Sir, – In response to Frank McDonald’s call (Opinion & Analysis, April 4th) may I make the following suggestions, directed at the probem of how to reduce our greenhouse gas production to a level consistent with globally stabilising it.
First, identify the sources of methane and carbon dioxide production in agriculture and research how to reduce them. I suspect these may be artificial fertiliser production, animal feed mix composition, and fossil fuel use in product production and transport, especially bulky intermediate products. This suggests a need to revive mixed farming, with livestock of all kinds, tillage of food and fodder crops, and horticulture, in a large-scale managed system, owned co-operatively. Also to recycle all urban biomass waste back to the soil as fertiliser.
Second, on’t drive to work; live near workplace and all basic retail services. This implies a serious look at urban planning and public transport policies: a city should be seen as an interconnected mesh of local townships. It also implies amending taxation policy: car tax should be totally based on fuel and insurance on mileage; car design should be supportive of long life with occasional use. Note that with current internet technology, a network of rural towns could be equivalent to a city, and probably less energy-intensive.
Third, to facilitate residential mobility the rental market needs to be developed and seen as normal. Current finance policy dealing with the mortgage problem needs to encourage the bank to accept ownership of the house by the bank as cancelling the mortgage, with option to stay on as a tenant, or relocate, without negative equity burden. In this context if would be better if banking were a State-owned public service and owning a managed rental and maintenance service with local government participation.
Fourth, we need to address the problem of how to stabilise the human population on our finite planet, so far a taboo topic it seems. Perhaps via some sort of opt-in licensed skilled professional motherhood, with well-managed large families, with many childless aunts and uncles? All possible alternatives to wars and starvation need to be considered.
I look forward to some of these options emerging as topics for socioeconomic and political analysis in the media and in government. No doubt many others will emerge. Yours, etc,
DR ROY H W JOHNSTON,
Techne Associates,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – Frank McDonald’s excellent article reflecting on the findings of the latest IPCC report on climate change raises the issue of how to increase food production to meet the demands of a rapidly growing population. The idea of matching the demand by increasing beef and dairy output is alarming, given the proven contribution that livestock makes to carbon emissions.
As a non-vegetarian who enjoys eating meat in moderation, I do not necessarily advocate a meatless diet but I am very aware of the consequences, both health and environmental, of our addiction to animal protein. With so much focus at present on obesity and unhealthy eating, perhaps we should look at increasing awareness also of the environmental consequences of our food choices.
It takes about 10kg of feed to produce 1kg of beef and the resultant carbon emissions are the equivalent of driving a family car 170km. This kind of awareness might make people rethink a meat-every-day diet and introduce a greater proportion of non-meat and -dairy dishes into their menu planning. The rise of obesity and heart disease in countries such as Japan, which hitherto has had a low meat and almost zero dairy intake but is now adopting a more westernised diet, also highlights the wisdom of revising our eating habits. Yours, etc,
SALLY SWEENEY,
Carrigavantry,
Co Waterford