Sir Paul McCartney rolls into the European Parliament in Brussels today with the “Meat Free Monday†campaign he launched with daughters Mary and Stella. He wants everyone to avoid eating meat one day every week in order to fight climate change.
My MEP Robert Sturdy, who sits on the Agriculture Committee, has taken the ex-Beatle to task, and disagrees with the points he raises, thinking they are short-sighted. Robert says:
“In the UK our livestock production systems are already highly sustainable and are essential for our future food security. Eating less meat will not mean less climate change. Such a simplified message takes no account of the fact that much of our agricultural land in the UK is unsuitable for arable and vegetable crops. It is clear that Sir Paul does not understand livestock production.
“Focussing on a single issue as a way of saving the planet is irresponsible and will be counterproductive in the long run. It is likely that we will become more dependant on other imported sources of protein, such as soya, which will lead to an increase in the amount of rainforest felled to make way for cultivation. What we should be doing is investing in agricultural research and development to enable farmers to produce food more efficiently with less impact.â€
Robert raises an important point about the agricultural research needed to provide crops which can grow in drought stricken areas and reduce famine and the displacement of huge communities which can result in conflict.
I already do eat less meat as my dietary tastes have changed, but what are your views about this, will you eat less meat because some say it will reduce climate change?
“will you eat less meat because some say it will reduce climate change”?
doubt it.
I enjoyed reading your blog….!!!!!
Sir Paul has been smoking a crop of his own for a long time now. But one of the reasons that livestock are linked with global warming is that, um, they, er, produce large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas.
Did I say that delicately enough?
Also, livestock need grazing land, some of which could be returned to forest if people ate less meat. Forests (even orchards) will absorb more carbon dioxide than grasslands. And, of course, trees don’t — er — emit methane.
Deforestation has been a major cause of desertification around the globe — and desertification is climate change that even a skeptic like me understands to be real and a challenge particularly for developing countries.
So Sir Paul may not be as far off base as you might think.
McCartney’s right
I already eat much less meat than I used too, for the dietary benefits as well as the reasons he gives althougi enjoy the odd bacon sandwich, kebab and curry etc. I’m pretty happy to so on both counts, and as a working scientist I’m quite at ease with the validity of the reasons for both.
Always preferred Lennon though
I only ever have very small portions of meat and not for every meal either.
Robert says more about this here, that only 1% of carbon emissions come from agriculture:
http://robertsturdymep.com/2009/12/03/robert-sturdy-disagrees-with-sir-paul-mccartney-over-climate-change/
“will you eat less meat because some say it will reduce climate change?”
Nope.
Unfortunately Mr Sturdy is wrong with his figures it’s untrue. He obviously has absolutely no idea of the matter he’s commenting on. Don’t believe it because he’s and MEP and he said it on the internet.
Agriculture is responsible for way, way more emissions than 1%.
And don’t take my word for it, research it yourself.
Hi None of the above:
I wonder if you are confusing your info. I know it sounds surprising, but the figure comes from DEFRA, it is found under the “What is the challenge for direct emissions from my farming business?” section.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/landmanage/climate/index.htm
It is not so much what we eat as they way we produce it that impacts on the climate. Intensive cultivation and factory farming of mean and dairy “production units” demands a lot of industrial processes to service the farms.