After I wrote about my suggestion to climate charge of agriculture in Aftenposten on 17 July, has been many reactions. Several disagree, but not everyone knows why.
Some want cheap beef. Others do not believe in taxes. MDG and Nationen looks primarily to be against because the proposal comes from a Civita (MDG suggested even increased meat levy in its alternative federal budget).
Fire claims
agronomist and author Siri Helle tries instead to clear agriculture with scientific arguments. Then you should have the facts right, especially if one accuses others for “half truths”. Unfortunately, almost all the statements Helle presents either irrelevant or incorrect:
Claim 1: “It is quite håplaust talking about emissions without talking about the drop. (…) Civita tek among other not with emissions from cultivation of marsh in the accounts. “
Helle portrays it as if I tried to hide something in my note, and that agriculture actually going better out. But it is the opposite: cultivation of marsh involves substantial greenhouse gas emissions.
I had included this in the emission figures, would come agriculture even worse. I go by the way in for a ban on cultivation of marsh.
Claim 2: “The reason why greenhouse house gases from cows is haldne utanfor climate the accounts is that they’re coming from CO-en grass tek out of the atmosphere To changers. “
There are two errors in one. Agriculture Emissions held firstly not outside climate impacts, either nationally or internationally. Both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol require on the contrary that Norway includes in them.
Helle also believe that accounts for agriculture includes emissions that are a part of the carbon cycle. But CO2 from animals are not included in the emissions data, precisely because the CO2 grazing animals emit, are the same as they take up from grass or forage. Carbon sequestration and emissions from grass and other plant crops, remain therefore outside: It reaches zero.
Claim 3: “Beit Ande cows, sheep, goats and deer, however, a very common larger part of an environment give us regimen than grain- based chicken and pig production. “
Helle think I miss when I write that red meat contributes to greater emissions than white meat. But this is not my contention – this is widely accepted in national and international research. Bioforsk has even made calculations for a worst case scenario, where all soy in animal feed is from chopped down rainforest. Even here let grazing animals out over twice as much as pig and chicken per kilo.
It does not mean we should close down production of red meat. Chicken and pork production also causes emissions, which must charge coated accordingly.
So why forward by Helle as grave errors in political academic climate discussion?
I have not figured out how large a fee or tax level should be, but all conditions – including feed – must with. But when emissions intensive red meat subsidized obvious most, it illustrates an agricultural policy with virtually no climate thinking.
Claim 4: “We can not put down agriculture – something a fee on an already financially pressa industry practice soon could end Gjere. “
No one has proposed to embed agriculture, and it will certainly not be the consequence of a fee. A tax on both domestic and imported agricultural products will either lead to more climate-efficient production or to lower consumption.
One might think Helle supported, since she writes that “it is open offense that we must eat less meat in the future than we are doing today, and that the meat should cost more “.
But she does not come with just one suggestion for how it should be done.
The other claims in the post is, despite an elaborate study on photosynthesis, not relevant to the issue.
Must relate to facts and research
Helle leaves the impression that agriculture as a whole is climate-positive – in the worst case climate neutral. This is true simply. We have to deal with facts and research. And the facts are, and research shows, that agriculture is a major driver of global warming, and that it accounts for approximately 10 per cent of Norwegian emissions, particularly through the hyperoppvarmende gases nitrous oxide and methane.
The solution is not to stop meat production
So why forward by Helle as grave errors in a political climate academic discussion? Maybe she just missed. Alternatively knows Helle that she writes is incorrect, but do it anyway. She thus contributes to smoke add the debate by attacking conditions it professionally is not quibble about.
I hope anyway not Helles posts are representative of rural industry approach to greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions do not disappear that we wish they did not exist.
Agriculture must with
There are neither producers or consumers errors that agricultural policy is climate hostile. But if it comes to political incentives, will perhaps bring about a change in attitude by both those who produce and those who buy.
There are several arguments against introducing a climate tax. I try to present and discuss as many of them as possible in Civita-note I have written. However, what is beyond doubt is that agriculture must be included on the green shift. The solution is not to stop meat production.
It is possible to drive agriculture more climate-efficient, and consumers can make more environmentally friendly choices.
The best way to do it is likely to take climate cost in the accounts. It will be significantly more effective than initially prohibitions, orders and quotas in the barn and meat counter.
Catch the most important and best debates – follow Aftenposten opinions on Facebook and Twitter
Published:
No comments:
Post a Comment