Monday 9 January 2012

Nearly There Conclusion!! SEAPUK!


This blog was started to try and highlight the role that livestock plays in climate change and how our consumption has resulted in us drastically changing the earth's climate; land cover and productivity. We have introduced new species to places where they have caused so much damage (please look at Gem's blog for an in depth look at the palm oil industry; Jonnys's blog on Arctic environmental change; Wei's blog on the home of the polar bears and other arctic wildlife; Jess's blog on species migration) and we are causing the destruction of the homes, habitats and ecosystems of other species that inhabit an increasingly smaller niche on an ever homogenised planet due to our requirements from the environment around us.

By no means I am wagging my finger and blaming everyone under the sun for everything negative that's wrong with the world; that would be tiring and hypocritical lol! 

What is needed are solutions. 

Whether it is bio-technology and increased use of GM technologies to produce less GHG producing cows and other ruminants, or the utilisation of efficient feed and better storage, disposal and use of manure and other excrement produced as a livestock by-product (all in this IPCC report) and suggested by Popp et al., 2010.

Greater efficiencies in the production of livestock is integral to its sustainability, its been done to a certain extent in the transport industry, so why should what we eat be ring-fenced whilst we are all streamlining transportation (greater fuel efficient cars) energy production (renewable energy/ long life light bulbs), waste disposal (recycling); yet we still dump a lot of unnecessary fertiliser on a over irrigated field all in the name of reducing starvation?

Like in every single one of the example I have highlighted (and many more I have forgotten lol) there are some common traits; public support and interest; consumer attitude changes; cost of implementation; accessibility and availability of products. 

I am not asking/telling people to be vegetarian, it isn't necessary if agriculture was more sustainable. Greater GHG sinks (afforestation); less intensive agricultural practices; the real cost of meat (reduction in production subsidies Bruges, 2008) they would all curb emissions one way or another.

But by far the biggest source of agricultural expansion and GHG emissions is through demand. Unsustainable and inappropriate consumption is creating a problem that shouldn't even exist. The most significant way, as all the literature points to, whether modelled or not, is through consumer habits changing. Not eating meat every day is a start. Buying a non-meat alternative is also good. Margarine over butter is a positive, however depending on where the source of ingredients come from , palm oil could be one. 

Whatever you choose to do, just be aware of the choice you are making. Be a concious consumer and try act in an environmental, in a sustainable way. This is not easy. I am no expert on all products and their sources, but finding this information out has never been easier. Google it! 

Maybe soon there will be some kind of certification that address how environmentally sustainable meat products are (like those for tuna and dolphins, recycled paper from sustainable forests and recyclable plastics)? If there is already please let me know!!! Maybe that's one thing we could do, start a social movement for Sustainable and Environmental Agricultural Production in the United Kingdom... SEAPUK!

SEAPUK...we could get Paul McCartney to talk at an event... hmm.... Planet organic... get a few farmers involved... we could start something great!

I am managing director..... no.. vice president.... no.... King of SEAPUK! Who wants to join me? We can do it!

No comments:

Post a Comment