Is climate change our cue for the sun to go down on some of our more unsustainable farming practices? Photo / Supplied
Is climate change our cue for the sun to go down on some of our more unsustainable farming practices? Photo / Supplied
OPINION
The global-warming effect of methane released into the atmosphere is one reason the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now says it will not be possible to keep global temperatures at safe levels without transforming the way the world produces food and manages land.
Necessary changes, they say, includea significant shift to plant-based farming. Methane from livestock makes up nearly 40 per cent of New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
Yet, agriculture has long fought to remain outside the Emissions Trading Scheme and delay taking responsibility for the emissions it produces.
Primary sector climate partnership He Waka Eke Noa spent more than two years on its own blueprint for emissions reductions.
The Government responded with a plan that goes against advice from the Climate Change Commission and has been called a “specific fiscal risk” by the Treasury.
The low levy price won’t drive the change needed in farming practices and could be insufficient to fund the generous incentives for on-farm efforts like carbon sequestration.
The plan will surely lead to more pine plantations, more questionable overseas carbon offsets, and less likelihood we’ll meet our international emission-reduction targets.
All this at a time when IPCC scientists are calling for “transformative change with no historical equivalent”.
A key to change is addressing “agricultural sprawl” – the use of large amounts of land to produce small amounts of food.
The Our World in Data website managed by Oxford University scientists shows that, for the amount of land required to produce a certain amount of soy protein (to be eaten by humans in the form of tofu), 2.5 times as much land is needed to produce the equivalent amount of egg protein, three times as much for chicken protein, 12 times as much for milk, 74 times as much for beef and 84 times as much for lamb.
And that just compares space used.
Researchers Joseph Poore, of Oxford University, and Thomas Nemecek, from the Swiss research centre Agroscope, report in the journal Science that grass-fed beef is responsible for considerably higher environmental impacts than a range of plant-based alternatives.
Similarly, the impact of producing dairy milk is significant; that of soy milk is negligible by comparison.
Fortunately, we don’t need animal protein for a healthy diet. Indeed, a whole-food plant-based diet is healthier. Consumption of red meat has long been associated with increased risk of heart disease, stroke and certain cancers.
The same can now be said about dairy products. The international Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine confirms this in its report, Health Concerns about Dairy, which broadly summarises the research.
Plant-based foods and cell-based (lab-grown) meat are increasingly available and popular.
Protein as a food ingredient is being produced by precision fermentation at increasingly high quality and lower cost, while virtually eliminating environmental impact.
Meanwhile, as the climate crisis worsens, countries we export to will be looking for accountability on how our food and food ingredients are produced.
So how to refashion Kiwi agriculture?
Gord Stewart. Photo / Supplied
It can start with a change in mindset – by no longer considering oneself a dairy, beef or sheep farmer, but something more.
A change in mindset opens doors – to, where possible, converting to (or at least diversifying into) the likes of kiwifruit, avocado, berries, quinoa, hemp, almonds, bananas or other tropical fruits.
Land that currently grows grass or feed for animals could be converted to produce food for people. A change to more of the vegetable crops we now grow successfully.
Also on the table should be “rewilding” marginal and even some productive land.
The Science article cited above notes that, worldwide, moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products would reduce the amount of land used for farming by 76 per cent. This would free up more space for nature – a good thing as nature-based solutions help stem biodiversity loss and protect the climate.
The wealth of the farming sector has come at a great cost – a changing climate being just one component of it.
If the livestock farming sector won’t pay its fair share, who will pick up the slack?
Should other industries have to pay more? Should the transport sector bear greater responsibility? Should we all pay more for electricity or higher waste levies? Should we accept reduced Government health, education, and social services, given the billions of dollars that will be needed to buy offshore carbon credits?
We need a meaningful price on methane and a cap on the amount the agricultural sector is allowed to generate. This will provide a sound basis for the transition needed.
It will mean far fewer hooves on the ground and more crops in it; fewer pine plantations and more native bush; stable, thriving rural communities; and healthier diets all around.
Climate change is an existential threat. It’s time the livestock farming sector played its part in addressing it.
- Gord Stewart is a sustainability consultant with a background in environmental management and economics.
