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.

Do the facts show that a low meat diet is more ethical...?

Got involved in the online debate on the 'Bristol MP calls for cow flatulence debate' story in today's paper. My contribution drew quite a bit of response, including the one below from Grahame P. Thought it was worth posting on it here to invite responses on the ethics issue. To me it seems absurd to say that ethics is not part of this, and perhaps all, debates and wrong to say that you cant have a reasonable debate with someone who says that his moral position is backed by the facts - but what do readers think??

My post was addressed in reply to Glenn Vowles who said "....the facts show its healthier, more ethical and more ecological to freely choose to eat a lower meat diet..." Whilst I'd agree with his very first assertion, the argument that it's somehow more 'ethical' to eat less meat rankles because how can the facts show eating less meat is more ethical? Ethicality is a moral assertion, individually subjective, and therefore the 'facts' can't show anything of the sort!

(Grahame P, Central Bristol).

My reply:

Dont agree Grahame. The more people eat a low meat diet then - the more animals can be farmed in a non-intensive, healthier and higher animal welfare way; the fewer animals need to be farmed, leaving less forest cleared, which helps save species and save our climate; the more likely each person is to stay within a sustainable carbon budget, leaving nature less harmed for future generations. Isn't the result of all this that a low meat diet is more ethical??

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.

Biofuels, food prices, biodiversity, Spiderman, meat - or the connection between them all??

I've wondered, should I decide to post today, world environment day, just what I would write about.

Perhaps the latest warnings about biofuels causing higher world food prices as discussed at the UN food summit in Rome, featuring strongly on the BBC news this evening?

Or the recent report 'The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)', described as the first major report to outline the economic impact of cutting the variety of life (severe impacts on the worlds poorest and costs of up to £40 billion every year, 7% global GDP decline by 2050 if ecosystem damage is not tackled...) ?

How about saying that Alain Robert, the French Spiderman, has today been in New York City climbing a huge skyscraper to promote the message that we need real leadership on climate change from the G8 countries meeting next month (According to him "The Solution Is Simple":
1 – Stop Cutting Down Trees. Plant More Trees. 2 – Make Everything Energy Efficient. 3 – Only Make Clean Energy.).

I'm conscious that I've not posted much on the subject of diet and environmental impacts, in particular the amount and type of meat eaten, so perhaps something on this topic, reasonably well discussed on Newsnight a few days ago following comments from the head of the UN climate agency, Yvo de Boer, who is attending UN-led climate talks in Germany this week that we should all become vegetarians. After all in times of high food prices should we, at great environmental cost, be feeding grain to cows and pigs instead of people?? I really like meat but its a highly inefficient food to produce and consume and I acknowledge the very strong ethical, ecological, economic and health case for vegetarianism and veganism (I try to keep my meat consumption right down - I'm not a veggie).

Interesting how intimately intertwined issues of environment, energy, economics, food, climate and personal choices/behaviour are isn't it.

Attenborough: broadcaster who has done more to encourage respect for the natural world than anyone

Great respect, even reverence, for the natural world is of course a cornerstone of being green and no broadcaster has done more to encourage this in people than David Attenborough. The interview with him conducted by Jeremy Paxman in this week's Radio Times is fascinating. What a life and career he's having - certainly an inspiration to me (and I'm sure to very many others), especially when I was 17 yrs old and avidly watching Life on Earth in 1979. The interview of course covered his new series Life in Cold Blood, which I shall certainly watch regularly. He was also asked about life, death, consciousness and a Creator - and responded powerfully, supporting naturalism and not supernaturalism:

You wonder what a life spent marvelling at the world about us has taught him about life. Is there - the only big question - a purpose? "None whatsoever!" he exclaims, leaning forward and banging the table.

On not crediting a Creator when commenting on wonderful pictures of hummingbirds:

He has drafted a standard reply [to letters], which asks why it is that people who suggest he should give credit to a Creator Lord always cite hummingbirds, butterflies or roses.

"On the other hand, I tend to think of an innocent little child sitting on the bank of a river in Africa, who's got a worm boring through his eye that can render him blind before he is eight. Now, presumably you think this Lord created this worm, just as he created the hummingbird. I find that rather tricky."

On death:

But what does he imagine will happen to him when he dies? "Oh nothing." So he's with Bertrand Russell, who said 'I believe that when I die my body will rot'? "Absolutely." Does that trouble him? "Not at all."

On whether consciousness distinguishes humans from other species (and on vegetarianism):

...he doesn't even accept the distinction, asking how we can prove that monkeys dont have it. In that case, why isn't he a vegetarian? "Because I'm designed to be an omnivore. I have teeth for chewing and the length of my gut is quite clearly not that of a vegetarian. But as a sentient human I ought to make sure that what I eat has been raised in a 'humane' way." Why? "Because its unfitting that you should dictate the living conditions of another sentient organism."

Well said David!! Certainly couldn't have put it better myself!!