Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
ledge is 'atypical', and using them to bump up, by around 30 per cent, a figure which they
then proceed to publicize as typical emissions from livestock throughout the world.
Some might argue that it is valid to tar all meat with the rainforest brush in this way be-
cause demand for Brazilian beef reflects increasing global demand for meat in general. Ac-
cording to Greenpeace, the recent rise in rainforest beef exports is partly a result of increas-
ing demand for beef from the EU, particularly the UK and Russia. The Soil Association,
however, points out that beef production in the UK has declined by 20 per cent in recent
years (because fewer calves are coming out of an increasingly intensive dairy industry), im-
plying that it may not be demand for meat, but price advantage that is driving the increase
in exports. They therefore claim that increasing beef production in the UK would reduce
pressure upon the Amazon.
Perhaps it is legitimate to cast the blame for deforestation upon meat in general, but if
so, what purpose does that serve? The most direct solution is not to lower the consumption
of meat in general, but to put an end to the consumption of the offending items. Whatever
the FAO's motives, some vegan and vegetarian campaigners are only too happy to propag-
ate the 'hamburger connection' as a reason for giving up meat. But to invoke the emissions
from rainforest beef as an argument for halting meat consumption, makes as much sense as
arguing that we should boycott all vegetable oil, because palm oil is responsible for defor-
estation in Indonesia, and soya oil responsible in the Amazon.
None of the four points above should be taken to suggest that deforestation is not a grave
problem; nor that livestock are not in large measure responsible. I have raised them to in-
dicate how misleading it can be to apply a figure like six per cent to the emissions from
deforestation attributable to livestock. There is a direct relationship between the amount of
petrol a consumer puts in his (or her) car and the amount of carbon he emits into the atmo-
sphere. There is no such relationship between the amount of meat he eats and the amount
of deforestation he is responsible for. A consumer who switched from a diet of New Zeal-
and butter, English lamb and corn fed pork to one based on margarine and meat analogues
made from Brazilian soya would probably be increasing his contribution to deforestation,
not diminishing it.
The FAO are well aware of these difficulties, and acknowledge them discreetly in the
text. They even put brackets around the LULUCF figures in their table, suggesting that they
should be considered separately, which means that their 18 per cent is also in brackets and
that the total printed at the bottom of the table without brackets is the equivalent of 11.66
per cent of manmade GHGs. Why, one wonders, have they given such prominence to the
higher figure of 18 per cent in their publicity?
Nitrous Oxide
