Crunch carrots, cut climate change

We really need to be redoubling our efforts to tackle climate change. Just look at the blog entry before this one, where Stern says the problem is far worse than he'd previously described in his highly influential report - and the entry before that on government giving the cold shoulder to action on climate. Many think of efforts to tackle climate change in terms of flying less, driving less, using renewable, low carbon energy sources, insulating our homes, recycling materials...but adjusting our diet is not so commonly mentioned.

Changing to a lower meat, higher fruit and veg diet can in fact be one of the most effective ways of lowering carbon emissions and tackling climate change, especially if beef consumption is reduced or eliminated. Consider the estimated total eco footprint of meat compared with fruit and vegetables: 6.9 to 14.6 hectare yrs per tonne for meat (calculated using average global yield and embodied energy data - the range is due to pasture-fed vs grain-fed animals); as against 0.3 to 0.6 hectare yrs per tonne for a range of fruits, roots and vegetables (calculated using average global yield for a range of veg, with an allowance for transport, processing and energy for farming).

These estimates from the book Sharing Nature's Interest by footprint experts Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel (2000) show the the environmental impact of meat is 11 to 49 times higher than fruit and vegetables. This chimes with the basic science because the food chain for meat is obviously longer, with many vegetables and grains being grown for use as animal feed. [Meat impacts are 1.5 to 8.5 times higher than grains and pulses too.]  Beef farming has a very high climate impact due to: rainforest clearance to create the farmland, perhaps by burning; grain feeding the animals; methane released by the cows metabolism, (and dont forget the long distance trade in frozen meat).

In short: crunch carrots more, eat meat less and you will contribute to cutting climate change! Whether the fruit and veg are chemically grown abroad, or locally and organically grown, they're going to have lower climate impact than any kind of meat. There are other benefits too as lower meat diets are cheaper and healthier. Carrots for instance - given that it was National Carrot Day on 3 Feb and that it will be International Carrot Day on 4 April  - have the highest vitamin A content of all veg and are loaded with vitamin B6, vitamin C and potassium too. Find out more from this amazing, if somewhat bizarre site: http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/    

'Successful' shooting??

Joined in a debate on the cruelty, or not, of culling badgers  by shooting and whether supermarkets should label milk from farms involved in culling  here:

BCFCfinker - @Melindola
Quote from RSPCA link provided below http://tinyurl.com/8wwklgk from pdant:

"In order to free-shoot a badger in a quick, humane way, there are two 'lethal' points which would need to be successfully hit."

Seems pretty clear to me. The RSPCA appear to acknowledge that shooting can be humane (or if you want to split hairs, not cruel).
_____________________________________________

Surely the crucial part of this RSPCA quote is the phrase 'successfully hit' ? Even with people shooting well they are highly unlikely to be 100% 'successful'. Where they are not 'successful' then the chance of inccurately shot badgers being in pain and suffering increases. This means that shooting cannot be free of cruelty.

The RSPCA briefing says there are 'severe welfare concerns'. It refers to 'untested culling methods' (shooting) and the 'untested delivery method' (farmers). It describes the: 'high risk' of wounding; the 'small margin of error' and the anatomical and behavioural features of badgers that make cruelty free shooting highly unlikely.

What would be wrong by having a system where customers can know fully what they are buying by labelling milk as from a farm involving badger culling or not involving badger culling?

Culling controversy

I've chipped in to the online debate on badger culling proposals (see here and here or view the many Post stories that have recently appeared listed here) and copy my contributions in this post: Interesting exchange between vets on bovine TB here http://tinyurl.com/8tozsgu It includes this statement from vet Andrew Wilson: "...16 member states of the European Union are recognised as officially free of bovine TB, along with Scotland and a number of regions of Italy. As far as I can find out, not one of these countries or regions had to control TB in wildlife in order to obtain its officially free status...."

Killing badgers is both wrong and unlikely to to be effective in fighting TB.Vaccination is a realistic alternative to culling according to this site http://tinyurl.com/c8a2sbz . Follow up on the many references given there if you want to know more. It says this for instance, " An injectable badger vaccine was scheduled to be trialled in England throughout 2010, but the coalition scaled back plans in June of that year. Out of the six planned trials only one survived in Stroud, Gloucestershire, where badgers are being trapped and injected with the BCG vaccine over a period of five years (76).

This reduction in funding to alternatives is especially short-sighted as, in November 2010, Defra research showed the outcome of some trials that showed that vaccinating wild badgers over four years resulted in a 74 per cent reduction in the proportion testing positive to the antibody blood test for bTB (72). As natural prevalence of bTB is just 15 per cent then widespread vaccination could be of significant benefit. Especially as there is an annual turnover of badgers of around 30 per cent (badgers have a life span of 3-5 years). Theoretically, the number of infected badgers would decrease each year and new infections would be rare (101).

Additionally, laboratory studies with captive badgers demonstrated that the vaccination of badgers by injection with BCG significantly reduced the progression, severity and excretion of Mycobacterium bovis infection. This seems to strongly support the claim that vaccination alone could reduce bTB infection in badgers by a significant amount (in the same time period of 4-5 years that has been suggested for 'culling'). It would not lead to perturbation and would also be cheaper than the Government's current plans (see The Cost).

As it stands, despite the findings, this Defra study concludes that vaccination should take place alongside badger 'culling', which appears to go starkly against the results of these trials which show that non-lethal approaches will be enough to protect badgers from the disease...”

CPRE Bristol

A new CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) group is being set up in Bristol. This is good news. CPRE is a grassroots organisation, led by volunteers, but it has a powerful national voice – planners and politicians listen to them. I hope that this group will become a strong voice in Bristol to campaign for a greener city surrounded by a thriving countryside, using CPRE’s resources and planning expertise to set out a positive vision for change.

As part of this move CPRE are holding a public meeting at 7.30pm on Tuesday 3^rd April at the Horfield Quaker Meeting House (300 Gloucester Road, Bristol BS7 8PD). All are welcome – entry is via the main entrance to the left of the building.

The new National Planning Policy Framework was published yesterday. It looks as though CPRE’s relentless lobbying and pressure on the Government has paid off to some extent, with additional safeguards for the environment now present, but it still removes a huge body of regulations that guided planning. Meanwhile, the Localism Act gives new powers to communities to plan development in their area.

CPRE  see both a threat and an opportunity – if the government is not going to control planning, then we should step in and reclaim control of our own neighbourhoods, and support others to do the same.

Its hoped that the Bristol group will take a special interest in Localism and local food – CPRE want to explore how communities can use neighbourhood planning to develop local food infrastructure and build links with local farming communities. But also want to keep an eye on the bigger picture, a vision of Bristol as a clean, green city circled by farmland, woods and water.

If you think you might like to join the new group or if you are interested in these issues and you want to hear more, please do go along on Tuesday. This is an open public meeting, so please pass this message on to others who might be interested.

Contact Joe Evans, Director, CPRE Avonside

07854 741130 for further information.

Sound science?

On badgers the Government and the National Farmers Union state that the scientific evidence backs culling. The Humane Society, The Wildlife Trusts and the Mammal Society amongst others dont think the evidence is there to support a cull. The contrast in views of the scientific evidence is pretty stark eg Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman saying 'We can't escape the fact that the evidence supports the case..' whilst Mark Jones, of Humane Society International UK refers to 'compelling scientific evidence that it will be ineffective...'. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16183926. If there are likely to be 'no end of difficulties', as PM David Cameron said on Countryfile last weekend, is the policy of culling trials a good one?

Why the differences in assessing the science? When can we and do we trust science and scientists? Here's my screencast on some questions to ask on this topic:


  

Foresight Report: Urgent action needed on global hunger

A UK government-commissioned study into food security has called for urgent action to avert global hunger.

The Foresight Report on Food and Farming Futures says the current system is unsustainable and will fail to end hunger unless radically redesigned.

It is the first study across a range of disciplines deemed to have put such fears on a firm analytical footing.
The report is the culmination of a two-year study, involving 400 experts from 35 countries.

According to the government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington [pictured], the study provides compelling evidence for governments to act now...

BBC News - Report: Urgent action needed to avert global hunger

Supermarkets relentless growth

Excellent letter in todays Post from Gil Osman, copied below.

ACCORDING to recent BBC research, the big four supermarkets (Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons) are expanding at an alarming rate.

In the last two years, planning authorities have granted permission for at least 480 new supermarket stores in England. It is argued that this will give more choice to local shoppers – but will it? Unfortunately, many councils are persuaded to give planning permission, because of the financial benefit to themselves. Often an agreement is made, whereby the store has to build a community resource, or provide funds for such a venture, in order to gain planning permission to build a store. Thus the council does not have to pay for such facilities. In this age of recession councils will be even more tempted.

Supermarkets can attract many shoppers with the lure of lower prices (and even more so in a recession). Local traders cannot compete with such huge organisations, which buy in vast bulk at cheap prices. Therefore it leads to forced closure, which, in turn, leads to less choice and variety in an area. The independent High Street shop has been a feature of villages, towns and cities for generations and helps to form the character of an area. Napoleon called us a nation of shopkeepers, in a derogatory way, but, surely, the small trader is a tribute to British enterprise and individuality.

The closure of any small shop leaves our High Streets depleted and, eventually, leads to a loss of identity. 12,000 independent shops went out of business last year.

In their search for ever more cheaper products, the Big Four seem to have scant regard for many concerns.

The farmer who cannot afford to accept the wholesale price offered by the supermarket goes out of business. Question marks hang over the sources of some of the clothing offered so cheaply by the Big Four

And what of quality? Cheapness and quantity triumph here. Mass-produced food, using vast quantities of chemical fertilisers and pesticides is often tasteless when compared to organic produce, or that produced by the local allotment-holder. The effects of imbibing the residues of these chemicals have yet to be seen. And standardisation has reduced variety (take apples and potatoes, for example).

And what of animal welfare? The generality of people have demonstrated their abhorrence of intensive farming methods with their boycott of the battery-produced egg (at least Sainsbury's has banned these).

Yet, I do not doubt that the Big Four will buy milk from the huge factory dairy being proposed in Leicestershire – if it gets planning permission. Like battery chickens, these cows will spend their whole lives inside huge sheds, never placing their feet on a green field. The entrepreneur behind this enterprise has the effrontery to state on television that cows don't belong in fields anymore! It's like a Victorian factory-owner stating: 'Workers (i.e. men, women and children) don't belong in villages anymore!' And, of course, the small dairy farmer will not be able to compete and will go out of business.

Tesco made £3.4 billion profit last year. It cannot possibly make such a profit on its cheaper ranges, which suggests its customers are paying over the odds on other items. But, once in a supermarket, most people will buy everything there. After all, it's so convenient!!!

Gil Osman
Shirehampton
Bristol

Letters: Greed not greens cause hunger | Environment | The Guardian

Excellent letter in The Guardian:

Letters: Greed not greens cause hunger Environment The Guardian

The Channel 4 documentary What the Green Movement Got Wrong (Last night's TV, 5 November) in our view made a series of misguided and inaccurate allegations and assumptions. It identified GM as a solution to hunger and implicated anti-GM campaigners for exacerbating food insecurity. As development organisations, we consider the documentary was extremely biased against environmental organisations that do so much to promote positive solutions. Hunger is a blight on humanity, but it is a political and economic problem. Its root causes include the broken and biased trading system; the bankers who gamble on the price of staple foods; and land grabs by financiers – all of which make food unaffordable for the hungry and deny their right to food.

In our view, the most significant impact that GM companies have made is to dominate the seed chain, selling expensive and patented seeds to farmers, seeds that are used more for livestock feed, cotton and biofuels – not for feeding people. The documentary didn't include any independent voices from civil society in the global south who are campaigning against GM and for local sustainable food production.

Had they done so, it is likely to have become clear that the small-scale farmers who provide food for most people in the world are not calling for GM technologies that are beyond their control. They are calling for political will from governments to take on the corporate lobbyists and protect their land, natural resources and production systems; a fair trading system to ensure fair prices; and a fair hearing from governments and documentary-makers on the future food system.

Deborah Doane World Development Movement
Patrick Mulvany UK Food Group
Andrew Scott Practical Action
John Hilary War on Want

Water Words

Pairs of words that sum up a lot of water issues: life’s essential; renewable...potentially; community rooting; unevenly distributed; wasted widely; polluted commonly; rich, 100’s l; poor 10’s l; piped...UK; carried...Africa; city...leaks; extremely useful; farming, mostly; cooling, cleansing; ‘universal’ solvent; reservoirs, dams; socio-environmental havoc; community uprooting; climate changing; needs...wants; conflict prevention; modest measures; efficiency, accessibility; massive benefits!
http://blogactionday.change.org/

Oxfam 'Sow the Seed' of hope event on College Green

Bristol political leaders join top chef to urge action on climate change Oxfam South West stages event at College Green to call on world leaders to ‘Sow the Seed’ of hope

Political leaders from across the political spectrum in Bristol were joined by one of the city’s top chefs at College Green this morning, to urge more action from world leaders on climate change.
Council leader Barbara Janke, deputy Labour leader Mark Bradshaw, Green Party Councillor Tess Green and Liberal Democrat councillor Anthony Negus said they were delighted to support Oxfam South West’s ‘Sow the Seed’ campaign.

Meanwhile, one of Bristol’s finest and most respected chefs – Chris Wicks, from Bells Diner in Montpelier, which has just been named as one of Britain’s top 100 restaurants – came along in his chef’s outfit to back the campaign.

More than 100 ‘Sow the Seed’ labels were planted in the ground outside the Council House, bearing Oxfam’s call for the international community to help farmers in the world’s poorest countries deal with the devastating effects of climate change.

Speaking at the event, Barbara Janke said: “Speaking as someone from Bristol in the center of a major food-growing area, we are more sympathetic than most to the effects of climate change on farmers in the developing world.

“We’ve seen in Pakistan floods the most recent dramatic effect of extreme weather, but this is clearly affecting people around the world, where climate change is already affecting food production and their ability to be self-sufficient.

“We need to address climate change as a global problem and raise awareness of how important this is.”

The event is part of a global week of campaign events that aim to highlight the devastating effects of climate change on food production in the world’s poorest areas.

In Pakistan, for example, up to 40 per cent of households in the flood-affected areas lost all food stocks. Fodder for livestock has also been lost, so even families who have been able to save some of their animals are struggling to keep them alive.

Mark Bradshaw said he was delighted the campaign was happening in Bristol and that the effects of climate change were something that we “cannot ignore”.

He also called for the introduction of a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ on banks to pay for the world’s poor to adapt to and survive climate change.

“In the current tough economic times it’s important that we don’t lose sight of the climate change agenda. Now more than ever do we need to invest in tackling it.

“That’s why it’s so important to introduce a Robin Hood Tax so that the financial industry pays its full contribution to addressing climate change.

Chris Wicks, whose restaurant – a fixture in Montpelier for more than 20 years – prides itself on using locally sourced produce, added: “In my restaurant it is important for us to do our bit by using local products to cut down food miles. But it is essential that we help poor farmers develop their own industries.”

ENDS

For press information contact: Christopher Brown at Oxfam South West on 0117 916 6474 or 07887 632 658 or cbrown@oxfam.org.uk

Notes to editors: The Sow the Seed event at College Green is part of a series of events around the world during the week, highlighting the strength of the campaign to fight climate change. See: http://tcktcktck.org http://sowtheseed.org/ http://www.facebook.com/oxfamsouthwest

Picture caption: Back row, from left: Cllr Anthony Negus, Chris Wicks and Barbara Janke. Front row, from left, Mark Bradshaw and Tess Green

Oxfam works with others to overcome poverty and suffering
Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International and a company limited by guarantee registered in England No. 612172.Registered office: Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY.A registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SC 039042)

A WHITCHURCH farming family are standing firm to save Bristol's green belt, despite offers of up to £8 million for their land.

Setting a superb example...

A WHITCHURCH farming family are standing firm to save Bristol's green belt, despite offers of up to £8 million for their land.

Paul and Jill Britten say they are standing up against a "tsunami of property development" to try to protect the countryside on Bristol's doorstep – although property developers are offering £50,000 per acre for Whitewood Farm, which is more than 3,000 per cent higher than offers made a little under five years ago.

As the Brittens survey the rolling fields of their farm on the edge of Whitchurch, the city of Bristol looms beyond the hedge to the north.

At Whitewood Farm, the concept of the "green belt" is immediately apparent, as the urban sprawl halts in a perfect green line.

But all that could change. For the past five years the family, who have farmed their 160 acres of land since 1957, have had a metaphorical JCB digging arm hanging over their heads.

Mr Britten, 65, said: "I look at the streets of modern housing down there, and it feels like a rising tide heading towards us. Since my father took on this farm in the 1950s, when I was just 12 years old, I've watched all these houses rise up and I've never minded a steady trickle. But what we're faced with now is more like a tsunami."

Bath and North East Somerset Council's Regional Spatial Strategy had plans for this verdant swathe of land – and it involved 9,000 homes swamping the Britten's organic beef farm and many of the nearby properties.

The Brittens have regularly had to turn away property developers flashing their chequebooks at the farm door...

Friends of the Earth - Join the MOOvement

Friends of the Earth - Join the MOOvement

Put your hoof down for rainforest-free meat and dairy
This autumn, MPs will be voting on a new law to break the hidden link between animal feed in factory farms and wildlife and rainforest destruction in South America.
Please join our MOOvement today - together we can make sure they support UK farmers to feed their animals a diet that doesn't cost the planet.

Friend of the Earth

Many thanks to Friends of the Earth for all its efforts over many years on a wide range of issues. They have given great leadership. I'll continue to do my best to take part in and support their work (including signing their pledge, below) by advocating a sustainable society ie one that reconciles the economic, social and environmental. The Green New Deal, a £45 billion investment plan, would be a great start down this path.

I PLEDGE TO SUPPORT

· Policy 1: A local carbon budget for every local authority: that caps CO2 in the local area in line with the scientific demands for emissions cuts and local circumstances; and enough money and technical support to enable councils to do their bit to tackle climate change.

· Policy 2: Sufficient investment in switching to a low carbon economy to: achieve a reduction in UK greenhouse gas emission of 42 per cent by 2020; create jobs and boost the recovery; and eliminate fuel poverty.

· Policy 3: An international deal on cutting emissions where those responsible make the deepest cuts first, and developing countries are supported to grow in a low carbon way.

· Policy 4: A new law which will tackle the major greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation caused by the UK’s dependence on imported feeds for livestock - and which will support better UK farming and domestic feed production.

Windmill Hill City Farm: Save Our Farm Appeal

From the appeal organisers: The much-loved Windmill Hill City Farm provides a wide range of valuable services and facilities for the local community. Unfortunately it is facing a financial crisis and is threatened with
closure.

An Appeals Group has been set up to raise at least £50,000 before the end of the year, and since the recent launch of the Save Our Farm campaign, we have raised around £14,000. We have a variety of exciting schemes and events planned to generate funds over the coming months.

We need your help to see us through into next year, to enable us to put in place the long term strategies that will secure the future of the Farm. If you value Windmill Hill City Farm, and are in a position to do so, would you be willing to
pledge £25 to the Save Our Farm Appeal (and complete a gift aid form), if 500 other people will do the same?


You only donate the £25 once the pledge has been successful and 500 other people have signed up. There is a deadline for the pledge to be successful - 31st October 2009, and we hope to have 500 people by then, otherwise all those who have signed up will not need to fulfill their pledge and donate the money.

If we ARE successful, then this fundraising scheme alone will generate £12,500 - a quarter of our appeal target!

So what do you think? Are you in a position to make this pledge? If not, do you know someone else who is?

So how do you do it? It's set up on the Pledge Bank website - the link is: http://www.pledgebank.com/SaveWHCF

Just sign up with your name and email address (only used to tell you when the pledge iscompleted and for us to contact you about the pledge). You can keep track of whether the pledge looks likely to make its target by viewing the signup rate graph.

Even if you can't afford to make the pledge yourself, please support it by circulating this information by email/ word of mouth/ text/ Facebook/around your workplace etc to everyone you know who might be able to help, and please ask them to circulate it to everyone they know too.

I hope you can join me in making the pledge and/or spreading the word...

Many thanks,
Carolyn Hecker
Save Our Farm Fundraising Team

Views sought on the use and protection of Green Belt land around Bristol & Bath

Passing this on:

Views sought on the use and protection of Green Belt land around Bristol & Bath

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is seeking views on use of Green Belt land in England. This is your chance to help shape the future of the countryside where you live, work or visit.

Green Belt is rural land around cities that is protected from excessive housing and other development, thus preventing urban sprawl. Around 13% of land in England is estimated to be in one of the fourteen Green Belt areas. The land is protected by planning and development policies.

Some professional groups and developers say that Green Belts are no longer needed, but a MORI poll for CPRE in 2005 found that 84% of people in England believe that Green Belt land should remain open and undeveloped, and that building on it should not be allowed.

CPRE’s Green Belt survey is launched in April 2009. Through this survey we aim to find out how people in Bristol & Bath, London and Merseyside would like to see the Green Belt used in the future, such as for farming, woodland, or recreation. We would particularly welcome the views of (a) people from inner-city areas and (b) landowners or managers based in Green Belt areas.

The information will be analysed and reported back in local media in the autumn. CPRE will use the information nationally to influence a current Government study on the use of land across England, and locally in our work with local authorities on the future planning of how we use the Green Belt.

http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/planning/green-belts/green-belts-green-belts-for-a-greener-future-survey

Local contacts (particularly if you can help to distribute survey information more widely):

• Bristol: Alison Belshaw, Sustain: alison@sustainweb.org, tel: 01225 787919

• London: Suzanne Natelson, Sustain: suzanne@sustainweb.org tel: 020 7837 1228

• Merseyside: Allan Nickson, Myerscough College: anickson@myerscough.ac.uk; tel: 01995 642222

Please circulate the links to as many contacts as possible. If the information is going in to a newsletter or being sent to a large email group please let me know approximately how many people it has been circulated to. If you would like a copy of the survey that could be printed off for completion please contact me.

Many thanks,

Alison Belshaw
Eat Somerset Project Officer

Corn starch bag introduction: poor environmental decision making

Councillor Gary Hopkins introduction of corn starch plastic bags free to all households that want them is a waste of £100,000 per year of our council taxes and is poor environmental decision making. I sympathise with many of the sentiments expressed by letter writers Bernard Seward, Ambrose Porter and Malcolm Leslie (Feedback: Corn Starch Bags, Post, April 28).

It makes little economic sense to have the council bearing the cost of introducing a manufactured bio-plastic bag into a recycling system where the vast majority of Bristol's public are already managing perfectly well wrapping their food waste in a free, otherwise waste, product. They use newspaper, other waste paper or empty cereal packets etc.

Its makes little environmental sense either, as the bags increase the total environmental impact of the recycling system itself. Even if the bags in isolation are carbon neutral, the farming of the corn to get the starch and the manufacturing and transport of the bags certainly are not. Additionally, land used to grow corn for the bags is land that could be growing food for people! Land may even be cleared to grow the corn, at a cost to wildlife.

Its worrying that environmental decisions like this aren't approached rationally ie by gathering full information and assessing it before deciding. Greens have persistently requested that data on total bag environmental impact should be gathered before their possible introduction. No attempt was made at getting even broad estimates. Poor and incorrect responses were given to questions. One council official claimed, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that because the bags were made from biomass (material from living origins) they were carbon neutral -mahogany doors are made from biomass but no-one would suggest that its carbon neutral to cut down and process rainforest trees to get them!!

The idea of the bags is to get more people recycling food scraps, cutting council waste costs and cutting environmental impacts. However, since the total environmental impact of bag introduction has not been established we will not be able to calculate whether any environmental gains made from increased recycling fully compensate for the environmental cost of making the bags. Even if they did its a very inefficient and expensive way to cut impacts - £100,000 per year more for energy saving, getting people out of cars and onto bikes or getting people to grow some of their own food, can easily be shown as far better options. Less chance of 'green' publicity and kudos for Cllr Hopkins with these options perhaps?? Or is this all much more about saving money alone??

Bristol City Council: where's the beef??

Its very odd that the public and other organisations, the Soil Association aside, have not been asked by the council for their views on their plans to run their own cattle farm on Stoke Park (front page story 'Pull the udder one', Post, March 26). Why the distinct lack of information and wider discussion?There are serious questions as to whether a council should be farming at all, with all the core responsibilities they already have for education, transport, housing and so on.

Even more odd to go for beef farming because its hardly a green option and apart from that it could be dogged by all sorts of problems especially in the event of disease outbreak. If the council was to run a farm far better for it to be at arms length, for it to be a mixed one, perhaps with fruit orchards (great for birds and bees), perhaps with areas set aside for schools to conduct environmental education, perhaps with areas set aside for Bristol's people to grow their own food at very low cost....like another city farm. This makes more sense to me than beef farming and the methane emissions that come with it.

The Posts comment on this issue echoes my MP Kerry McCarthy and correctly makes the point that this particular farm would be pretty small and so the impact of this enterprise on its own is not great. However, there is nowhere near enough emphasis on the greenhouse gas methane as one major cause of climate change and the council should be encouraging low meat diets. I'm not a veggie or a vegan but its certainly more environmentally friendly to eat less meat whilst at the same time being cheaper, healthier and more ethical.

The Power of the Community: film show 27 Feb

Open Meeting: Film and discussion

The Power of the Community
- how Cuba survived peak oil

Southbank Club (formerly Holy Cross), Dean Lane
Southville


Friday 27 February, 7pm to 8.30 pm
(doors open 6.30pm)

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, Cuba's economy went into a tailspin. With imports of oil cut by more than half – and food by 80 percent – people were desperate. This film tells of the hardships and struggles as well as the community and creativity of the Cuban people during this difficult time. Cubans share how they transitioned from a highly mechanized, industrial agricultural system to one using organic methods of farming and local, urban gardens. It is an unusual look into the Cuban culture during this economic crisis, which they call "The Special Period." The film opens with a short history of Peak Oil, a term for the time in our history when world oil production will reach its all-time peak and begin to decline forever. Cuba, the only country that has faced such a crisis – the massive reduction of fossil fuels – is an example of options and hope.
http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php

Speaker: Wendy Emmett – environmentalist and follower of the Cuba experience. Just returned from leading an environmental study tour of Cuba.

Free entrance (bucket collection proceeds go to the organisers, Bristol South Green Party and Bristol Cuba Solidarity).

Bar Available!!

Cows, cars and climate

Letter writer Gil Osman is right to indicate that there is nowhere near enough emphasis on the greenhouse gas methane as one major cause of climate change (here). It is generated in very large and rapidly growing amounts by human activity, beef and dairy farming in particular, because cows produce many litres every day (Gil says 40 litres but some estimates go into hundreds of litres)! Pigs, chickens and other farm animals make a significant contribution also (and methane is also generated in landfill sites and by growing rice and is released to global warming by various means eg as permafrost melts).

The figures Gil gives are certainly credible estimates, with the greenhouse gas contribution from animals raised for food (18%) being higher than the greenhouse gas contribution from all transport (13%). Its not just the methane emitted by the animals that is the problem - meat production makes intensive use of fossil fuels, chemicals, drugs, land, plus money, and the international trade in meat only makes this worse! http://www.vegsoc.org/environment/index.html

Meat production is inherently inefficient. A food chain involving meat is longer, with more links. The ecological rule of thumb is that there is a 90% energy transfer ‘loss’ (used for the organism's life processes or lost as heat to the environment) at each link in the chain! On average a meat eater’s diet uses twice as much land per person as a vegetarian’s and five times as much as a vegan’s. Over two thirds of UK land is used for farming, most of this being used for meat. Around two thirds of the vegetable crops grown in the UK are fed to farm animals.

http://www.vegansociety.com/environment

According to the book ‘Sharing Nature’s Interest’ the ecological footprint of meat is 6.9 to 14.6 hectare years per tonne, depending on the type of animal rearing (pasture-fed animals have a lower footprint than grain-fed ones). Comparable figures for other foods are: non-aquaculture fish 4.5 to 6.6; fruit and vegetables 0.3 to 0.6; milk 1.1 to 1.9; grain such as wheat and rice 1.7 to 2.8; and pulses such as beans and peas 3.6 to 2.8. Even allowing for the fact that these are broad estimates the comparison is stark and is rooted in basic science.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s figures show that meat consumption has tripled since 1961. World meat consumption is now well over 230 million tonnes per year. By 2020 demand for meat will surge nearly 60%. Meat consumption has been and still is a feature of a ‘developed’ country given that someone living in a developed nation consumes three times as much as someone in a ‘developing’ one.

Put the facts on methane emissions and land/energy/chemical use from meat production together with fast rising meat consumption and you can see that we have trouble – not just in terms of climate change but also in economic terms, with food and fuel prices reaching very high levels during 2008 helped by high and rising demand. You’ll note that I’ve not even touched on the ethical/animal welfare issues or the health and disease issues involved in eating animals in large quantities!

So when Gil writes ‘Perhaps governments should be encouraging people to cut down on their meat consumption…’ I’d agree (although this should be in addition to tackling the environmental impacts from transport, energy generation and use, and so on which are many, varied and significant). It is especially important to tackle a meat industry parts of which, as Gil says, are clearing forests to create farmland for cattle rearing, boosting climate damage from cow methane, releasing carbon dioxide from the soil, rapidly releasing carbon dioxide when forests are burned and cutting the extraction of carbon from the air by forests simultaneously (more here).

I’ve spent some time describing the evidence and the problems. Solutions wont be easy. Action is needed across a wide range of policy areas, from environmental and health education informing personal food choices, to UK and EU action on personal and household carbon budgeting, to international agreements on deforestation and global trade…Would I advocate that we all go vegetarian or vegan? No, and I’m not a vegetarian myself, though I would strongly advocate that people consider a low meat diet, making dietary choices to stay within a carbon budget, and taking into account health, disease and animal welfare issues. Its certainly environmentally friendly to eat less meat whilst at the same time being cheaper, healthier and more ethical.

Knowle West people start their own smallholding with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall...

I've blogged before on how 'There are few ways to become greener better than changing attitudes towards food, so much of our footprint is food-related - grow your own, cook your own, go local, go fresh and unprocessed, go organic, go high fruit and veg'. No surprise then that I'll be tuning in to watch River Cottage Spring, the new series with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall tonight at 9pm, Channel 4. I've generally enjoyed his programs in the past and generally agree with a lot of what he's had to say about food and knowing where it comes from (see RiverCottage.net for more). There is added interest for me tonight because, according to the Radio Times website Hugh '...challenges five Bristol families to turn an acre of derelict city land into their very own smallholding - and food doesn't get much more local.'

It turns out that the people concerned live in Knowle West, not far from me, and like me are part of the Knowle West Carbon Makeover Project (which I will blog more about in the coming months - its an award-winning project). Perhaps I'll try to have a chat with the local people involved in the program to find out exactly what the whole experience has been like so far (the food production and involvement with tv production and personalities...). One thing I'm fascinated by is Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's statement in his Radio Times magazine interview that 'We've found an obscure law that suggests that if six or more households from an area request land to grow food, their local council has to respond.'. Will more be revealed in tonight's program?