Forget jumbo jets, off-road vehicles and coal-fired
power stations; the biggest cause of climate change is on your
dinner plate, claim animal rights campaigners.
"The meat industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than
all the cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined -
providing further evidence that meat's not green," says the
pressure group People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
Switching to a vegetarian diet is the most effective way to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, claims the PETA website. The very
idea might raise the hackles of livestock producers, but it is
steadily gaining credence among the wider public.
Backed by former Beatle
Paul McCartney, a
Meat Free Monday campaign
is encouraging more people to give up meat one day a week. Being
vegetarian is no longer just about dodging dead animals, it's about
saving the planet.
But anti-meat initiatives received short shrift this week from
shadow DEFRA secretary Nick
Herbert. Eating less meat will have no effect on the
environment, he told a Tory fringe meeting during the party's
Manchester
conference.
Campaigners claim livestock are the biggest contributor to
global warming.
"There's a militant vegetarian response to food security, which
says the world can't feed itself, so we must stop eating animals,"
says Mr Herbert. "Wild horses wouldn't stop me from eating meat and
we shouldn't be telling people they can't eat it either."
Even so, farming industry experts warn more must be done to
combat claims that livestock are the biggest contributors to global
warming - while encouraging farmers to reduce emissions from animal
production. Science, not scaremongering, is the answer.
Grassland farmers make a considerable contribution to food
security while continuing to reduce their environmental impact,
according to a report published last month by the
Royal Agricultural Society of
England.
The study was prepared by independent livestock scientist David
Garwes, who says the farming industry must respond robustly to
claims consumers should abandon meat because of climate change.
"Semi-permanent rough grazing and improved grasslands play a
vital role in locking up carbon dioxide and regulating the flow of
rain into watercourses," he says. "Without livestock farming, those
natural resources would be abandoned."
Better efficiency and genetics have maintained output while
reducing livestock numbers and emissions, adds Dr Garwes. At the
same time, better breeding in the pig and poultry industries has
improved feed conversion, reducing environmental losses.
Livestock farming will continue to reduce its environmental
footprint, forecasts Dr Garwes, with emissions from each tonne of
product falling by about 1% a year as genetic selection is applied
in the pig, poultry and dairy sectors.
RASE agri-science director Ian Smith describes the study as
sensible defence of livestock production, but adds: "There is great
scope for further reductions. More applied research is needed to
continue the increases in efficiency."
Ian Crute, chief scientist at the
Agricultural and Horticultural
Development Board, says climate change mitigation is one of the
key issues facing British farmers.
"We need hard evidence to distinguish fact from fiction and we
need to know how to adopt actions that will result in the greatest
gains in terms of lower emissions for the least impact on
production and economic returns."
Evidence could be on its way. This autumn, a roadmap document
will urge beef and lamb producers to reduce emissions by adopting
improvements to livestock nutrition, explains Duncan Pullar,
EBLEX head of R&D.
"Even simple measures, such as better sward management, can help
to reduce emissions by improving digestibility," he says.
"Collectively, we don't put enough effort into diet construction
and management, yet it can help improve profitability too."