but actually cares? most of us have given up on feeding the nation just as everyone i know in the NHS cant be bothered anymore... apathy at its best...
The cartel are coming for you.
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
who cared what she said before.. Not me... i'm sparticus,
We’ve known for a while about these Scope 3 emissions and how they would be used by the retailers to point the finger at us. Which is why it was so important to get GWP* out into the open and adopted in some way. But the article states that it’s all about a possible announcement ahead of COP28 as if that’s gonna make any difference. Everyone’s Nero now. It’s pathetic.
I will eat the bugs if i cant eat the trees!!
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sustain...ign=2023-11-28&c=&cid=DM1107821&bid=263059004
The only sentence that matters is the one in bold. That's you that is.
Dave says that he is calling on the supermarkets to try harder, but that's a smokescreen. What he is actually saying is that the supermarkets need to make you try harder, because if they don't there is a danger that the finger will be pointed at the supermarkets themselves.
Hence they can't let the GFC quietly go away.
The grocery industry is not doing enough to mitigate its environmental impact, former Tesco CEO and now WWF chair Dave Lewis said as a new report by the NGO found supermarkets were on track to miss their own green targets.
WWF research out today warned supermarkets must step up action to meet the target to halve the environmental impact of UK shopping baskets by 2030.
The What’s in Store for the Planet 2023 report found that there were still “substantial gaps supermarkets must close to meet 2030 targets” across key areas of environmental impact, from climate emissions to deforestation, food waste and packaging.
WWF UK chair Dave Lewis told The Grocer that there had not been “enough progress” across the industry, whose efforts to minimise its climate footprint had been hindered by Covid-19 and the supply chain crisis, as well as government inaction.
Lewis was involved in the creation of the WWF’s sustainable basket metric in collaboration with Tesco five years ago, as a benchmark to track the progress of the supermarket in its pledge to slash its environmental.
That initiative has since grown to include other major supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s and Waitrose.
“I think if you had started this a few years ago and projected where you want to be, are we behind where we hoped we would be? I think we have to say we are,” Lewis said. But he noted it was crucial for the industry to “stop debating small details about methodologies and measurement and actually put all 100% of our effort into the changes that are required to move the agenda forward”.
Lewis was “encouraged” by increased retailer engagement – 10 of the 11 major UK retailers, representing over 90% of the UK retail grocery market, now submit data on aspects of the WWF Basket.
The NGO has also just welcomed Aldi as the latest signatory of its Retailers Commitment for Nature Group, joining Co-op, Lidl, M&S, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose in committing to halving the environmental impact of UK shopping baskets by 2030.
The report highlighted some “promising progress” in specific sectors – for instance, efforts have been made to tackle deforestation and conversion within palm oil supply chains, analysis showed, with 76% of palm oil in retailer supply chains reported to be RSPO certified.
However, this has not been matched in soy supply chains, with just 5% of soy verified to be deforestation and conversion-free.
Scope 3 emissions account for at least 94% of total reported emissions across all retailers, and there has been no indication yet that these are reducing across the sector.
These are currently calculated using average emissions data. Retailers needed to “rapidly switch” to using data specific to their supply chains, the WWF warned.
“I think the industry for a long time has debated things like methodologies, and no measurement is perfect but we now have a basket measurement that three-quarters of the UK food industry are saying they are going to use as a way of measuring the environmental impact on shopping basket”, Lewis said. The supermarkets that had signed up to the basket metric initiative had “performed slightly better than those who have not”, he added.
However, Lewis reiterated “the UK retailers can’t deliver this objective on their own” and need support from government on the regulatory front, particularly as much-delayed supply chain due diligence measures are still not in force.
The government committed to amending the Environment Act 2020 to include stronger anti-deforestation due diligence measures – in similar ways to the European Union’s new anti-deforestation law – but those have yet to be implemented.
“Some of these things can’t be left to the market, you need a policy framework,” Lewis said. “Some of that guidance around policy has been a little bit inconsistent over the two years, and so I think the big message is you need government policy to help the retailers with this direction.”
A recent Food Foundation report found government inaction had encouraged food companies to slow their efforts on health and sustainability.
The body’s State of the Nation’s Food Industry 2023 document shows government rowbacks, including the u-turn on HFSS promotions and failure to bring in mandatory reporting on health and carbon emissions, despite plans set out in the government’s response to Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy, have created a climate that discourages companies from moving the agenda forward.
However, Lewis urged retail CEOs to not wait for policy and continue working towards their goals: “The only thing that closes the gap in terms of performance is action,” he said.
WWF CEO Tanya Steele said: “The clock is ticking for people and planet but, within the food retail sector, the appetite is growing for action to shift our food system on to a sustainable footing.
“Today we welcome Aldi to WWF’s Retailers’ Commitment for Nature, where we’re working with UK food retailers to deliver shared solutions to tackle the devastating impacts of our food system on our environment – we urge all UK retailers to step up to this commitment and work with businesses across their supply chains to accelerate action.”
The only sentence that matters is the one in bold. That's you that is.
Dave says that he is calling on the supermarkets to try harder, but that's a smokescreen. What he is actually saying is that the supermarkets need to make you try harder, because if they don't there is a danger that the finger will be pointed at the supermarkets themselves.
Hence they can't let the GFC quietly go away.
The grocery industry is not doing enough to mitigate its environmental impact, former Tesco CEO and now WWF chair Dave Lewis said as a new report by the NGO found supermarkets were on track to miss their own green targets.
WWF research out today warned supermarkets must step up action to meet the target to halve the environmental impact of UK shopping baskets by 2030.
The What’s in Store for the Planet 2023 report found that there were still “substantial gaps supermarkets must close to meet 2030 targets” across key areas of environmental impact, from climate emissions to deforestation, food waste and packaging.
WWF UK chair Dave Lewis told The Grocer that there had not been “enough progress” across the industry, whose efforts to minimise its climate footprint had been hindered by Covid-19 and the supply chain crisis, as well as government inaction.
Lewis was involved in the creation of the WWF’s sustainable basket metric in collaboration with Tesco five years ago, as a benchmark to track the progress of the supermarket in its pledge to slash its environmental.
That initiative has since grown to include other major supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s and Waitrose.
Retailers Commitment for Nature Group
“I think if you had started this a few years ago and projected where you want to be, are we behind where we hoped we would be? I think we have to say we are,” Lewis said. But he noted it was crucial for the industry to “stop debating small details about methodologies and measurement and actually put all 100% of our effort into the changes that are required to move the agenda forward”.
Lewis was “encouraged” by increased retailer engagement – 10 of the 11 major UK retailers, representing over 90% of the UK retail grocery market, now submit data on aspects of the WWF Basket.
The NGO has also just welcomed Aldi as the latest signatory of its Retailers Commitment for Nature Group, joining Co-op, Lidl, M&S, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose in committing to halving the environmental impact of UK shopping baskets by 2030.
The report highlighted some “promising progress” in specific sectors – for instance, efforts have been made to tackle deforestation and conversion within palm oil supply chains, analysis showed, with 76% of palm oil in retailer supply chains reported to be RSPO certified.
However, this has not been matched in soy supply chains, with just 5% of soy verified to be deforestation and conversion-free.
Scope 3 emissions account for at least 94% of total reported emissions across all retailers, and there has been no indication yet that these are reducing across the sector.
These are currently calculated using average emissions data. Retailers needed to “rapidly switch” to using data specific to their supply chains, the WWF warned.
“I think the industry for a long time has debated things like methodologies, and no measurement is perfect but we now have a basket measurement that three-quarters of the UK food industry are saying they are going to use as a way of measuring the environmental impact on shopping basket”, Lewis said. The supermarkets that had signed up to the basket metric initiative had “performed slightly better than those who have not”, he added.
Support from government lacking
However, Lewis reiterated “the UK retailers can’t deliver this objective on their own” and need support from government on the regulatory front, particularly as much-delayed supply chain due diligence measures are still not in force.
The government committed to amending the Environment Act 2020 to include stronger anti-deforestation due diligence measures – in similar ways to the European Union’s new anti-deforestation law – but those have yet to be implemented.
“Some of these things can’t be left to the market, you need a policy framework,” Lewis said. “Some of that guidance around policy has been a little bit inconsistent over the two years, and so I think the big message is you need government policy to help the retailers with this direction.”
Attempts to better impact on sustainability and health slowing down
A recent Food Foundation report found government inaction had encouraged food companies to slow their efforts on health and sustainability.
The body’s State of the Nation’s Food Industry 2023 document shows government rowbacks, including the u-turn on HFSS promotions and failure to bring in mandatory reporting on health and carbon emissions, despite plans set out in the government’s response to Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy, have created a climate that discourages companies from moving the agenda forward.
However, Lewis urged retail CEOs to not wait for policy and continue working towards their goals: “The only thing that closes the gap in terms of performance is action,” he said.
WWF CEO Tanya Steele said: “The clock is ticking for people and planet but, within the food retail sector, the appetite is growing for action to shift our food system on to a sustainable footing.
“Today we welcome Aldi to WWF’s Retailers’ Commitment for Nature, where we’re working with UK food retailers to deliver shared solutions to tackle the devastating impacts of our food system on our environment – we urge all UK retailers to step up to this commitment and work with businesses across their supply chains to accelerate action.”
WWF UK chair Dave Lewis told The Grocer that there had not been “enough progress” across the industry, whose efforts to minimise its climate footprint had been hindered by Covid-19 and the supply chain crisis, as well as government inaction.
Er, why?
But he noted it was crucial for the industry to “stop debating small details about methodologies and measurement and actually put all 100% of our effort into the changes that are required to move the agenda forward”
Methodologies might seem a bit baffling and dreary to you Dave but for those of us at the sharp end they’re crucial. And they point the finger back at you, ya d**khead.
I think the industry for a long time has debated things like methodologies, and no measurement is perfect but we now have a basket measurement that three-quarters of the UK food industry are saying they are going to use as a way of measuring the environmental impact on shopping basket”
Er, your basket measurement that you’ve all agreed on is wrong Dave. Methodologies innit.
Er, why?
But he noted it was crucial for the industry to “stop debating small details about methodologies and measurement and actually put all 100% of our effort into the changes that are required to move the agenda forward”
Methodologies might seem a bit baffling and dreary to you Dave but for those of us at the sharp end they’re crucial. And they point the finger back at you, ya d**khead.
I think the industry for a long time has debated things like methodologies, and no measurement is perfect but we now have a basket measurement that three-quarters of the UK food industry are saying they are going to use as a way of measuring the environmental impact on shopping basket”
Er, your basket measurement that you’ve all agreed on is wrong Dave. Methodologies innit.
- Location
- Derbyshire
"basketcase Dave"
- Location
- JanDeGrootLand
Don't see why the Grocery trade is getting so het up, they just have to cut back on distribution/miles/carbon use and shop heating/cooling. Oh and wastage. Can't understand why they have to interfere with suppliers systems.
I am sure that the "Think Tanks" have been thinking and who the end user of the carbon is the one who should be taxed on it. (It's Tax that is the aim, is it not).
So fertiliser I buy will have a tax. Fuel will have a tax. But I will need an increase in sale price of produce to offset tax.
Flying away on holiday will have a tax. Supermarket shop will have a tax.
Bit like local sales taxes in some countries.
Simple??????????????? Maybe not, but get the basics of the idea. AI can work out the logistics. Be faster and fairer than if Civil servants get the job.
So I have been thinking, and as Retailers already charge VAT where applicable, Carbon tax can also be managed by them.
So buy your new TV and pay VAT and CUT. (Carbon usage Tax).
Buy a Loaf of bread and pay CUT.
Pay to use a heated swinging pool and pay VAT and CUT.
Companies would not need to buy Carbon Offsets.
I am sure that the "Think Tanks" have been thinking and who the end user of the carbon is the one who should be taxed on it. (It's Tax that is the aim, is it not).
So fertiliser I buy will have a tax. Fuel will have a tax. But I will need an increase in sale price of produce to offset tax.
Flying away on holiday will have a tax. Supermarket shop will have a tax.
Bit like local sales taxes in some countries.
Simple??????????????? Maybe not, but get the basics of the idea. AI can work out the logistics. Be faster and fairer than if Civil servants get the job.
So I have been thinking, and as Retailers already charge VAT where applicable, Carbon tax can also be managed by them.
So buy your new TV and pay VAT and CUT. (Carbon usage Tax).
Buy a Loaf of bread and pay CUT.
Pay to use a heated swinging pool and pay VAT and CUT.
Companies would not need to buy Carbon Offsets.
Am guessing that's said tongue in cheek.......They can't cut distribution miles, because the business model is built on increasing distribution miles. Hence they have to interfere with suppliers systems, to divert attention from that.
We are surrounded by orchards. Was in a local corner shop couple of days ago, on the counter he had some bags of apples, branded Jacks ie Tesco, he has no choice in that as Booker ie Tesco is his only wholesaler option. The apples were from the Netherlands. The system is broken. Market share is the root of all evil.
We went to the US in the early 90s and found each state had it's own retail tax. So New Orleans or South Carolina priced up stuff in their shops but the tax would be slightly different. You'd take what you wanted to the counter to pay and then they'd put their sales tax on top. Just like VAT
Are you thinking that if all CUTs at the point of final use (retail) would mean the financial boys in the CIty wont be able to trade in carbon because it will be strictly HMCE governed?
You're thinking that if there are fewer corporations buying land to plant trees etc (and so artificially inflating the price/acre) that it'll make farming easier?
- Location
- JanDeGrootLand
Tongue in cheek= NO.
Unless the General Public accept that their lifestyle is the reason that there is supposed excess Carbon in the atmosphere.
If the vast majority wont change, then they should pay for it. CUT as an add on cost to make them think.
As your example of Apples, what is the actual percentage of an average shop that is the transport cost.
The essential and unavoidable fact is that so much hype has mushroomed out of control about Carbon, and how/what causes it. Govt is running around like headless chickens patronising each other with absolutely no basic idea of the chemistry. So called self appointed experts with overextended confidence in all their reasoning promote their egotistical theories to all media sources that exaggerate to suit their market.
But nothing is really being done about it, (except a lot of hot air spouted by the media), but be sure there are some switched on Civil Servants looking at it as a way to raise more Tax Revenue
Meanwhile the Spivs of the Square Mile are eager to latch on too and exploit the hysteria and make a mint.
I like to stir the Cauldron.
(Edit) I should add that "Business Models" will change. It will change as market changes, customer demand changes and supply/demand changes.
So you are asking a business model that is based on centralization and consolidation to reduce its mileage. OK.
For the purposes of a discussion on a farming forum, the public do not have to change their lifestyle in order for us to build a food system based on diversity rather than consolidation.
Environmental cost, or economic cost ?
100%. Business models will change. Though you have missed out the role of the state. We don't have a food system based on the free market, the state intervenes at every turn.
- Location
- JanDeGrootLand
Time will see Supermarkets change. At least two are seriously considering closing large stores that are problematicle due to unprofitability.
An interesting aside, in conversation with a Haulier, New Tractor units are about 4 tonnes heavier than 20 year old models. Take number of units on the road and multiply that by 4 tonnes of unnessesary tonnage being lugged around the country producing Co2.
The "Consumer" changes all the time. Farming in general produces a raw material, which has to be transported and processed before being sold to the consumer.
It's only a couple of generations since enough food was a concern to the consumer, now most seem to consider it a right that should not need to pay for.
That may change, but probably not in our lifetime. BigBis will adapt and continue to profit greatly from a public that will change to match their perception of what is right.
Much of UK environment is well bggrd, so their will be a great financial cost to make improvements. Sewage alone.
Does the State lead? Or does it follow at the behest of Business?
- Location
- Yorks
That would be my crystal balls.
Just parking this post on this thread. It is important both to the understanding of this issue and to seeing who UK ag needs to work with to turn things round.
- Location
- Northumberland
- Location
- Derbyshire
if only he could be right about Stoke City winning the Premier League!
