Page 66

In 2016 my team convinced me to attend the COP 22 in Marrakesh, to present our solution for the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from cows and sheep. Agriculture has long been known to be the third largest contributor to emissions but did not feature sufficiently on the previous COPs’ agendas. Hence my presentation was themed ‘the elephant in the room is really a cow’. It introduced Mootral, our feed supplement that can reduce methane emissions from cows by more than a gigaton of CO2e, representing the equivalent of 500 million cars off the road. I emphasized that a market mechanism aligning the interests of farmers, industry, retail and the consumers would gain faster traction than the historical wisdom of polemic, taxation and regulation. It was a classical conceptual sell, as everyone uses in the consumer goods industry – problem set-up, solution, facts and reassurances. The audience responded well, but I sensed that I had just done something unusual for this forum.The defining moment for me came when I was asked to give a TV interview. During my pitch the interviewer interrupted me and said: ‘It sounds as if you are trying to sell something – that is not liked around here.’ Indeed, many of the people I met during the COP were either concerned about the end of the planet, or questioning our consumption patterns, or advocating taxation, education or regulation as the way forward. In contrast, I had learned and practiced all my life that change is best achieved by obtaining buy-in through connecting with the needs, beliefs and wants of your audience, showing them a simple, practical, appealing solution and closing with facts and relevant assurances – the optimal formula or irresistible proposition, as I call it. So I left the COP thinking that one of the reasons why the progress to curb climate change is slow lies in the approach chosen.Polemic rules in discussing the challenge of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, as best illustrated with a well-known German example. The environmental minister first proposed a drastic increase of VAT on meat and dairy with the proceeds to be used to subsidise vegetables and ‘educate’ the population to eat less meat and more vegetables. Aside from the backlash from the country’s important agricultural sector, many reasonable voices raised concerns about the adverse environmental and economic consequences of this proposal which luckily did not go any further. Obviously, the ministry did not consider what would happen to all the biomass that the cows are turning into high-quality nutrients and the carbon footprint of the mainly imported fruit and vegetables. Subsequently, the ministry spent the taxpayers’ money to develop a campaign about the rules for responsible farming, which had to be pulled due to its CHRISTOPH STAEUBLE, CEO, ZALUVIDA GROUPWHY I AM NOT AT THE COP THIS YEAR“WHILE SOME HAVE MADE HEADLINES IN DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE, MOST PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO TAKE DIRECT ACTION TO PROTECT THE PLANET ”066 AGRICULTURE