Climate crisis and agriculture

Radical action is required

Sir, – Anne Strahan’s claim (Letters, November 16th) that grass-fed cattle “are not the real problem” when it comes to the climate crisis is as misguided as her argument that our response should be guided by moderation.

Numerous studies have highlighted that grass-fed cattle produce higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than their factory-farmed equivalent, due to the former’s longer finishing time and lower finishing weight.

One such example is Lupo, Benning, Clay and Stone’s 2013 study in the Journal of Environmental Quality, which demonstrated that GHG emissions were 37 per cent higher for grass-fed cattle.

Ms Strahan also presents a false dietary choice between grass-fed cattle and those that spend their lives under cruel conditions inside sheds being fed cereals.

READ MORE

Of course, in reality, there is a panoply of vegetarian and vegan alternatives that involve far less animal suffering and catastrophic climate impacts.

In advocating for a shift from huge continental cattle to Irish native breeds, she rightly argues that these “indigenous cattle are bred to survive our land and climate”.

Respectfully, however, that misses the point, since our efforts must be guided by the aspiration of humans being able to survive our own climate.

Our ever-diminishing ability to do so is a product of the moderation that Ms Strahan recommends.

Thus far, our moderate approach to climate action has allowed many harmful fantasies to endure.

These include notions that climate change can be tackled without fundamental changes to economies, food production systems and lifestyles.

Moderation has done nothing to slow our race towards climate oblivion.

If we are serious about protecting future generations, radical action is required. – Is mise,

Dr JOHN HOGAN,

Department of Political

Science and Public Administration,

Vrije Universiteit

Amsterdam,

The Netherlands.