Sir, – Surprise, surprise! A special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended reducing meat consumption (News, August 9th).
The report states that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels might not be achievable unless land is used in a more sustainable and climate-friendly way.
The IPCC also warns that farmers (ironically) and communities face intense rainfall, floods and droughts resulting from climate change and that land degradation and desertification threaten food security and risk precipitating increased poverty and migration.
Agriculture is the leading cause of our greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for around a third of our total emissions. Bizarrely, our agricultural greenhouse gas emissions are predicted to increase over the coming decade. We face possible fines of €600 million per annum from next year if we do not change course regarding our emissions. How does any of this make sense?
Governments from across the globe are due to meet in New York next month to consider the IPCC’s latest findings. I call on our Government to join the dots, stop equivocating and take action to combat climate breakdown, including action to reduce our agricultural emissions, for example through reducing the national herd, diversification of food production and afforestation.
I would also ask meat eaters to consider the environmental cost of their diets. That steak, burger or lamb chop is the end product of a process that emits harmful gases, uses a massive amount of energy in an unsustainable way, which when scaled-up exacerbates climate breakdown.
We are but brief custodians of this, our only our home. We should start acting like it, before it is too late. Instead we are, wilfully and in full possession of the evidence, destroying it. – Yours, etc,
ROB SADLIER,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – Beef, particularly suckler beef, seems to be the principal target of the debate to reduce Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, and afforestation to be the mainstay of efforts for carbon sequestration. Grow trees where we grew beef and the problem is on its way to resolution. It’s not that simple.
The recent increase in agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is largely due to dairying. An obligation to provide offsetting energy to the national grid for the annual equivalent of the GHG emissions of the extra cows and their offspring since the removal of quotas in 2014 by the mid 2020s would certainly focus minds on responsibilities related to expansion.
Milk processors have shown themselves resourceful in product development so it’s hardly unfair to require them to develop alternative and economically viable energy systems, including beyond bioenergy, on dairy farms.
It’s a bit much that offloading herd reductions to suckler farms would be the reward for expansion.
Equally important are the impacts of dairy expansion locally on water and air quality and biodiversity.
It is easy to insist that all farms obey the relevant legislation but experience shows this is fraught with difficulty.
Concentrated animal production is associated with severe and politically almost insoluble environmental problems despite strong EU legislation. Brittany, Flanders, the Po valley, Catalonia, the Rhineland as well as parts of Denmark, Netherlands and many other areas provide ample evidence.
Ireland is not immune, and environmental trends in concentrated livestock areas are not encouraging.
Afforestation in Ireland over the past 50 years has occurred mainly in poorer beef production areas and, as long as there are public supports, this trend is likely to continue.
In effect, suckler farmers are already playing, and will continue to play their part, and might reasonably ask if dairy farmers in dairying areas might devote some of their land to offsetting their own emissions.
Such an approach would be more socially acceptable than a simple national hectarage target.
However, experience with arable set aside has shown that there was much less uptake in high-yield cereal areas than elsewhere thus reducing both the intended economic and environmental benefits.
This lesson should not be ignored in the construction of new and increasingly improved afforestation in Ireland.
Finally, beef consumption, although very significant In Ireland, accounts for only about 20 per cent of worldwide meat consumption. Reducing pig and poultry consumption would actually free up vast arable areas for afforestation globally and the build-up of organic matter, which is now chronically low and threatens to undermine long-term soil viability if not addressed.
Ireland has depleted its peat lands for energy, and its efforts to restore them could provide a positive example in this respect. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL HAMELL,
Adjunct Professor
of Agriculture,
University College Dublin,
Dublin 4.