The world has warmed >1°c since the mid-C18th as a result of the anthropogenic (human) release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere 🌍
This is already having devastating consequences around the world: just ask almost any farmer 🌪
2/
Some still claim climate change is either ‘fake news’ or caused by natural phenomena - sun cycles ☀️ volcanoes etc 🌋
This is untrue ❌
Since the human population exploded in the 1800s, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen to unprecedented levels…
3/
…in parallel with our industrial emissions.
Humans are the problem 👋
Awkward.
4/
Where do the vast majority of these emissions come from?
The burning of fossil fuels for energy to generate electricity, power our transport, produce our consumer goods and heat our homes 🏭 🚗 ✈️ 🏠
5/
But - isn’t it COWS that are actually the single biggest source of climate-warming emissions? I mean, that’s what the media says, right?
All we need to do is move to a ‘plant based diet’ to save the planet, right?
No. This is misleading, and dangerous.
6/
Climate change is already happening, but to keep it at ‘manageable’ levels, we must keep warming below 1.5°c
Current international commitments leave us closer to 3°c by 2100. This would be disastrous.
Think Mad Max 🏜
7/
So, back to cows.
They emit methane (CH4) from enteric fermentation as they ruminate - or chew the cud. (Cows are clearly thoughtful animals).
Essentially, CH4 is a byproduct of converting pretty indigestible (to us) grass into tasty beef & milk 🌱
8/
Methane is 28x more warming than CO2; this is important for farming because agriculture contributes more than half of all methane in the UK, primarily from ruminant digestion 🐄
BUT: CH4 also breaks down after c10 years, vs centuries for CO2 ⏳
9/
The warming potential of methane is calculated using the GWP100 metric, which assumes that CO2 has a warming score of 1, CH4 of 28 over 100 years (ie is 28x more warming over a century).
But this dismisses the fact that methane is a short-lived gas, inflating its impact.
10/
This many scientists now believe a new measurement is needed to accurately calculate the warming effect of CH4 in climate modelling - GWP*
This isn’t to deny methane is an important GHG, but that its impact is currently overstated vs CO2.
What’s more, the CH4 emitted by cattle (biogenic) is different to that released in the burning of fossil fuels 🔥
It’s part of the natural carbon cycle, where CH4 is broken down after 10 years into CO2, which is in turn recycled via photosynthesis & further rumination ♻️
12/
That makes biogenic methane a ‘flow gas’ - after ten years, a static population of cattle is creating no new warming as the gas constantly cycles.
In contrast, ‘stock gas’ CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries, adding constant warming with every year that passes.
13/
That’s why, despite the pandemic, atmospheric CO2 reached record levels in 2020.
Every tonne of CO2 which is burned is adding warming, and will do for centuries.
We would need to stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow - totally - to arrest this rise.
It’s also worth noting that the biggest global emitter of methane is (of course) the fossil fuel industry.
And unlike biogenic methane, this CH4 was safely buried, inert, in the ground (along with all that CO2) before we dug it up and flared it into the atmosphere 🔥
15/
With cattle, were we to make the national herd more efficient, or reduce their emissions through breeding/diet, we could (after a decade) induce a COOLING effect on the climate as that biogenic methane breaks down & is sequestered in biomass & soil.
Because if people are led to believe that going ‘meat free’ is making a meaningful contribution to the existential threat posed by climate change, they’re mistaken.
This distracts us from the bigger challenges we face & reduces action.
19/
And make no mistake, the consequences of failing to mitigate the worst excesses of anthropogenic climate change are truly dire.
Sustainable farming - including livestock - is part of the solution to climate change, and I’m proud to be part of an industry which has a plan to achieve that with real activities, not just ‘offsetting’ and continuing business as usual.
This was groundbreaking & most farmers were deeply sceptical (including myself 👇)
Yet over the years all political parties have been relentlessly consistent that this was the direction of travel: get on board the PM4PG train & we will support you.
Without making any moral judgement on current production practices, the reason intensive poultry production takes the form it does is because of relentless pressure to be ever-cheaper, from retailers & consumers.
Most of our 🌎 food system is predicated on a race to the bottom on retail cost. But this generates external costs; to welfare, climate & the environment.
Farmers = price takers in a free market system feeding on the planet’s natural capital.
I’m proud to be part of an industry in 🇬🇧 which is already far more sustainable than the global average, with plans to improve at pace, from improving biodiversity to producing climate-friendly food.
Sugar beet afflicted with virus yellows can have yield reductions of up to 80%. No alternative control methods are currently available. And if we don’t grow sugar, demand will stay constant. So we just import cane sugar, right?
It also makes no attempt to demonstrate the incredibly strict parameters of the sugar beet derogation (not the least of which are pest/weather thresholds which were not triggered one of the two years so far granted), very low rates used & 3 year lag time to a flowering crop.
Polarisation on food, farming & the environment, a 🧵
Since 2016 food, farming & the environment have rarely been out of the news. And rightly so: they impact every single one of us. Yet the quality of national debate on these vital issues has been (mostly) dire.
1/
With the vote to leave the EU in 2016 the UK was presented with a blank canvas for agriculture policy for the first time in 40 years. But the problems began here, with a government needing to find Brexit benefits spinning a line of misinformation about the CAP.
This mostly centred around presenting the CAP as if:
1) it were still the 1980s, with milk lakes & butter mountains & no environmental or rural development funding
2) it only benefitted rich land owners, when in reality smaller tenants were most reliant on it
There are so many basic errors in this piece, it makes me so frustrated that the public see what’s happening in the countryside through such a distorted lens. How can we have an informed discussion when we get the basics wrong - after 6 years!
- ELM is not a ‘farm subsidy’ scheme; it’s payments for environmental actions, largely on an income forgone basis, and will go far wider than farmers.
- It isn’t just for ‘landowners’
- There’s little to nothing in ELM about ‘producing food’.
- ELM was not intended to replace CAP: there is & will be a huge financial shortfall on every English farm, by design.
- CAP was not ‘based on how much land an individual farmer owned…benefitting the wealthiest’. It was based on land tenure, of most benefit to smaller tenants.
.@CommonsEFRA unimpressed at government’s dismissal of its concerns for the impact of the NZ/UK FTA on 🇬🇧 farms, or of its call for MPs to have scrutiny of future trade deals as promised when we ‘took back control’.
Unfortunately, some in government seem keener to back our competitors (in the name of ‘the free market’) than their own domestic producers, who underpin the rural economy & 🇬🇧 food security.
As for those who claim NZ doesn’t want to send meat here anyway ‘because China’, in the real world volumes are already increasing - before the FTA takes effect.