The Department for the environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) has got itself in a bit of pickle! It appears to have endorsed a view from a vegan group called Viva, that we should all become vegetarians to combat climate change. It is even considering recommending eating less meat as one of the "key environmental behaviour changes" needed to save the planet. The leaked email even says that this change would have to be introduced "gently" because of "the risk of alienating the public". Well, you've lost me for a start. The theory goes that farm yard animals such as cows are a major producer or greenhouse gases such as methane and as a result it is the farmers to blame for the end of the world and we should boycott their meat. Unsurprisingly, the National Farmers' Union, have responded by saying the suggestion was "simplistic" and "a cause of concern".
In response to Defra only saying they will introduce the measure gently, Juliet Gellatley, director of Viva, said: "I think it is extraordinary that a Government agency thinks becoming a vegetarian or vegan could have such a positive impact for the environment yet it is not prepared to stand up and argue the case." So she's not happy we not all forced to go vegan. Whilst the rest of us just say mind your own business. I hope this idea is scrapped before it ever becomes official - we actually pay money for people to tell us how to live like this! I'm having a steak tonight.
Comments
I love meat too, but this is
I love meat too, but this is actually a logical extension of the anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) theory, and our dirigiste approach to dealing with it. Methane emissions from farm animals are a significant factor in the models, both directly through farting, indirectly from the methane emissions from slurry tanks and ponds, and even more indirectly through the amount of land (-> deforestation) and fertilisers needed to produce their feed. This applies particularly to cows and to a lesser extent sheep, while poultry and pigs are very much less significant.
I can't see why meat-eating should be treated differently to fossil-fuel combustion in policy towards global warming. As I've said many times, there needs to be a single price applied to carbon (whether CO2, CH4 or any other equivalent) and we will discover how that affects people's preferences. Telling people to eat less meat would be as wrong as telling people to use more renewable energy or nuclear power, but putting a price on carbon and discovering the most efficient combination of options, given people's preferences, would be the right thing to do. Agriculture should not be excluded from that.
What that price should be is another matter, of course, ranging from zero for those who do not believe in AGW, to as high as needed to bring emissions down to a stable level, for those who are convinced that the theory is sound and the threat imminent. We need another market (probably between governments in that case) to discover people's real perception of the risk, as opposed to the certainty they claim (one way or the other) when it is all about inflicting pain on others without (opportunity) cost to themselves.