Eat less meat and grow more forests?

Tweet

Nobody with any sense now denies that climate change is real, is extremely dangerous to our long-term future, and is largely the result of human activity. That is why governments across the world (with a few unfortunate exceptions) are coming up with policies designed to counter the threat. One generally agreed concept is that we need to eat far less red meat, because its production is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In the UK, the latest plan is reduce beef and sheep production by between 20% and 50%, with more emphasis placed on pigs and chickens as a source of meat, and devoting released pasture land to growing plants both for food and biofuel production. But many environmentalists say that this does not go far enough. It has been pointed out, for example, that in upland Britain there are four million hectares devoted to raising sheep, despite lamb only representing 1.2% of our diet. Greater devotion to forestry, and the restoration of peat bogs, would help to soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as aiding flood prevention. A much larger cut in beef and sheep production is therefore called for. I would be perfectly happy with this notion - I never eat beef or lamb anyway - but would you be prepared to change your diet if it meant that the future pace of global warming could be slowed down?