Livestock Industry (Climate Change)

I have already addressed the point about food miles and the fact that local food is better. I recognise that farming makes a contribution towards biodiversity and protecting the environment in the smaller sense of the word in the UK, rather than in the climate change sense. Although dairy products are to an extent a feature of the diet in developing countries, in Asia and particularly in China, they are not, but they are increasingly becoming a significant part of the diet. So all the points that I have made about animal feed and so on relate to the dairy industry and the growth on that front as well as to the meat industry. The choice is either to reduce consumption or to try to find ways to tackle the emissions produced by the livestock industry. That is similar to the question in the aviation debate: should people be asked to reduce the number of flights that they take or should technological advances within aviation be considered? The best solution would be a combination of both. But I expect that the Minister will probably focus on the technological advances and how we can reduce the emissions that are created, so I shall make a brief comment on that point. I draw the Minister's attention to a report from Farming Futures, which is supported by the farming industry, including the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. That report suggests that the way forward is to make changes to cows' diets to prevent them producing so much methane, to have anaerobic digestion plants to deal with waste and by optimising fertiliser efficiency to reduce nitrous oxide emissions. A methane tax was considered in New Zealand, and it was hoped that that would raise $5 million and that the money would be spent on funding research into ways to reduce emissions from livestock. However, that proposal was opposed by farmers and was replaced by a general carbon tax. Researchers in Australia reckoned that reducing emissions from animals by between 20 and 50 per cent. would result in cows producing more milk, because every time a cow releases a natural emission it loses energy. It is bizarre that people do such things for a living and I am not sure how it would be measured, but that example proves that the research is out there and that there are ways of doing that. Oxfam has put forward a contraction and convergence plan on meat eating, which is similar to the idea of contraction and convergence in respect of broader climate change. The basic premise of that plan is that there should be a sustainable level of meat eating, which would involve those under the limit coming up to it and those above the limit coming down. Oxfam says that to preserve the situation as it is to prevent an increase in emissions but not to reduce them overall, the level would be about 33 kg per person. Compassion in World Farming has also been campaigning on this issue and has talked about the need to factor it into any international discussions on climate change. Friends of the Earth, as part of their "Food Chain" campaign, has come up with some fairly radical suggestions. It has said that Government should stop subsidising intensive livestock farming and instead invest in research into local feed production, and it is talking about public sector procurement and saying that environmentally damaging food should not be purchased for schools, hospitals, care homes and so on. It also mentions changing global investment policy at the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and talks about other forms of bilateral finance and ensuring that the issue is addressed in international climate talks. The key thing is making sure that people are aware. It comes back to the food miles debate. There has been a lot of discussion about how easy it would be to mark the environmental footprint of food. That is difficult, because we are all familiar with the argument that to import something from Africa may result in longer air or freight miles, but that if similar produce were grown in Holland, for example, where artificial lighting, heating and so on have to be used, the environmental footprint could be higher although the number of food miles would be lower. It would be difficult to attach some imprint on to food that gave a clear idea of its environmental footprint, but it is important that we are aware of that and factor it into our discussions. This is not about finding a back-door way to promote vegetarianism or veganism but about climate change. I had hoped that another hon. Member would call for this debate, which is why, since "Livestock's Long Shadow" was published a couple of years ago, I have been sitting on it hoping that they would do so, but none has, which is why I am here. John Harris, who writes for The Guardian and is a long-term vegetarian, said in an excellent piece last year:""right now, this is actually more about human lives than those of animals"."