I know little of the history of the other two authors, but Peter Singer’s previous writings suggest that his emphasis on methane in the climate change debate may have more than a little to do with his belief that people should not eat animals.

Just as the emphasis some (myself included) place on winding back clearfell forestry and its attendant site burns has something to do with our regard for biodiversity as well as CO2 emissions.

None of which means that Peter Singer’s (or my) science is not roughly correct. If we (the people) are serious about counteracting climate change the complexity of the motivations of campaigners is not the issue. The issue is the amount of greenhouse gases (with their varying potencies) we are emitting.

But both areas (deforestation and the cutely-named “enteric fermentation”) are crying out for some hard data with which to beat our so-called decision-makers. Currently they are too scared of what they might find if they properly funded some (quick!) research into these matters, and they are petrified of what might happen to them if they actually had to act on the results.

But now let’s get silly. If we can have an unproven technofix for coal-fired power stations (geosequestration) why not have one for methane too? Methane at least has the advantage of being a flammable gas which can be burned for energy (with the CO2 produced being geosequestered) and the water condensed so that the sheep can drink it. All that we need is to cover the outback with huge sheds with extractor fans and some scheme to encourage the livestock to go and fart inside.

Your right Neil, the motivations behind their concerns are indeed irrelevant as long as the concerns are factual, and they certainly are.

There is a host of information from Govt. and NGO’s indicating the massive damage agricultural animals do to the environment and particularly climate change issues on the net. The Australian Govt. is very aware of the threat posed to CC by animals which is why at present there is research going on to try to alter the digestive processes of ruminants with a view to reducing methane. It is also the reason agriculture has been delayed in the Green Paper by putting it in the ‘too hard’ basket for a few years. In other words, lets not recognise or publicise the entire environmental problem of animal production for food as agricultural business is almost sacred.

In the UK the problems of rearing animals for meat have reached a point that even the UK Govt is starting to advocate vegetarianism or veganism as a sensible way to combat climate change. Here in Australia there is so much distortion of the truth that the majority of people think changing to low wattage light bulbs and adding more insulation is the only way to meet the CC threat.
There is an odd mantra in our community that climate change only means energy consumption and the Government wants it kept that way.

As an example, in Tasmania, agricultural emissions amount to 26% of out total, transport is 22% and hydro energy is a mere 5% ( its actually less, but I wont quibble).

The two most effective things the average Tasmanian can do to combat climate change is to change their mode of transport to one with less emissions and to either dramatically cut back on meat consumption or become a vegetarian.

With this in mind you have to ask yourself why the Tasmanian Govt climate change website prattles on about almost insignificant ways to reduce energy consumption, particularly when Hydro power doesnt cause problems for climate change (Basslink purchases excepted).

The bullshit is flowing fast and thick from both Federal and state Labor governments on this issue to the point that they will not even suggest worthwhile methods to concerned members of the public wanting to know the truth.

Jon Ayling

While we are looking at animal farts as a cause for global warming, should we not also be looking at the composition of the human fart? After all, 6 billion and rising, and there are those who want to increase the amount of vegetable protien (beans) in the diet.
Sorry folks, but the elephant in the room is the same one that has been there all along, you cannot breed with impunity on a finite planet. Addressing that issue will prove to be even further beyond the wit and wisdom of our so called leaders than reducing our impact by culling a few errant sheep. The question really is what is it that will reduce the population?

As I understand it, the current proposal is to bring agriculture into the carbon pollution reduction scheme in 2015. I think this is probably about right.

The main reason for this is that word that Greens love - consensus building. Political compromise gets the majority to support what the government is doing, so they can get it through the Senate.

Given the context of the drought and the rising cost of feed, stocking levels are likely to decline anyway, without starting a riot by proposing that farmers go out and spend money they don’t have on permits.

Between now and 2015 the government should be incentivising early action by being willing to spend money on certified CO2/methane reductions in the agriculture sector.

What we probably need is development of technology that allows us to reduce the methane production of cows, not simply less cows.

As Asia becomes wealthier they will want to consumer more meat. Meat can be produced either by feedlots in Asia (with no fart tax), consuming valuable grain crops and making it hard for the poorer nations to feed themselves, or it can be produced by rangeland animals on land that can’t raise food crops in Australia.

A nice solution might be to persuade middle class Asians that Kangaroo meat is a fantastic delicacy.

Eagle eye asks:
“The question really is what is it that will reduce the population?”

I suggest the answer is - another associated aspect of overpopulation and climate change. Avian flu is expected to wipe out at least 1 billion humans once in full flight.

Alex

An interesting point on ‘consensus’.

I disagree that we should be producing animals for food at all, for many reasons. Over the next few days I will post some info indicating exactly why.

We are suffering from ‘too many rats in the cage’ syndrome - it is so bleeding obvious that it is the sheer weight of the human cargo on this beleaguered planet that is the root cause of the earth’s current problems. I have no doubt that this will be sorted out in time by the kinds of things hinted at by Jackal in #5, but I fear that it will be way too late for the survival of our species. Is this a bad thing, I often ask myself?

On a related matter, I cannot believe what I heard the other day when Archbishop Pell (carried away by WYD euphoria or something) was exhorting us to go forth and multiply more….and more…......and yet more!

Yes Valleywatcher, its so bleeding obvious but no-one, including the government will admit it. Emissions and energy reduction forms but one aspect of climate change. Perhaps CC should be called ‘overpopulation’ syndrome. Arch-Bishop Pell’s comments are bordering on being criminal behaviour.

The Winter 2008 edition of Wilderness News makes some comments on the potential for kangaroo ‘farming’ or culling of wild animals for meat.

They indicate that the potential yield of Kangaroo meat is only 57000 tonnes a year, compared to 1.7 million tonnes of beef. The article also indicated that hunting processes are not humane and are disrupting the social structure of the animals.

57000 tonnes per year is less than 3kg per year for each Australian, not enough for a major export, though perhaps an expensive delicacy.

With respect to meat consumption in general, I don’t believe we should sanction animal cruelty, feed food crops to animals, or that meat should be as cheap as chips. The western poor often suffer from a surplus of protein, not a deficit.

That said, I’m happy to eat meat.

If the source of all energy for life is solar radiation, then in choosing how we meet our food energy needs we need to decide how much land area we are going to alter, and to what degree, and whether we will use intermediaries (animals). Intensive agriculture and permaculture can provide the means of sustenance, but often requires replacing indigenous plants with those that provide a crop consumable by people, it may also not be feasible in all regions. Because there is a loss associated with intermediaries, you can feed more people on a smaller area with vegetarianism. However, this doesn’t necessarily make it better.

1) In relying on a system that excludes animals, we don’t give those animals the chance to exist and prosper. The threatened loss of rare agricultural breeds is an example of the mass extinction that would occur if the global population went vegetarian.

2) I don’t believe there is any inate superior morality in vegetarianism. If we observe the natural world around us, animals hunting other animals is the norm, not the exception. Man was a hunter gatherer before he became a serious agriculturalist, and in many regions it would not have been possible to survive without hunting until globalisation brought access to all the world’s consumable food crops.

3) Implications for biodiversity. Without restrictions on food, populations will grow until they reach the limits of food production, converting land to suit their purposes as they go. High intensive agriculture can result in massively altered eco-system, see the terraced rice paddies of China, whilst hunter-gathering creates far more limited impacts and leaves space for biodiversity. Rangeland beef and lamb rearing lies somewhere in between these two extremes. If one goes for vegetarianism without controlling population growth then the result is increased conversion of land and reduction in biodiversity.

To reduce population growth we need to focus on the factors that seem to work - female education, emancipation and economic opportunity. Given that this is global issue, immigration is secondary, people moving to Australia are likely to have a lower bithrate than their birth-country. Yes there are ‘carrying constraints’ to Australia, but these are fundamentally issues of efficiency of use of critical resources like water, not whether 8, 20 or 25 million is the magic number.

Alex writes;

With respect to meat consumption in general, I don’t believe we should sanction animal cruelty, feed food crops to animals, or that meat should be as cheap as chips. The western poor often suffer from a surplus of protein, not a deficit.
That said, I’m happy to eat meat.

I agree, we should not sanction animal cruelty but unfortunately, it appears to exist in all forms of intensive farming to some degree, as well as hunting practices. Concern for sentience, free of the myopia of speciesism, is a sound ethical reason for not consuming meat. Growing food crops for agricultural animals is wasteful, particularly when it takes thousands of litres of water to produce one kilo of beef. In a climate of diminishing water supplies one really needs to question the economics of such a venture, even more so when govts provide financial aid in order to maintain such practices. People dont seem to realise that half of the worlds population dont have enough food to eat and meat does not form part of their diet for financial reasons. Animals are raised for the wealthier half of the world at the expense of our not being concerned enough to feed those who need basic nutritional sustenance from crops.

1) In relying on a system that excludes animals, we don’t give those animals the chance to exist and prosper. The threatened loss of rare agricultural breeds is an example of the mass extinction that would occur if the global population went vegetarian.

The vast majority of these breeds are designed and created my humans. Dog breeds are another example but would the world weep or indeed ecological systems suffer if the Mexican Hairless or the Yorkshire Jersey cow disappeared? Of course I can see value in letting recognised ancient breeds thrive but not as a food source. The rest remains a questionable matter of eugenics.

2) I don’t believe there is any inate superior morality in vegetarianism. If we observe the natural world around us, animals hunting other animals is the norm, not the exception. Man was a hunter gatherer before he became a serious agriculturalist, and in many regions it would not have been possible to survive without hunting until globalisation brought access to all the world’s consumable food crops.

I have no problem with hunter gatherers killing humanely in order to survive but the key to this exception lies in the energy expenditure and balance needed in order to survive. As an example, a hungry lioness has cubs and knows that she has to find food for herself and offspring before her energy levels are depleted which lead to death. The fear and terrible suffering of her prey once she finds it, is in a sense, balanced out by the agony of having to kill before the predator dies of starvation. This is Lord Tennyson’s “nature red in tooth and claw” or Nietzche’s “what is worse, the gnawing agony in the belly or the fangs in one’s back”? In the same way hunter gatherers with simplistic weapons add themselves into the equation by facing desperation, danger, reducing energy and fear of failure. Compare this equilibrium with a modern ‘hunter’ sitting in a utility with a spotlight and a high powered rifle. What has been added towards this natural balance? Absolutely nothing. Nothing was offered up or given by a modern hunter so the prey is not valued and this lack of value permeates our society. In order to act ethically towards animals a balance must be obtained, ie a life for a life. The other option as an omnivore is vegetarianism.

continued

Jon Ayling

3) Implications for biodiversity. Without restrictions on food, populations will grow until they reach the limits of food production, converting land to suit their purposes as they go. High intensive agriculture can result in massively altered eco-system, see the terraced rice paddies of China, whilst hunter-gathering creates far more limited impacts and leaves space for biodiversity. Rangeland beef and lamb rearing lies somewhere in between these two extremes. If one goes for vegetarianism without controlling population growth then the result is increased conversion of land and reduction in biodiversity.

Conversely, if one goes for meat production en masse without controlling population growth then the result is increased conversion of land and reduction of biodiversity. Far more calories can be produced with a hectare of crops in contrast to a hectare of beef cattle. One only has to drive to Launceston and look at the wasteland in between to recognise how devastating sheep or cattle can be. How wonderful it would be if this land was now used for growing vegetables.

To reduce population growth we need to focus on the factors that seem to work - female education, emancipation and economic opportunity. Given that this is global issue, immigration is secondary, people moving to Australia are likely to have a lower bithrate than their birth-country. Yes there are ‘carrying constraints’ to Australia, but these are fundamentally issues of efficiency of use of critical resources like water, not whether 8, 20 or 25 million is the magic number.

There is only a finite amount of water, land and species on this planet. Surely ‘efficiency’ of resource usage eventually has to give way if population continues to grow as it has? 25 million Australians all wanting a ‘plasma’ lifestyle disturbs me greatly.

Overall, there is a substantial amount of literature available pointing to the fact that one cannot be an environmentalist and a meat consumer if ethical conduct is a concern. If we consider the water used, the land degraded, species lost and pollution created in a world where half the people would benefit from stock fodder leaves the continued practice of intensive farming of animals for meat a questionable industry.

Jon Ayling