The Conversation: Oct 2018
Monika Merkes
Honorary Associate, Australian Institute for Primary Care and Ageing, La Trobe University
In reply to Arthur Beau Palmer:
Not too much food, but the wrong type of food.
Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses.
That means animal agriculture should be phased out and replaced with sustainable crops.
Tony Dickson in reply to Monika Merkes Monika:
It is a little disappointing when academics express simplistic observations about things outside their areas of expertise.
Whilst the greenhouse emissions associated with the production of ruminant livestock are indeed a major problem, the attention given to the issue is largely focused on those parts of the world where intensive meat production is the norm. The emissions are a complex mix of the energy requirements of feedlots, the production and transport of feed and of course, animal burps.
Apparently, the carbon footprint of dairy products shipped from NZ to Europe, is less than locally produced product, because NZ dairy cattle free range.
In Australia, the vast majority of ruminant livestock are also free ranging on pasture in areas that are either not suitable for cropping or horticulture, or are an integral part of a mixed agricultural system; ie they produce valuable fertilizer. If we phased out grazing in these areas, the environmental consequences would be disastrous, without a huge investment of resources and hundreds of thousands of people. The 2% of our population that produce our food at below cost, are responsible for managing 60% of the continent. The vast majority of that area is not suitable for any agricultural pursuit apart from grazing. Your idea would result in massive economic dislocation, as these areas would necessarily be depopulated, as farmers walked off their land and the associated towns wither and die.
So what, you might retort, that is a minor problem compared to the implications of CC; and I would agree with you if it was that simple. What most people in our coastal theme parks do not appreciate is the extent of the subsidies provided by farming communities to the whole population. For apart from providing food at below cost, they are also responsible for managing the most serious environmental problems, apart from CC, this continent must deal with. I refer to the huge number of exotic feral plants and animals, in addition to us, that are destroying the ecological integrity of the continent.
As far as our contribution to CC emissions are concerned, the significance of sheep and cow burps is relatively minor compared to the emissions from wild fire. Without the tens of thousands of volunteer firefighters who every year risk their lives while donating millions of hours of hard dangerous work fighting bush fires, our carbon dioxide emissions would be astronomically higher.
In SA, the CFS contributes, on average, over 700,000 hrs a year. Nationally, until the tragic helicopter crash in Afghanistan some years ago, the number of volunteer fire fighters killed in action was greater than that of defense personnel over the thirty-five years I was active.
The 2009 fires north of Melbourne are estimated to have increased the national emission by 30%, dwarfing the estimated 10% contribution of ruminants. That was just one fire event. Every year there are hundreds of fires around the country; most are contained quickly, consequent to the huge network of rural fire brigades covering regional areas. What would be the consequences if our vast grazing lands were abandoned as you advocate.
Before you came up with your plan to replace our meat production with beans and pulses, did you research the resources required to do so: the suitable land, water, reliable phosphate importation, environmental and health consequences of increased chemical use etc?
Are you aware that agriculture on this continent is almost entirely dependent on imported phosphate and that most of the world’s reserves are concentrated in China and North Africa. In 2008 China restricted its exports of phosphate and the consequent dramatic global price rise resulted in a series of famines.
And then there is topsoil loss. This is difficult to quantify because there are so many variables, but the most egregious estimates I have seen are terrifying. Given our fragile soils it may be that for every tonne of grain harvested, we are losing 7 tonnes of topsoil. Even in Europe, projections are that topsoil loss may become a major issue within the next sixty years. These are complex issues and this facile article and the usual ill informed comments from presumably, largely urban readers, adds little to the very necessary public conversation about the existential crisis that is rapidly overwhelming this planet. When conversing with economists about their religion of perpetual economic growth and the externalizing of inconvenient costs like the environment, I usually advise them to phone a biologist. In your case my advice is to ask a farmer.
Monika Merkes Honorary Associate, Australian Institute for Primary Care and Ageing, La Trobe University In reply to Tony Dickson:
Tony, I never claimed to be an expert in this area. Indeed, in another comment on this article I pointed out that I’m not. This is the comments section, and why should academics not share their views on topics outside of their expertise, like everyone else. Scientific consensus on the need to drastically reduce animal agriculture is clear. I don’t need to talk to farmers, but I’m open to listen to their views.
Tony Dickson
In reply to Monika Merkes:
And I never suggested that you did claim to be an expert. As for academics sharing uninformed views like everyone else, I try not to do so. If I am not well informed on a subject, I qualify comments as being speculative and avoid making broad adamant, simplistic statements like, “That means animal agriculture should be phased out and replaced with sustainable crops”.
As to being open to the views of farmers, have the complex realities canvassed by the farmers in this discussion , sponsored any qualifications to your position?
If so, what are they; and if not, what are your arguments?
Monika Merkes
Honorary Associate, Australian Institute for Primary Care and Ageing, La Trobe University
In reply to Tony Dickson:
Tony, my position is informed by the science on climate change. The recently released report by the IPCC has just confirmed what others have said before: animal agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. Our world will become inhabitable if we don’t change our dietary habits. The logical conclusion is to phase out animal agriculture. Yes, complex realities, but I’m not open to arguments about why it’s all too hard. How to go about it? That’s a matter for discussion. Some people and groups are already working on this, such as the Vegan Society – Moving to a vegan agricultural system for Australia.
Tony Dickson
In reply to Monika Merkes
I find your posts intriguing Monika. You keep referring to the science of CC, but make no reference to anything I have said in my posts.
The science of CC is not in dispute, nor is the estimate of animal husbandry’s contribution, which from memory is about 10% globally.
You do not need to convince me of the seriousness of the threat posed by CC. This is because I first learnt about it at school in the late 1960s and I became a CC change warrior and more generally an environmental activist in 1972.
Indeed, that is why I abandoned my nascent legal career to become, what is called today, a regenerative farmer. Apart from planting some 40,000 native trees, designing and building by hand, a solar house from recycled materials, that exports about 4 mw of PV power pa; which is the excess after powering the entire farm. All from a 4.5 kw array. I have also spent 35 years as a volunteer rural fire fighter.
I have also chaired Landcare groups, run for parliament and spent countless hours writing to politicians, economists, the media and more recently The Conversation. This has all been done pro bono. My activism has been my raison de’tre. Fortunately my wife works.
So I do not need you to tell me about CC, or alternative agriculture.
You acknowledge that these subjects are not your area of expertise and that you are willing to listen to farmers. However, despite my detailed explanation as to why your bald statement that we should stop animal husbandry, would be counter productive in Australia, your response is to simply say that you are not open to persuasion.
This reminds me of my late father-out-law, a Yorkshire coal miner, who in our first conversation met my erudite argument with the retort of, “I don’t care how many facts you tell me lad, you won’t change my mind.” Miner 1, lawyer diddly squat.
Lets be clear about this. Your response is tantamount to stating that despite your lack of expertise and the fact that CC has been the focus of my life for half a century, your position is entirely correct and thus mine is completely fallacious.
You state this conclusion without any attempt at rebuttal of my reasoning or evidence. Essentially you are making your case as the lawyer before the High Court in The Castle did : “It’s the vibe of the thing”.
I find no novelty in such examples of hubris and academic arrogance; they are distressingly common, particularly in the economics faculties. But then they are compelled to it because they must defend their particularly fragile ideology.
Perhaps that is what you have in common with the economists. Are you by chance a disciple of Prof. Singer? That would certainly explain a few things.
Rather than argue for depopulating most of regional Australia and thus dramatically increasing our emissions, why don’t you address your concerns to Australian households, who, if they are anything like their American equivalent, waste 70% of the electricity they consume. Bear in mind that we run our entire farm on about a quarter of the electricity of the average household. It isn’t difficult. You just have to give a damn.
Why are you silent on such egregious waste? I think we can divine the answer to that, can’t we?,
Monika Merkes:
Honorary Associate, Australian Institute for Primary Care and Ageing, La Trobe University
In reply to Tony Dickson
Tony, given the combative tone of your replies to me, I won’t respond to this or any other of your comments.
Tony Dickson
In reply to Monika Merkes:
Not combative Monika, just frustrated in that you have not in fact responded cogently to my detailed challenge to your dogmatic position.
I would have thought that the whole point of this forum is to articulate arguments with the expectation of having them challenged. That is certainly my motivation; how else can I test my perspectives.
You on the other hand are content to make provocative statements about subjects you admit to knowing little about, without including that rather important word “because”, and then refuse to even countenance dissent from people who are considerably more qualified.
So much for open minded enquiry. Consequently, I think that I could be forgiven for suspecting the intellectually dead hand of ideology on the conversation.
An objective observer may well conclude that you have forfeited the argument. QED?