The Environmental Law and Policy Reading Group meeting this week is focusing on livestock, agriculture, and climate change. The meeting information is below.
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions:
Wednesday, November 11 2009
6:30 pm
JG 646
Agenda:
A question of growing concern in the discussion of climate change is the
contribution of industrial agriculture, particularly livestock production,
to climate change. It is now estimated that nearly 20% of the world’s
greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock. While agriculture and
livestock are major contributors to the problem, changing the way we
consume and produce meat also offers great possibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Attached are several starter readings on this issue, but you are encouraged to come with your own views on the matter and additional expertise! We look forward to seeing you there!
1. The UN produced a widely-cited article in 2006 called “Livestock’s Long
Shadow,” at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
- This is excellent background, though somewhat lengthy.
2. Attached is an article called “Food, livestock production, energy,
climate change, and health” by authors out of Australia, the UK, and Chile.
- One of the solutions to the problem of overconsumption of meat is a
“contract and converge” solution: can we expect “high consuming countries”
to voluntarily reduce their meat consumption? If meat consumption cannot be voluntarily reduced, can we legislate or ration the amount of meat each
consumer is allowed?
- Does the “contract and converge” model allow for poorer, low-consuming
countries to enjoy eating meat, or are we asking them to make a sacrifice
we are unwilling to make?
- The livestock sector is socially and politically highly significant in
developing countries, how should policy-makers consider this societal
importance?
3. See also the recent NYT article “The Carnivore’s Dilemma” by Nicollette
Hahn Niman (lawyer and livestock rancher)
at:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html?_r=1&em
- Niman suggests that smaller-scale, “traditional” livestock farming may be
the solution to eating meat the climate friendly way, but is this realistic
given that grass-fed, free-range animals require a significant amount of
pasture, and the world is still facing a crisis in feeding the expanding
population on a shrinking amount of arable land?
- Niman also suggests that “singling out meat” is a poor approach to
solving the climate crisis. Since meat production represents some of the
lowest-hanging fruit in terms of agricultural carbon emissions, are we
correct to focus on meat, or should we approach the problem in a more
holistic manner, as Niman suggests, eating locally-grown, in-season,
minimally-processed foods?
4. Further questions/ considerations:
- Looking forward to Copenhagen: how will global policy-makers deal with
agriculture?
- Neither Waxman-Markey nor the Senate climate change bill deal with
agriculture emissions in a significant way. Does this demonstrate a lack of
commitment in the U.S. to dealing with agriculture-related emissions,
political impediments (agriculture lobby), or a simple oversight? How might
the domestic policy issues reflect future problems in international
policies?