The thirtieth Conference of the Parties (COP30) on climate change in Belém, Brazil, unfortunately ended as many feared: with no concrete commitments reached to reduce emissions or deforestation.
No binding agreement was reached on a global roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas).
The international community is missing yet another opportunity to seriously address one of the main causes of climate change: FACTORY FARMING. Despite a now consolidated scientific consensus on its responsibility for global emissions, the issue continues to be marginalized in negotiations and almost entirely absent from concrete political decisions. Industrial animal production is responsible for a significant share of methane emissions, a greenhouse gas with a much greater warming potential than carbon dioxide. Added to this are deforestation caused by the cultivation of feed, massive water consumption, and soil pollution. Yet, despite its climate impact, this sector remains shielded by a complex web of economic and political interests that makes it impossible to discuss it openly at climate conferences.
At COP30, as in many previous editions, the negotiating tables seem more inclined to focus on energy and transportation, carefully avoiding the topic of food production. This choice betrays a lack of political courage and reveals an uncomfortable truth: discussing factory farming involves touching on a deeply rooted and culturally sensitive economic model. The main reasons are the pressure from agribusiness lobbies and the fear of socioeconomic impacts (in many countries the livestock sector represents a significant portion of the economy and employment).
One of the most disturbing revelations from COP30 concerns the massive—and growing—presence of industrial agribusiness in the negotiations. More than 300 lobbyists associated with intensive agriculture, industrial livestock farming, industrial-scale feed production, and pesticide use attended COP30. Some of them were part of official delegations from various countries, others had privileged access to the negotiating tables. This influential weight has ended up steering the climate agenda away from policies that challenge the intensive agricultural and livestock model—a model that numerous studies point to as a significant cause of emissions, deforestation, intensive land use, and water consumption.
One of the major assumptions of climate agreements is that energy, transport, and industry are the great enemies to be fought. However, as highlighted by the FAO and several NGOs, agriculture, mainly intensive livestock farming, is responsible for a significant portion of global emissions, deforestation, and environmental degradation.
During COP30, however, this issue was relegated to the background. According to conference organizers and environmental NGOs, the final outcome “does not reflect the urgency of reforming global food systems.”
The summit’s symbol was the Amazon—a crossroads of biodiversity, carbon sinks, indigenous populations, and ancient forests. Yet, despite this, COP30 failed to approve a binding roadmap to halt deforestation and redefine intensive agriculture as a global priority.
Indigenous leaders, guided by their cosmovision, repeatedly invoked the concept of planetary health in Belém: there can be no human health without healthy ecosystems. Protecting the planet’s health is the only option we have to ensure our survival as a human species.
