When people debate the issue around livestock and the
negatives of increasing production of meat and livestock associated products
many say we should reduce meat consumption.
REALLY?!?
Now sure, one way we COULD reduce emissions from livestock
is to cut down on our sausages, chicken legs and kebabs; after all, less cows
and sheep farting, less direct methane emissions. But there are other issues
around more animals on the planet that feed our hunger for meat.
This paper by McApline et al. 2009 looks at environmental degradation in Colombia, Brazil and
Australia due to expanding beef production and the deforestation it causes.
A big issue around emissions from livestock is the fact that
there are large indirect GHG emissions from forest clearance and land use
changes. The paper looks at factors that have increased beef production and
surprisingly, in some countries like Brazil, it is not supply and demand which
dictate beef production and emissions; its land prices. Land policy in Brazil
has made it more profitable to clear once natural rainforest and keep it clear
than let it be. The cheapest way to keep vegetation from establishing again is
to regularly cut regrowth… cows are surprisingly good at turning grass into
milk, meat, leather and other useful products for human consumption. This not
only has a dramatic effect on local ecosystem services and physiography; the
global consequences include depletion of the capacity for natural carbon sequestration.
Meat is big business. Curtailing meat production will
directly affect the economies which rely mainly on agriculture and the primary
sector. This is a controversial topic as if a country is able to utilise its
natural resources within its territory for economic means and development ‘at
the expense’ of the environment, who are we to judge? We chopped down our ‘oak’
forests centuries ago to fight wars with continental Europe. With the specific
driver of meat production in this context being land management, economical
profitability and natural lawn mowers; there is an assumption that if the main
driver of livestock (beef) expansion being the one stated, then whether you eat
the meat or not, there still will be emissions from it, albeit highly
inefficient per capita of digestion. In the case of Australia, land management
reform in the favour of protecting old growth forests has reduced the
profitability in expanding cheap, subsidised (through tax incentives) cattle
ranches. This protection has worked, again regardless of whether Sheila or
Russell eat steak or love veggie burgers.
However, with all business, it is fundamentally based on a
market; therefore demand. If demand for meat (whatever the reason) decreases;
then production and emissions would – economically speaking – decrease too.
I will explore more arguments around decreasing dependence
on livestock as a food source. However, I am guessing it isn’t as straight
forward as I think it’s going to be!
