Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
greenhouse gas emissions. Targeting methane emissions such as these to compensate for a
failure to reduce CO
2
emissions is another facet of the neo-colonialism that has pervaded
international climate negotiations.
Something of this trade-off between methane emissions and CO
2
emissions can already
be seen in specific proposals for mitigating methane emissions from animals. At the farm
level the FAO states that 'the most promising approach for reducing methane emissions
from livestock is by improving the productivity and efficiency of livestock production
through better nutrition and genetics. 'Higher yielding cows produce more milk for less
methane. This advice is widely repeated throughout the agricultural press, for example
Farmers Weekly
writes:
Want to reduce your herd's carbon footprint? Then the easiest way is to increase milk yields … A 9000-litre
cow produces 125 kg of methane a year, a 5000-litre cow produces 103 kg of methane.
75
While there may well be advantages in increasing yields from dairy animals, there are
also drawbacks: a high yielding cow will be less likely to survive on default produce from
the farm, and will require both more and higher grade nourishment that can usually only
easily be provided by carbon intensive farming practices such as tillage, irrigation or use of
synthetic fertilizers. Dairy cows would evolve into feedlot cows, turning human food into
milk and methane inefficiently, rather than earning their keep by digesting fibrous mater-
ial. A tax on emissions from cows, already mooted in New Zealand, the USA and Den-
mark, would have severe repercussions in poor countries. As the FAO acknowledges 'it
will be difficult to apply the [polluter pays] principle to methane emissions from single
cows owned on an Indian mixed farm of half a hectare.'
76
On the macro scale, a major shift from ruminants to monogastrics, again favoured by the
FAO, would also require intensified production methods, involving increased reliance on
fossil fuel dependent, N
2
O-emitting arable crops, and the loss of soil carbon through the
ploughing up of pasture. As the FAO remarks 'ruminant production, both meat and milk,
tends to be much more rural-based', because of the need for bulky fibrous feeds. If large
numbers of 'inefficient' cows were culled, millions of poor rural dwellers would lose the
ability to harness their local biomass and add to the swell of refugees flocking into mega-
cities. There is a very good case for reducing the numbers of feedlot cattle and of rainforest
cattle, which are extravagant and destructive in other respects; but beyond that, large scale
reductions in ruminants would have uncertain returns in terms of methane emission be-
cause we cannot be sure how the biosphere will respond, would increase pressure for fossil
fuel consumption, and would have severe social repercussions.
Even a cursory glance at the global GHG budget is sufficient to see that the main prob-
lem is CO
2
- cows have been around for thousands of years, while global warming takes
off with the discovery of oil. Moreover IPCC figures show that between 1970 and 2004,
emissions of CO
2
emissions from fossil fuels have doubled, while emissions of nitrous ox-
