Prev
Next

What’s on the menu for lunch in Rio?

Geoff Russell

by Geoff Russell

19 Jun 05:35am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Climate Change, Deforestation, Environment, G20, Meat, Vegetarianism

45 comments

Barnaby Joyce objected with characteristic sophistication to Peter Singer getting the nation’s top honour last week, the Companion of the Order of Australia. Various letters appeared defending Singer on following days, but all talked of his moral philosophy and honours without touching on his environmental insight which was well ahead of its time.

Wrong!

Back in 1990, in the second edition of Animal Liberation, Singer wrote that forests and meat animals compete for land and then outlined the contribution of deforestation to global warming and wildlife loss. He described the imperative for reforestation to avoid the worst of both.

In the two decades since those prescient words, while mainsteam environmentalists were busy with BBQ fundraisers to raise money to campaign on such pressing matters as plastic bags or disposable nappies, the Queenland cattle industry deforested another 7.8 million hectares. Globally, cattle have increased by 130 million to over 1.4 billion weighing more than the human population.

This has expanded the orgy of deforestation on top of that required to grow feed for factory farmed pigs and chickens. Australia’s infamous live cattle exports are fattened prior to their eventual torture on palm kernel cake derived from palm oil plantations ripped from the forest along with murdered orangutans.

Singer was on the money back in 1990 and still is.

Extreme weather means extreme suffering. Cyclone Nargis killed 130,000 people in Burma in 2008. Pakistan’s 2010 floods displaced 20 million. Droughts bring famine and sickly stunted children. Our use of fossil fuels and deforestation are increasing the frequency of extreme weather. Everything about Singer’s philosophy and practical advice for living is about reducing suffering, be it animal or human. Hence his early recognition of climate catastrophe. Singer’s views are in stark contrast to Joyce and his ilk, who both defend live animal export and continually obstruct all attempts to reduce extreme weather disasters.

But however fitting a target Joyce would be for Singer, Singer’s latest call to conscience in the Washington Post is focused firmly on environmental and scientists and policy makers at the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development.

To paraphrase: Why would anybody but a climate skeptic or environmental vandal put meat on the menu at an environment conference?

Let’s put the question in context. There are three huge things we have to do to avoid the worst of climate change ... which is a precondition for sustainable development. First use clean technologies to rebuild and increase our electricity infrastructure. We don’t just need to deal with household electricity, but must also electrify the 80 percent of other energy use from fossil fuels. Cars, trucks, industrial processes, aluminium production, the list is long. We need far more electricity than we currently use and it must be clean. Efficiency gains will be welcome but more than swallowed by the second huge thing. Energy must be provided to all the people on the planet. The needs of the $1 a day masses are real, urgent and must not wait.

The third huge thing is to roll back 200 years of deforestation while improving food security for the vulnerable. We can’t do this while grazing is expanding and factory farmed livestock easily outbids the poor for food.

This last huge thing was on Singer’s mind in 1990 and still is. NASA climate scientist James Hansen has had reforestation’s role in climate change in mind for decades also. But Hansen hasn’t just thought about this, he and other climate scientists have quantified it. Dealing with energy is pressing but Hansen has shown that it is demonstrably not sufficient to bring climate warming down to a safe level by 2150. Head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri told the world to reduce meat consumption in 2008.

Deep meat consumption cuts to allow reforestation aren’t an optional extra.

Do climate and environment scientists and the myriad of bureucrats and policy makers care enough about the planet to change their diets?

Anna Rose of the young and enthusiastic Australian Youth Climate Coalition is currently winging her way to Rio+20. Does she understand the role of food in climate change? You’d think with livestock generating more warming than all our coal fired power stations, meat and dairy would feature prominently on the AYCC web site. Wrong. AYCC may be the future of young environmental activism, but they don’t grok the impact of food choices. For each Australian, there is 1.3 cattle and over 3 sheep. They produce methane 24x7, they don’t turn off during Earth Hour and they keep going even when your air-con is off, the car is in the garage and you aren’t jetting around the world to a conference. Everybody eats multiple times a day and plant food air freighted from anywhere on the planet has a much, much lower greenhouse impact than locally produced beef.

A recent special supplement of the Medical Journal of Australia pulled the rug from under decades of meat industry propaganda that some have relied upon to justify their planet bashing diet. Not only are plant based diets the most environmentally benign, they are healthier. Meat isn’t just dangerous for people, it spells extinction for wildlife and will undermine even the best efforts at energy restructuring. We need young committed environmentalists, but we don’t need clones of the old red necked BBQ greenie brigade. We need smart as well as keen.

Even with the best will in the world, rebuilding our energy infrastructure will take decades. Changing diets is much easier and the climate impacts will be almost immediate. Methane from ruminants is broken down in about a decade so its reduction will have very fast impacts. Similarly any reduction in deforestation will come packaged with increases in carbon sequestration in growing and expanding forests. Changing diets is not only cheap, it will increase the funds available to make other essential changes.

Eating well can quickly reduce hospital admissions and health care costs. A good place to start is the Meatless Monday initiative in association with the prestigious John’s Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Part of their focus is that as people begin each week, they think about their own health and that of the planet and ditch meat. Is it the thin edge of the wedge to a much healthier plan(e)t based diet? Of course.

I don’t expect Barnaby Joyce to change, but it’s high time for the many delegates at Rio+20 to make their food choices consistent with their hearts and minds. It’s time for them plus the AYCC, the Climate Commission, the ALP, the Liberal Party, the Australian Greens, the ACF and Greenpeace to catch up to Singer-1990. Better two decades late than not at all.

Most commented

45 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • TimB says:

      05:53am | 19/06/12

      So this is what we’ve come to.

      “Keep eating meat and your planet is doomed. DOOOOOMED!”

      Please.

      Reply

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      12:32pm | 19/06/12

      TimB, don’t be silly. Everyone knows that the growing of crops has no environmental impact whatsoever.

      I like how, in order to save the planet, we have to change our diets, thus undoing millions of years of evolution. I say balls to that. Instead, I’ll just leave this word here: overpopulation. We are omnivores, and there are too many of us, the end.

      Maybe if the author believes that we’re not omnivores hard enough, it might come true.

    • Harmless says:

      08:55pm | 19/06/12

      @AA .. Such a narrow-minded uneducated self-interested point of view. This kind of defensive inane response to intelligent evidence-based recommendations for humans to face up to the reality of the damage and suffering our choices inflict is really boring and sad.

      I say a huge thank you to people like Geoff and Peter Singer who have no vested interest in what they promote other than a healthier, more equitable and compassionate world.

      It’s all about encouraging choices that do less harm - to our environment, the animals, our health - now and for future generations.

    • Bertrand says:

      05:56am | 19/06/12

      This should be interesting.

      The author clearly fails to realise that in contemporary social discourse raising environmental concerns places one alongside fascists and tyrants.

      He also fails to understand that using climate change as evidence in support of his thesis is going to achieve little more than encourage the intellectual heavyweights amongst us to let us know how they actually know more about world climatic systems than scientists from NASA, BOM, CSIRO and almost every other national scientific organisation in the world.

      Reply

    • Beagle says:

      11:37am | 19/06/12

      +1

      Judging by the comments, you are spot on.

    • ali says:

      03:06pm | 23/06/12

      @bertrand and friends, “The author clearly fails to realise that in contemporary social discourse raising environmental concerns places one alongside fascists and tyrants.”

      What recalcitrant egocentric rot.  many posters here at The Punch fail to realise the difference between well informed (by peer reviewed research) opinion as against desperate opinion justified by selective snippets from tabloid media.

      “almost every other national organisation in the world” - um, i think the international organisations working on climate change and the impacts of it trump the organisations you listed. the UN’s FAO reports are explicit in identifying increasing meat consumption as a major contributor to climate change, with rapid conversion to a predominantly plant based diet recommended.  As do Dr Hansen, a world leading climatologist from NASA, and the Chairperson of the ICCC.  These ARE the world heavy weights and they KNOW whats required, but many around them cling to their carnism like wife beaters cling to their patriarchal privelege (“she shouldn’t have upset me” = “its my right to eat meat, even if i am contributing to the destruction of a habitable planet for future generations and species”).

      to be honest, its nothing but selfish.  not willing to change a thing, short of a few light globes, for the benefit of the whole.  hence my use of the word egocentric earlier.  research - try doing some real research from real scientists.  many environmentalists do want to ignore this issue - they dont like the idea of changing much in their own life either.  that doesnt change the facts - and those are well established, and published in peer reviewed journals.

      oh, and according to the Harvard study on meat consumption released recently, you can expect any of diabetes, cancer, heart disease or stroke as a result of your CHOICE.  unfortunately, my tax will be paying for the subsidies to your choice, and the health care required for your lifestyle diseases.

    • Little Joe says:

      06:30am | 19/06/12

      If only you mentioned -

      Floods Death Tolls (Estimates)
      Chinese Floods in 1887 and 1931 that may have killed over 4M people

      Cyclones Death Tolls (Estimates)
      Bhola Cyclone (1970)              500,000 Deaths
      Indian Cyclone (1839)            300,000 Deaths
      Calcutta Cyclone (1737)          300,000 Deaths

      Famine Death Tolls (Estimates)

      The Great Chinese Famine (1958-61)    40M Deaths
      The Chinese Famine (1907)              24M Deaths
      The Indian Famine (1896-1902)          19M Deaths
      The Bengal Famine (1770)                15M Deaths
      The Great European Famine (1315-17)    8M Deaths

      And lets no forget the Horn of Africa’s Great Drought ...... not the current one or the disaster nor the one that happened late last century ..... the one that happened in the 1880’s where it was estimated that over 1,000,000 people died.

      Then there may have been some credibility to your story. But you didn’t because you want people to believe that floods, cyclones and famines are only a result of severe climate change.

      Reply

    • Little Joe says:

      08:04am | 19/06/12

      Ps. Don’t forget to fill in all the rice fields!!! They emit approximately the same amout of methane as domestic meat production.

      Pss. Don’t forget to clear and replant the palm oil plantations.

    • Geoff Russell says:

      09:36am | 19/06/12

      Excellent. All I said was that these horrors will become more common. We were just getting to a point when we could fix most famines by shipping in food and we risk blowing all those advances.

    • Geoff Russell says:

      09:45am | 19/06/12

      LittleJoe: You didn’t check did you? Globally, livestock emit 96 mega tonnes of methane while rice cultivation produces 33 mega tonnes (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=40). Rice provides 532 Cal/cap globally compared to 40 for beef (the majority of the 96 megatonnes) with just 218/Cal/cap globally.  Australian rice emits even less methane per tonne than the global average because of improved cultivation methods.

    • Little Joe says:

      05:52pm | 19/06/12

      @ Geoff Russell

      But why aren’t these natural more common already?? Surely we should have had one or two famines that killed 10M people by now .... or cyclones bigger than Cyclone Mahina crossing the coast of Australia every other year.

      As for your little reference, it was pretty bad ....... it looks like India and Bangladesh emit more methane than the rest of the world. Ttal emissions from rice production and meat production are similar. Yes rice produces less emission/cal but the quantity of emissions from rice fields are significant. If you want to beat up the agricultural industry, you shouldn’t pick and choose As for debating the point ...... do you really want to when the IPCC published a report in 2001 sited over six references that could not agree what industry emitted how much methane (at least we don’t have to debate the imacts of Palm Oil)

      And it was nice of you to move from a global issue to just Australia. I am quite sure that the farmers in Vietnam will introduce those techniques next year.

    • ali says:

      11:06pm | 23/06/12

      little joe, are you serious?  you cannot see the relevance of pointing to the methane ourput of one part of ag versus another on the basis of caloric values?  the fact that so many people are fed from one for the output created compared to the other?  this comes back to the population bomb misinformation - there are alot of people in africa, but they arent the ones sucking the planet dry of resources - people in the US, UK, Australia and similar voracious western democracies are.  comparison of population numbers is misleading, but consumption is not.  same -  comparison of caloric return for both inputs AND outputs. nothing loses that test in environmental studies quite like the food animal industry.

      Chairperson of the IPCC has suggested the most important thing individuals can do to mitigate climate change is begin moving to a plant based diet (no meat).  its been advocated for by the leading climatologist of NASA too.  and the UN’s agency for the environment was explicit about the role of animal industries and climate change, and the need to convert to plant based diets, for the environment and in order to feed everyone.

      i suspect the ‘shift’ from global to local was to provide an example of where technology and practice here has reduced further the negative impact of the industry you raised, and it would seem obvious that such practices will take on elsewhere.  not sure why this was a bother to you.

      one final comment, the serious concern is about what is to come.  perhaps you dont care, because you wont have to deal with the worst of it.  lots of people seem to feel that way.  its a kind of premium level of ignorant irresponsibility (not that i’m calling you that, just what people like that are).  but no one today has the right to take away the opportunity for life in the future, just because they are too lazy or frightened of change.  the worst of the natural disasters are yet to emerge, as with the more significant (and enduring) temperature rise.  before they even set in, it will be too late to prevent them.  but no one is listening.  people like yourself, and the posters here arent listening.  my children arent happy about those who came before them.  i assure you, their generation will hate all but a small grouping of dedicated fighters who argued for more than a change in light globes and shopping bags. i encourage them NOT to bring life into such an uncertain world.

      adieu

    • Sherlock says:

      06:41am | 19/06/12

      Yet one more example of someone using climate change to push their own agenda.

      Let have more articles like this. I won’t create any vegos but will turn even more people into climate change sceptics.

      Reply

    • Don King says:

      11:18am | 19/06/12

      So agree now straight to Hungry Jacks!

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      07:12am | 19/06/12

      I am a disciple of Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University and the old Club of Rome. We were very passionate about the Population Bomb, namely the chaos facing the World with the exploding global population.

      It amazes me that the current generation is so obsessed with global warming when the No 1 global problem remains the continued global population growth. This is the elephant in the room and it drives all other environmental problems.

      India in last year’s census reported 1.2 billion people with 180,000,000 people added in the last TEN years. We see similar growth rates in many Asian and African and American countries.

      300,000,000 Indians do not have electricity and when the get it mainly from coal Australia’s position in the global warming equation is even more irrelevant.

      Dr B Brown and his Gang and PM Gillard and her Team have squandered the goodwill of the Australian public towards real actions in saving the environment. They imposed the costly carbon tax on Australia with almost zero outcomes on global warming. It is correctly seen by 70% of Australians as a big fraud and costly politically correct policy.

      Australia has the largest deposits of Thorium, see See: http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA10954.pdf.  If we are serious about fighting global warming we need the SAFE Thorium Nuclear Energy. France gets 80% of its electricity from the uranium nuclear energy.

      India and China are spending billions on Thorium Nuclear Research, see:  see i) http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/ and ii) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html

      Reply

    • Dr B S Staye says:

      07:59am | 19/06/12

      I would prefer the fruitloop reactor.
      It’s being developed by brilliant scientists over at General Mills foods in America.
      Top secret, it. produces tons of energy and the only by product is this nice sweet smell.
      I understand that there are exactly the same number of fruitloop reactors in operation as here are thorium reactors.
      http://tinyurl.com/bwx843k

    • Banananbender56 says:

      08:19am | 19/06/12

      Strongly agree - we see the charities trying to raise funds to feed the ever increasing African masses, year after year. They don’t appear to put a lot of effort into fixing the problem, uncontrolled population growth.

    • bleD says:

      08:32am | 19/06/12

      You always talk perfect sense, Dr Goh. How I wish that governments would heed your words. Unfortunately your incisive comments get lost in all the noise.

    • Harold says:

      11:46am | 19/06/12

      Errr. Dr. Goh

      The Club of Rome, a club of mega rich and influential gentlemen (former pollies and oil barons) who want to control the world through the UN are your heroes? Their book, The Population Bomb is an attempt to reign in control of food, energy to a central power ie the UN by creating unwarranted scares about population and resources Maurice Strong, UN official and Club of Rome boss, the man who began this whole Green rort RIO, Kyoto etc fled to China after ripping off 1 million bucks in the oil-for-food program.

      Don’t get me started on Paul Ehrlich…..

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      12:38pm | 19/06/12

      @ Harold. Thanks for your comments.

      I was careful to write ” the old Club of Rome” . I should have ” the OLD (original) Club of Rome”.

      It is interesting to note that a famous scientist in China Jian SUN played a crucial role to convince Mao on the need to have a one child policy. A report on this and the impact of the Club of Rome studies in the establishment of China’s one child policy is at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=314403

    • Over the Hill says:

      01:42pm | 19/06/12

      Could not have said it better, Population control will be easy if we follow this clown’s advise and try to survive off the “fruits” of the forrest.

    • willie says:

      03:43pm | 19/06/12

      There may be zero thorium reactors but there are hundreds of safe clean uranium reactors.

    • Matchofbris says:

      07:42am | 19/06/12

      Of course people discredit Singer - they don’t read his work, or use their own brain to place things into context. They just act like reactionary drama queens and natter on about his s0-called abortion loving shenanigans. Maybe if people actually listened to him, for a change.

      Reply

    • Justin of Earlwood says:

      08:36am | 19/06/12

      That sirloin steak looks great. Might be a little too well done though.

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      09:45am | 19/06/12

      I agree. Why can’t I get it like that? I think you need to have the BBQ on for a long time to get it real hot before you put it on. Probably about a half hour. Bit of a waste of gas unfortunately.

      Back on topic, no mention of overpopulation. Pathetic.

    • Gregg says:

      11:36am | 19/06/12

      @Fred,
      Come on mate, far too may cows, sheep, pigs and chooks populating the place.

    • Peter says:

      10:14am | 19/06/12

      It was sooo predictable. Not only is the Far Left on about our energy use, but now they want to control our food intake, all in the name of ideology and not logic. Restrict fish, meat and other good sources of protein.

      These are the people who infiltrate the decision making about whats good for your children to eat and prescribe a diet which will lead to undernutrition while China and other developing nations are eating as much meat as they can get their hands on. 

      They want a world of energy poor, undernourished people they can easily control.

      Reply

    • libertarian vegetarian says:

      11:35am | 19/06/12

      Yet you are happy for governments to subsidise meat and dairy production. That makes you are the lefty. Any non lefty would demand that meat and dairy are produced and sold at their true cost and that these industries were not propped up with taxpayers dollars.
      PS: The health crisis in the west are diseases of overindulgence:  obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc and these are also increasing in places like China as their meat consumption increases.
      I won’t force you to stop eating meat (as you force me to subsidise your diet) but I will argue you should pay for it.  Scrap socialised medicine and pay for your own health care. Might eat a bit less meat then….

    • H B Bear says:

      10:26am | 19/06/12

      That is a great looking steak.  A picture is worth a thousand words - particularly if I’m not going to read them.

      Bacon should have its own food group.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      11:41am | 19/06/12

      You should see my caramelised apple marinated slab of pork I wrapped in foil and buried in the hot coals of my burning off effort.
      With superbly controlled slow heat cooking for an even better timed hour and a half or so, hardly ant shrinkage for a melt in mouth result.

    • Max Power says:

      10:29am | 19/06/12

      So is the solution to make cows, chickens, sheep and pigs extinct?

      Reply

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      12:37pm | 19/06/12

      No Max, just people.

    • Dr Chop says:

      10:36am | 19/06/12

      What about farming alternative meats then? Dog, Kangaroo, Deer and Crocodile?? Much cheaper, Healthier and don’t emit as much green house gases and requires as much forest to farm???

      Reply

    • thatmosis says:

      10:43am | 19/06/12

      Oh for God’s sake Cry me a River. I’m sick of every loony jumping on the Climate Change bandwagon to push their own ideology. Dont these clowns realise that to be connected to this rort called Climate Change is to place ones self or organisation in the lunatic fringe of modern society. The majority of thinking people have seen the so called settled science of Climate change and the Governments of the worlds attempts to use this as a lever to extract money from their people and have dismissed it as clap trap. You only have to look at the extravagant claims of our own Commissioner of Climate Change to see the widen gap between fantasy and reality.
        I’ll bet you also wear a T Shirt that states “I think Paranoid People are following me”

      Reply

    • Banananbender56 says:

      10:48am | 19/06/12

      Or perhaps put the free range chooks, pigs, cows etc into sealed buildings to capture the methane. Might save the trees as well.

      Reply

    • Ross says:

      11:06am | 19/06/12

      I like bacon for its deterrent qualities.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      11:44am | 19/06/12

      It’s all just so scary Geoff and to think no one wants to change!
      And then that Tony Burke wants to make fishing even harder.

      I reckon Anna has the answer in taking a holiday to Rio.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      11:48am | 19/06/12

      ” Let’s put the question in context. There are three huge things we have to do to avoid the worst of climate change ... which is a precondition for sustainable development. First use clean technologies to rebuild and increase our electricity infrastructure. We don’t just need to deal with household electricity, but must also electrify the 80 percent of other energy use from fossil fuels. Cars, trucks, industrial processes, aluminium production, the list is long. We need far more electricity than we currently use and it must be clean. Efficiency gains will be welcome but more than swallowed by the second huge thing. Energy must be provided to all the people on the planet. The needs of the $1 a day masses are real, urgent and must not wait.

      The third huge thing is to roll back 200 years of deforestation while improving food security for the vulnerable. We can’t do this while grazing is expanding and factory farmed livestock easily outbids the poor for food. “

      Well seeing as pigs will fly Geoff, I reckon we all ought just prepare for the inevitable if we knew what it was!
      Do you not think that nature has had ample time with which to cope/react and the disasters that befall mankind are just part of the journey.
      Enjoy the ride.

      Reply

    • John says:

      11:49am | 19/06/12

      Bet those happy North Koreans aren’t contributing to global warming.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      12:24pm | 19/06/12

      Yep - the eco doomsters such as Erlich et al. keep preaching disaster and they are continually disappointed.  Maybe the next time they will be right - I wouldn’t hold my breath though.

      The funny thing is - the richer we get, the lighter our footprint on the environment. Look at deforested Haiti for an example of what happens when you have a decarbonated economy.  Despite what the eco-Marxists claim, making us poorer will lead to worse environmental outcomes.

      Reply

    • Josh E says:

      01:34pm | 19/06/12

      Why do people always start screaming about “Ideology” whenever climate change comes up? This isn’t a matter of ideology, it’s a matter of facing up to reality. Think about it for a minute: why would anyone want climate change to be true? It’s a very difficult problem that we’re going to have to deal with by making serious changes to our infrastructure and the way we live our lives. It’d be much nicer if it weren’t true, but sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “Nyar, nyar, isn’t happening,” doesn’t make it so.

      Similarly, it’d be nice if we didn’t have to moderate our meat consumption. But there are cogent reasons for doing so. Methane production of ruminants is one reason; the immense amount of resources consumed in raising a single animal is another. Then there’s the health considerations. I love eating meat, but I moderate my intake because it’s the responsible thing to do.

      Put away the strawmen, start thinking a bit more critically and stop denying reality.

      Reply

    • Paul Mahony says:

      04:45pm | 19/06/12

      Great article as always Geoff.

      Last year, I presented on this issue to a small group of Australian Youth Climate Coalition members. Unfortunately, their leadership team does not intend taking it on at this stage.

      I have challenged the Greens on it a number of times, and they clearly don’t want to know about it. I was hoping that politicians could lead on something, rather than responding to opinion polls.

      Most environmental groups seem to find it a VERY inconvenient truth.

      Reply

    • Paul Mahony says:

      10:50am | 20/06/12

      The quick benefits that can be achieved by addressing meat consumption are becoming more critical every day.

      The Arctic sea ice is trending lower this year than the dramatic 2007 level. This is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

      http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

      “The danger is that an ice-free state in the Arctic summer will kick the climate system into run-on warming and create an aberrant new climate state many, many degrees hotter . . . The Arctic sea-ice is the first domino and it is falling fast.” Spratt, D and Lawson, D, “Bubbling our way to the Apocalypse”, Rolling Stone, November 2008, pp. 53-55

      Reply

    • Beef_Pip says:

      09:15pm | 21/06/12

      As a beef producer from central NSW I find it somewhat shameful when the real point is not expressed. How about promoting the idea that red meat consumers should begin to demand for beef/lamb/etc that has been produced in a manner which promotes regenerative land management? Livestock are key tools in the process of soil carbon sequestration and our Australian grasslands have HUGE capacity to sequester massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. Livestock, that are managed using Holistic Management principles, are key tools in this function - not locking up land and throwing away the key - not even forestry (trees can only sequester so much carbon unti they are mature)! If consumers began to demand food that is grown/produced in certain ways we would change the world. Our exponentially growing population is a massive concern. I attended a talk last week were well regarded science based ag experts posed the question of how are we going to feed this massive poulation increase that is expected in the next 10, 20, 30+ years - it frightens me & I am a producer of food that citizens consume.
      Does anyone ask how much methane the human population emits? If we are exponetially reproducing, when will ranters (such as this articles author) start demanding that humans stop breeding? 
      I am most disappointed to read this artcle….enough to make me never return to this website.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 26 May 13 11:23AM

Great view of the Telstra Tower http://t.co/1e6fgxWJYS

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 10:52AM

@mrjoeaston it's great sir. Although I'm waiting for a repeat of telling the treasurer to go f himself

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 10:30AM

@mrjoeaston's segment on #FRSunday is easily the fourth best thing about Sunday morning

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 26 May 13 09:24AM

RT @newscomauHQ: NZ pollie who went viral after thundering speech in favour of gay marriage has a special message for the world. http://t.…

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter