be improved?
> The findings are based on an analysis of global financial flows, revealing that private nature-negative finance flows amount to US$5 trillion annually, 140 times larger than the US$35 billion of private investments in nature-based solutions. The five industries channeling most of the negative financial flows – construction, electric utilities, real estate, oil and gas, and food and tobacco – represent 16% of overall investment flows in the economy but 43% of nature-negative flows associated with the destruction of forests, wetlands, and other natural habitats.
Very little of what we do everyday seems to have a neutral or even positive impact on our (non-human) environment. Either it creates garbage, emits pollution. It’s going to be a long way to change.
We ask ourselves how the Romans could have found watching people fight to the death entertaining, how people justified slavery and genocide. Future generations will be equally dumbfounded why we wilfully destroyed our planet.
Greed. Tragedy of the commons. Out-of-control capitalism. Selfishness. Externalities. Carelessness. Short-sightedness. Stupidity.
Need I go on? People are driven by primitive instincts. We still have a lot to learn if our species is to ever 'transcend' into something higher/better.
