Dumb Government Policy to stop Climate Change

There are times when people do stupid things and when the details emerge, you can account for this stupidity because of low intellect. However when a government does it, you are left wondering about the sanity of the people who control our lives. Fortunately we live in a democracy and while democracy has its failings, it means that we have a free press and the ability to call our leaders idiots when they do dumb things.

This case of silliness did not even last a day but if it had been in some act of fiction it would have been rightly seen as beyond belief. But it actually happened. What I can hear you shouting. Well the a report in the medical journal “The Lancet” suggested that if we culled a third of all ruminants in Britain that we would create two main benefits. First that it would reduce methane emissions and slow down Climate Change, and that with less meat available, people would have healthier diets, reducing heart disease and obesity.

Now there are reasons why this is a stupid plan, not least because it is extremely over simplistic. First is the issue of methane emissions. While it is true that methane is a more potent green house gas than Carbon Dioxide, twenty four times to be exact, it also only has an atmospheric life of twenty one years. That means that it only lasts in the atmosphere for twenty one years before it vents into space. That is why it is used by scientists looking for extraterrestrial life as it is short lived and only exists where there is life. Further while it is true that there are now more domesticated livestock, in the past there were vast herd's of wild Bison and other ruminants across the globe and if methane emissions from animals was having an impact upon our climate, it would have been much hotter two centuries ago. Where methane effecting climate is a problem is were it is being released from permafrost as a result of Carbon Dioxide induced warming in the Arctic Tundra .

Equally while eating less animal protein could well have health benefits, and it may well help towards reducing the carbon footprint of the nation if consumption were to fall by a third, this would only be the case if we did not have a free market and international trade. If Britain killed off one in every three of our cattle and sheep all it would do is increase imports of meat from Europe and the rest of the world.

Now how The Lancet were rather silly in not looking at the implications of their report, and I am amazed that it should ever have been published. Yet it really was, but what really amazed and shocked me was that government departments started endorsing the report. I say started as it quickly emerged that no one had spoken to DEFRA The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who incidentally are nominally in charge of cows. That would be the government department responsible for carrying out such a cull, so at the very least should have been consulted before endorsing such a daft report.

When the flaws were pointed out, the government rapidly retreated from endorsing and adopting this as a policy.

Here is the report as it appeared on the BBC.

However, there is a much more serious aspect to this. While frequently adopting good environmental practices will create other benefits, these policies need to be well thought through. But this was never a good environmental model. As a medical journal its focus was on the health benefits of eating less meat. However the knock one benefits would only be there if this was voluntary. Trying to force this to happen would never work. Doctors should know that as people on diets would all loose weight if they only followed the dietary advice. But as all doctors know beating obesity is no simple task. Further, as a medical journal, “The Lancet” lacks the specialist knowledge regarding climate and pollution, thus they should have sought specialist advice regarding the effects of methane upon the climate. Had they done so, they would have realised that it is a myth that Farting and Burping cows are adding to climate change. I can understand politicos jumping upon that popular myth, but Doctors and medical specialists are supposed to be scientists and should have known or been able to find out that, current biological methane has little or no effect upon the climate, while ancient methane that the changing climate is releasing is.

The problem is simply that there is still an assumption that there can be a simple and simplistic solution to climate change. The reality is that as Carbon Dioxide has an atmospheric life of one hundred years and the effects of the increase in carbon dioxide in biosphere earth are the result of the CO2 released fifty years ago. Therefore, it is no longer a question of reducing carbon emissions but reversing them.

The simplistic view that we can continue to pollute, but maybe just a bit less, is a false one. As our whole economic model is based upon growth, expansion, using and consuming more, all the current efforts will fail. While having a laugh at silly ideas can make life interesting, what will happen to our world when someone does something really stupid like pumping sulphur into the atmosphere or seeding the oceans with iron? Both suggested as solutions to climate change.

The effects of a Changing Climate are here as demonstrated in Cumbria last week and it will not be until the global devastation of the seas rising will we finally accept that we have to change the whole nature of human society.