Guest essay by Eric Worrall
You would think in a country where poverty leads to thousands of deaths every winter, where far too many people go hungry every night, government advisory bodies would have the sense to avoid suggestions which could put pressure on food supplies.
‘Cut lamb and beef’ to fight climate change
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analystThe number of sheep and cattle in the UK should be reduced by between a fifth and a half to help combat climate change, a report says.
The shift is needed, the government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC) maintains, because beef and lamb produce most farm greenhouse gases.
The report foresees an increase in the number of pigs and chickens because these produce less methane.
The farm union NFU said it supported more diverse land use.But environmentalists say the recommendations are too timid.
The CCC says a 20-50% reduction in beef and lamb pasture could release 3-7m hectares of grassland from the current 12m hectares in the UK.
The un-needed grassland could instead grow forests and biofuels that would help to soak up CO2.
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46214864
The CCC report is available here.
The report authors claim that reduced production due to farmland lost to “afforestation” could be compensated by increased consumption of fruit and vegetables, indoor agriculture under grow lights, and improvements to agricultural practices, though they admit using grow lights is expensive.
I am not saying these people are stupid, but they’re stupid.
Two things need to said about UK countryside:
1. Get rid of the green belts.
2. Stop massive subsidies to farmers.
Roger Harrabin is professional green activist whom the BBC employ as an “analyst”. I guess his job title of analyst excuses him form proper journalistic standards. E.g. a few months ago he interviewed Governor Brown of California on BBC Radio 4. Nothing was said about Brown’s long-standing fossil fuel interests.
The British Govn’t should focus on Brexit.
Of course! We will make ourselves better off by producing less food! How could we have missed such an obvious solution? /sarc/
the carbon that cattle transfer from vegetation to the atmosphere is not a
“perturbation of the carbon cycle with external carbon dug up from under the ground where it had been sequestered for millions of years”
but the carbon cycle itself.
The anti cattle anti meat drive is inconsistent with the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/25/a-greenhouse-effect-of-atmospheric-co2/
The carbon that cattle transfer from vegetation to the atmosphere is not “external carbon dug up from under the ground where it had been sequestered for millions of years” but the carbon cycle itself. The anti-cattle anti-mean climate movement is not consistent with the theory of AGW
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/25/a-greenhouse-effect-of-atmospheric-co2/
anti meat
The reason beef and lamb are grown in the UK is that they are profitable. If fruit trees were more profitable they would be grown instead.
The only fair way to over rule the landowners on how they farm is to nationalise the farmland. If we are now prioritising demands other than those decided by the market then the new prioirities ought to be decided by the will of the people – determined in another way.
The argument can be made that the market is too short-term for control of vital national resources. But fear of computer modelled weather is not that argument.
“Let them eat trees.”
Will not the massive immigrant population in the UK be launching a protest to prevent said?
Because growing plants indoors magically fails to release CO2. Second law of thermodynamics fail.
A stupid idea. However, it is NOT British government policy as the poster claims. It’s from an advisory group and has about as much chance of becoming policy, as I have of becoming Pope.
Does anyone know of the best methane (myth debunking) summary abailable?
We must disarm the armies of climate justice warriors out there while we can.
The climate obsessed extremists have no shame.
Eric,
I don’t wish the following to in any way seem to be supporting the UK Climate Change Committee’s and Mr Harrabin’s delusion, nor do I wish to impune your own very fine work and that of WUWT in general. However, I would wish to comment on your opening statement “You would think in a country where poverty leads to thousands of deaths every winter, where far too many people go hungry every night….”
Whilst this is a complex subject with many variations and its own nomenclature, the UK “basic” state and “new” state pensions (which are heavily inflation protected) are around £130 and £170 per person, per week, respectively. Basic unemployment benefit, which may, in some circumstances, be topped-up with significant other benefits, is around £75 per week.
So, I really think that the idea that “thousands” die in poverty each winter in Britain is a gross exaggeration and unfair on the people’s of the world who really do live in poverty. Some undoubtedly do die due to cold weather- related issues in the UK and indeed the ludicrous CCC is hell-bent on making matters much worse by imposing much higher energy costs on UK citizens. Nevertheless, up until the full financial horrors of renewable energy sources are imposed on the population, our welfare state will pay for people to feed and warm themselves if people choose to prioritise such in their spending. This is not to suggest that there are not some cases of real hardship – that is inevitable among a population of 60 million – but even then there are charities to help the most needy.
I hope that you can see my point.
The un-needed grassland could instead grow forests and biofuels that would help to soak up CO2.
Grass “soaks up” more CO2 than forest.
Some forests emit CO2 net – more so than cities.
That is what the CO2 satellites show and why news from them has gone dark.
Do these people even know what day it is, how do they feed themselves, who changes their nappies?
Great government thinking. Just eliminate a few traditional industries that provide honest jobs and good products.
How are the going to compensate those in an eliminated business?
This is beyond stupid. It is criminal.
The one thing that the green urbanites have overlooked is that most farmers in the UK still have shotguns.
Britain hasn’t just been hijacked by the climate lobby, now it’s being hijacked by the vegan lobby.
Let them go back to live on potatoes like the Irish once had to, and see how far that gets them.
How things have changed – I recall growing up in the ’50s, ’60s and eating lamb and beef regularly, and where chicken was an expensive luxury. Now retired, we find we eat less beef etc mainly because it appears to be so much more expensive compared to chicken. Not to mention all the health scares about eating red meat. I am always a bit surprised any farmer still grows the stuff. When its on sale, we do enjoy a bit of New Zealand lamb though.
Rachel Carson Syndrome comes to climate change.
What drives this “Let’s move the problem elsewhere” approach? I mean, really. Just because the UK cuts domestic production doesn’t mean the demand goes away. The supply will just shift elsewhere, increasing the UK trade deficit further and increasing end price to consumers. Oh, let’s not forget, making zero difference along the way. Other countries are likely not so overly concerned about animal welfare, either.