Are you wondering what 2010 will bring for your business? If you want to know, and ask experts your questions, take part in our free online outlook seminars.Critics slam Government over controversial climate change report
A GOVERNMEMT-BACKED report advocating large cuts in livestock numbers to combat climate change and improve public health has provoked a storm of controversy.
The report, seemingly endorsed by three Government Ministers, including Health Secretary Andy Burnham, calls for a 30 per cent cut in livestock numbers in the highest producing countries.
But it has been condemned as ‘simplistic’ and ‘ill informed’ by NFU president Peter Kendall, while the Conservatives have branded it ‘careless’ and potentially damaging in efforts to change public attitudes towards climate change.
The controversy has been widely reported in the national media, with some commentators ridiculing the suggestion that livestock numbers should be drastically cut.
Mr Kendall criticised Ministers’ ‘apparent endorsement’ of the report, published in the Lancet on Wednesday, which he said was ‘another example of Government departments not working together’.
The report had seemingly been put together without any consultation with Defra, which has been looking into this ‘complex issue’, he said.
“Farmers will be angry that yet again we have an ill informed and simplistic report which appears to completely misunderstand agriculture’s emissions and its role in climate change.
“But the most unbelievable thing is that this report appears to have been put together without any input from the one Government department that deals in food policy and understands the issues – Defra.”
He added: “What we need to do is look at doing things more efficiently rather than simply cutting livestock numbers.
“The car industry is praised for producing more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles rather than being told to cut production. Likewise, a substantial investment in agricultural research and development is needed to enable farmers to produce food more efficiently with less impact on the environment,” he said.
“If the UK government wants to be seen as a leader at the climate change talks in Copenhagen they will need to work with farmers and not alienate them with soundbites.”
Shadow Defra Secretary, Nick Herbert said the report appeared to show confusion within Government over the issue. He referred to a comment made by Farming Minister Jim Fitzpatrick in the Commons in October that reducing meat consumption ‘is not the position of the Government or the Department’.
“While Defra Ministers claim to support individual choice and British farmers, health Ministers are endorsing a report calling for huge reductions in meat consumption,” he said.
“Agriculture must play a part in reducing emissions, but careless demands like this don’t just undermine farming, they erode public support for action on climate change. Is it now the Government’s policy to promote a 30 per cent reduction in livestock or not?”
A Defra spokesman said: “There are lots of ways people can cut their carbon footprint and impact on the environment – and reducing the amount of meat in our diets is one option.
“We are working with the industry to reduce the impact of the meat and dairy sectors right across the sector, from production to retail and waste disposal, to ensure that the environmental footprint of the meat we eat and the milk we drink is as low as possible.”
“We must also reduce the amount of food, including meat that is wasted.”
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Share
Readers' comments (11)
Anonymous | 26 November 2009 11:38 am
Why don't we all just stop breathing, if we kill ourselves off, then surely with no human life forms to do the damage, the planet will be saved.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 November 2009 11:42 am
The climate change lobby are the new totalitarians, if we do not stop them now they will make life in this country worse than it was in Nazi Germany or the USSR.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 November 2009 11:48 am
The totalitarians are actually the massive corporations that have bought out the governments of the world and made coordinated action (democracy) impossible. The fact is that 1/3 of greenhouse gases come from livestock. Animal products and population control are somehow taboo, but privatising water (forget the country in South America that allowed this) to corporations and monopolising certain seeds (monsato) are bizarrely, not. Corporatism is the new totalitarianism and we are somehow blind to it. Check out John Ralston Saul's writings.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DW | 26 November 2009 1:25 pm
Has this report considered that long term permanent pasture locks up significant amounts of carbon dioxide, if livestock numbers were cut, the only option would be to plough this out and a huge amount of carbon dioxide would be released into the atmosphere
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
rhythmbug | 26 November 2009 1:51 pm
"a substantial investment in agricultural research and development is needed to enable farmers to produce food more efficiently with less impact on the environment”
= more GM feed, more GM livestock, more patents, more corporate monopoly and control, which will hurt the farming industry even more than by downsizing it.
Time for the world to face facts, the population has grown too big to continue the same greedy food habits. Take a leaf out of Asia's book.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike Riordan | 26 November 2009 1:53 pm
Following an incident where emails and data were stolen from the Climate Research Unit in the UK, climate change science has been exposed as at least questionable and possibly fraudulent. Check out websites such as http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Shaun King | 26 November 2009 2:07 pm
What is crippling the world is government. They are out of control. Driven by urban socialists who know nothing about nothing except angst. They are killing every business in sight.
Agribusiness must find a way of going direct to market and go back to using untraceable cash.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris in Brighton | 26 November 2009 5:07 pm
From what I can gather co2 levels are already at a point where warming will increase and sea levels will rise. It's just a matter of catch-up. Man made or not reducing emmissions will have little effect on what we hope to avoid.
Therefore, with an initiative like this being considered perhaps it would be worth looking into the most effective co2 capturing plants and subsidise farmers to grow them - utilising the unused land?
Capturing co2 naturally has to be the most effective, balanced method of tackling the problem of global warming, rising sea levels and ultimately the next ice age.
There are so many possiblities e.g. naturally occuring algae being farmed in the oceans off the top of my head.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 November 2009 8:17 am
You'd farm algae off the top of your head??
jokes aside, that's a good point but really how much carbon can be captured by these 'natural' methods?
Also, a two pronged approach, reducing our emissions and capturing more carbon is surely the best solution. Climate changes is happening but we can work to stop it getting much, much worse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Trafford | 28 November 2009 10:38 am
I first read about this on the BBC news comment section and even they thought it was cazy
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment