who is going to defend DEFRA on this one?

[delilah]

Although it makes the NFU appear (rightly) to be stupid as fekk, it might undermine the narrative by showing that stupid people can get something right eventually. Could be argued that the science has "improved" and so the narrative is not soundly based.

There are good people on here who, if I understand things correctly, have been instrumental in the NFU changing its position on methane.

They now need to take this court case as an opportunity for the NFU to firmly, and very publicly, put the case that livestock are part of the solution not part of the problem. You can't be a little bit pregnant.

 

[delilah]

Trouble is, who are the people tasked with defending this, how knowledgable are they? GWP* alone should be enough to defend UK farming, but do they know enough to present a defence, never mind things like hydroxyl ions, methane’s actual warming effect being less than previously assumed, fundamental differences in methane destruction between housed/grazing animals, etc, etc…?

I'm sure a whip round on here would get you a train ticket to Euston.

 

[delilah]

I listened to him last June in the Big Tent at Groundswell. He seemed to go down well with the audience. I thought that odd given the report he authored. And given the role for grazing livestock as I understand it in this regen ag thing that is fundamental to Groundswell. Hey ho.

Not odd at all. His report didn't say that we need to go vegan. It said that we need to eat less meat and better meat. Because there is, apparently, good meat and bad meat. The folks at Groundswell would share that view. One of the reasons I wont go. Divisive.

 

[onesiedale]

Not odd at all. His report didn't say that we need to go vegan. It said that we need to eat less meat and better meat. Because there is, apparently, good meat and bad meat. The folks at Groundswell would share that view. One of the reasons I wont go. Divisive.

but this legal challenge is not a case of dividing livestock into 'good or bad' is simply is saying livestock are bad.
Govt. loses this one and it opens the floodgates for plant based diets to become the default in all policy making

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

The real problem here is that the big money is telling the story very loudly that it's all because of the cows. While you're reading this, there's between a million and a million and a half people in the air. But it's the cows.

This is very like the sugar industry going on about low fat diets and the tobacco lobby saying smoke clears your lungs

Unfortunately, big profitable industries have big budgets for telling big porkies.

 

[delilah]

but this legal challenge is not a case of dividing livestock into 'good or bad' is simply is saying livestock are bad.
Govt. loses this one and it opens the floodgates for plant based diets to become the default in all policy making

For sure. I was just explaining to @Hindsight why the lentil knitters at Groundswell would have liked Dimbleby.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Has anyone ever done a detailed dissection of the 'emissions' that meat and dairy are supposed to be responsible for?
I see 'double accounting' is permissible in calculations other industries use when we only seem to be using a fraction of the benefits that they do provide.
Surely the mainstay of the defence has got to be that there is no waste.
Every litre of milk is used and processed and every gram of a carcase is utilised providing exceptionally good quality commodities that would otherwise require fossil fuels and energy to manufacture.
I suspect calculations are only based on meat yield and the rest classed as waste.
In most cases, farmland is dual use as well, unlike building, mining, tree planting etc.
Ruminants are also simultaneously producing their own replacements and providing the nutrients to make their own food grow and improve soils.
Less of better quality MAY be a good thing but lets avoid demonising the whole sector first.
This won't just be an inconvenient untruth if allowed to pass but a firm foothold for the anti-livestock movement to start a stranglehold.

 

[DaveGrohl]

And the soil association.

They've said they support the legal challenge by Feedback.

It does beggar belief how ignorant our industry bodies are. All paid up members of the self-preservation society.

I read the story and assumed SA had been misquoted. I couldn’t get my head round a scenario where the SA would want fewer grazing ruminants for soil health purposes alone.

 

[onesiedale]

I read the story and assumed SA had been misquoted. I couldn’t get my head round a scenario where the SA would want fewer grazing ruminants for soil health purposes alone.

allegedly Rob Percival is a "vegan in disguise"

 

[L P]

on a serious note, if Gov loses on this one we are all screwed.
If the Gov wins then it overturns the last 10 years narrative that ruminants are bad for the planet.
But who is going to have the balls within Gov. to say;
"errrr, we are sorry, we listened to bad science and got the narrative wrong, ruminants are actually good for the planet" .

Or... we get paid to get out now, and when they realise they were wrong, get paid to get back in

 

[DaveGrohl]

The real problem here is that the big money is telling the story very loudly that it's all because of the cows. While you're reading this, there's between a million and a million and a half people in the air. But it's the cows.

This is very like the sugar industry going on about low fat diets and the tobacco lobby saying smoke clears your lungs

Unfortunately, big profitable industries have big budgets for telling big porkies.

And it’s based on one thing only, P&N. A fundamentally flawed study which has been allowed to continue its miserable ubiquity because the IPCC couldn’t get their act together sufficiently to allow GWP100 to be put to sleep. All those clever people moving at the pace of a snail. All of this is based around one word; emissions.

It’s the wrong fekking measurement. The stupidity of all of this is excruciating.

 

[L P]

And the soil association.

They've said they support the legal challenge by Feedback.

It does beggar belief how ignorant our industry bodies are. All paid up members of the self-preservation society.

Can you send me a link for this please?

 

[DaveGrohl]

Or... we get paid to get out now, and when they realise they were wrong, get paid to get back in

We’ll be dead.

 

[L P]

We’ll be dead.

If only the world's farming community could get together and boycott their own production by half for just a year to produce a huge food deficit

 

[Bury the Trash]

The response is simple.

Henry Dimbleby and the CCC were wrong in suggesting reducing meat and dairy reduces emissions.
Significant data has been collected which undermines many original assumptions as well as over use of the deeply flawed study by Poore and Nemecek.
Their main argument for reduction is land use change, not emissions anyway.
As meat and dairy CAN be produced at net-zero or better, such a ruling would be discriminatory.
It would be fairer and lawful to tax any emissions at source.
The UN's right to food says that everyone has the right to healthy food which should also be culturally appropriate.
We aren't called le Ros Boeuf for nothing.

Les rosbif's

 

[L P]

Les rosbif's

Le's choux more like

 

[L P]

If feedback don't win can the farming community sue them for defamation? Or does it need to get that far... put a case against them now

 

[Northern territory]

there will be a revolution before they ban meat

 

[Bury the Trash]

Le's choux more like

reason i know my French, is because Great Grandfather used to come over on his bike and sell onions

 

[L P]

reason i know my French, is because Great Grandfather used to come over on his bike and sell onions

You'd have to excuse my French if you made me cycle, bloody spandex maffia. No offence to your GG, bit different back then