Sir, – Paula Lemuire Jennings makes a good suggestion (Letters, July 20th) that carbon-intensive activities like flying should come with warnings about their damage to the environment, and also suggests that imported fruit and vegetables should carry similar warnings.
One thing that’s often missed is that the emissions from the transport of food are dwarfed by those from the food’s production.
So while striving to “eat local” is a good idea, moving toward a plant-based diet, even an imported one, is by far the most effective way of reducing our food-based emissions.
As with every change that is going to be required, there are exceptions, caveats and individual reasons that need to be taken into account, but what is most important is that the relative impact of each measure is clear so that we can best decide where to focus attention.
This is particularly important in the current media climate where there are plenty of people and bodies with an incentive to divert attention away from changes that are required in their own area. – Yours, etc,
DAVE MATHIESON,
Salthill,
Galway.
Sir, – In response to Mark Connors’s claim (Letters, July 19th), and the claim often made by farm organisations like the IFA, that Irish agriculture reducing its dairy and beef production would only lead to less efficient production in other countries, I want to know where is the evidence for this.
Is it not more likely that some of this production would happen in the many more efficient countries than Ireland?
As the summary of the professor of European agricultural policy in TCD Alan Matthews’s presentation to the Climate Council on this issue states: “Evidence is lacking to support the claim that ambitious efforts to reduce Irish agricultural emissions would increase global emissions.”
European Commission research looking at leakage from EU agriculture has concluded that “even an ambitious unilateral EU agricultural mitigation policy is found to deliver net emission savings at global scale”. – Yours, etc,
ANTÓIN McDERMOTT,
Slane,
Co Meath.
Sir, – Once again the old trope has been trotted out, that the world’s malnourished people are just waiting for Irish premium beef and dairy produce to alleviate their suffering (Letters, July 19th).
The continued use of this argument by the farming lobby must be rejected as they negotiate taking on their share of the reductions in greenhouse gases necessary to meet our 2030 commitments.
While protein is an essential part of a healthy diet, it can be provided not only in plant form and fish, but also through raising pigs and poultry. All of this can be done locally with no need to transport our meat and cheese half way around the world.
The most sustainable food supply is the one produced closest to the consumer.
What is being asked is that we reduce our beef and dairy production, not cease it completely.
Ireland can continue to export its premium products to enhance the dinner tables of the rising middle classes. But enough of trying to justify this by citing the plight of the world’s poorest people. – Yours, etc,
JUSTIN KILCULLEN,
Shankill,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – Oisin Coghlan cogently states the history of the agricultural lobby against climate action, reminds the country of the all-party support for the carbon emission targets’ translation into law just 12 months ago, and most importantly shows how, by agreeing a 30 per cent reduction in the agricultural sector target, the Government has complied with its legal obligation “to have regard for the special position of this sector”, including how methane gas is measured (“Ireland is facing a litmus test of our commitment to serious climate action”, Opinion & Analysis, July 20th).
Now the Government has its legal obligation to recognise and provide for the implementation of the intention and policies as set out in in the 2020 Climate Action Act.
The credibility of the Government is at stake: it must implement its own laws and demonstrate respect for the electorate, which rejected the previous climate law of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil.
Continuation of the Green Party in coalition will be problematic unless the outcome of the carbon budgets is perceived as credible to the environmental movement, which rallied to support this party.
Most of us saw the Climate Action Act as the last chance to measure Government’s fitness to adequately address this emergency for humanity.– Yours, etc,
PATRICIA DEVLIN,
Monasterevin,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – As Europe burns, few readers could fail to be struck by your front page article concerning urgent action on Government policy for climate change being juxtaposed with an advertisement for private jets, surely one of the most polluting forms of transport (July 20th).
Private jet CO2 emissions have soared in recent years, with a single aircraft emitting up to two tonnes of CO2 per hour. Generally used for short trips, per passenger they are five to 14 times as polluting as commercial airlines and 50 times more polluting than trains.
With just 1 per cent of people causing 50 per cent of global aviation emissions, perhaps the super-rich ought not to be encouraged by your paper to choose this form of transport. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN O’SULLIVAN,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire, UK.
Sir, – There is considerable ongoing debate regarding how much carbon emissions from agriculture should be reduced in order to meet our national 2030 carbon commitments.
Oisin Coghlan (Opinion & Analysis, July 20th) writes of a potential need to take 500,000 cars off the road, among other things, if agriculture “only” reduces by 22 per cent. Whether or not it is possible for our farmers to reduce emissions by 22 per cent or 30 per cent in such a short space of time without effectively shutting down swathes of the industry, I don’t know.
Will these supply-side reductions without a consequent reduction in demand make any difference to global emissions from agriculture, or will Irish emissions be replaced by increased emissions overseas?
It seems our politicians have made a binding legal commitment on carbon reduction on our behalf that Irish society will be incapable and unwilling to fully implement, particularly given that we know Irish commitments, even if achieved, will likely be rendered somewhat meaningless by the lack of similar action by governments outside of Europe on carbon reduction.
Perhaps our politicians need to change our carbon reduction commitment to something that is more realistic and that can actually be implemented with broad sectoral support.
Alternatively, we can stick to our target and at the next election our politicians, if they wish to be honest, could stand on a platform to implement the policies that will actually ensure the delivery of their targets by reducing carbon on the demand side, for example with legal limits on our personal dairy intake or the annual road mileage we are allowed to undertake, the number of houses we can build, and what temperature we can heat them to, and so on. – Yours, etc,
PHILIP WHEATLEY,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.