Jan 23rd 2020,
14 tweets,
8 min read
To give one example, it calls for measures to encourage a 10% cut in cattle and sheep numbers by 2050.
But this reduction is way less than the *existing trajectory*, as people turn away from red meat.
And by 2050, cultured meat may have nixed the entire sector.
2/
But this reduction is way less than the *existing trajectory*, as people turn away from red meat.
And by 2050, cultured meat may have nixed the entire sector.
2/
The UK has the most wasteful farming practices in Europe. Vast tracts of land produce negligible amounts of food. For example, sheep farming occupies ~4m ha, roughly equiv to all our arable and horticultural land, yet produces just 1.2% of our calories. monbiot.com/2017/01/11/exp…
3/
3/
This is why, while the European average is 37% forest cover, ours is just 13%.
This was @theCCCuk's opportunity to call for bold targets for the *natural regeneration* of woodlands and other ecosystems, and #rewilding on the scale required for effective carbon drawdown.
4/
This was @theCCCuk's opportunity to call for bold targets for the *natural regeneration* of woodlands and other ecosystems, and #rewilding on the scale required for effective carbon drawdown.
4/
But neither rewilding nor regeneration are even mentioned. It talks only of tree *planting*, which is generally a slower, more expensive and less effective way of restoring habitats and drawing down carbon, and spreads plastic, and often disease, across the countryside.
5/
5/
And even this is on a tiny scale, by comparison to the drawdown required if we're to have any chance of avoiding #ClimateBreakdown. 30,000 hectares might sound a lot. But by comparison to the potential in this country, it is miniscule.
6/
6/
Even if all @theCCCuk's plans came to pass, this would mean increasing forest cover by 2050 to just 17%: still *less than half the European average*.
And the emphasis is on not on wild woods, but managed forests, biofuel and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
7/
And the emphasis is on not on wild woods, but managed forests, biofuel and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
7/
BECCS has already been discredited as an effective climate strategy. There's a discussion of the science here: naturalclimate.solutions/full-rationale
And commercial forestry offers MUCH less effective carbon drawdown than forests that are left alone: nature.com/articles/d4158…
8/
And commercial forestry offers MUCH less effective carbon drawdown than forests that are left alone: nature.com/articles/d4158…
8/
This is such a timid, cack-handed, unscientific report that I think @theCCCuk must be tailoring its conclusions to current politics. But its duty is to match its proposals to what *the science* shows. The climate emergency demands courage and clarity. We're not getting it.
9/
9/
At the heart of everything @theCCCuk now does is a fundamental deception of the public: the suggestion that net zero by 2050 is compatible with avoiding catastrophic levels of climate breakdown. It's not. Here are the cuts we need to make:
Net zero by 2050 is a political target, not a scientific target. The CCC should say so in every report. To stand any chance of avoiding catastrophic heating, we need to *maximise* mitigation (leaving fossil fuels in the ground) AND carbon drawdown (ecological restoration).
11/
11/
Even reaching its 2050 target by the means it suggests in the new report is highly questionable. But the key issue is that THIS IS THE WRONG TARGET. The authors of the report are up to speed with the science. They must know this.
The CCC's role is to represent scientific reality, not political reality. Political reality is negotiable and responsive to popular sentiment and understanding. Scientific reality is not.
13/
13/
The 2050 target is an insidious and extremely dangerous form of climate denial, as are the pathetic measures @theCCCuk recommends. The people who run it and write its reports are well-meaning. But they are coaxing us gently towards disaster.
14/
14/
