Climate change and agriculture

Sir, – It is good to read of the initiatives with an environmental focus as outlined by Harold Kingston of the IFA (January 27th). However, it is wrong to state that simple targets are not the answer, because if we wish to be sustainable, then targets to define what this means are definitely needed.

A target I would like to see would be to reduce the net imports of animal feeds costing half a billion euro annually (it is difficult to conceive that much of this feed is produced sustainably, and no domestic assurance scheme seeks to verify this).

Another useful target would be to reduce methane emissions from livestock, which though natural, as Mr Kingston says, are at unnatural levels due to our success at intensification. As this can be achieved in terms of methane emission per unit production, why shouldn’t a target be set?

A further target would surely be to reduce the 300,000 tonnes of manufactured nitrogen used in agriculture each year, given that making each kilogramme of nitrogen results in three kilogrammes of CO2 in the atmosphere, a figure equivalent to 10 per cent of our annual CO2 emissions, most of which do not even feature in our official statistics as it is imported.

READ MORE

And surely Mr Kingston could not disagree with a target to reduce phosphorus input, given that it is an essential input for plants to live, especially considering that the world supply of accessible phosphorus is finite, and when it runs out plant production (and consequently all agricultural production) will be impossible in the way that we currently operate it.

One would have to question the logic of supplementing Irish-grown animal feeds (produced using unsustainable fertiliser inputs) with imported unsustainable feed, to give to animals producing unsustainable emissions, to produce milk powder to be exported to countries where it sold as a healthier alternative to breast-feeding. Bizarrely the countries the fertiliser is imported from are often so polluted as a consequence of these types of industry that it might indeed be healthier for mothers there to feed their infants milk made from Irish milk powder than natural mother’s milk.

I would also like to see a target for reduction in hot air production by spokespeople for certain organisations. To say Ireland produces food more sustainably than most is not correct; although Ireland produces beef and milk more sustainably than most, there is a lot more to food than just these sectors, and we have a hell of a long way to go. – Yours, etc,

CORNELIUS TRAAS,

Life Sciences Department.,

University of Limerick.

Sir, – Further to Harold Kingston’s letter (January 27th), the organic natural gases he mentions, more precisely methane, which stem from animal husbandry, are responsible for almost a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Again, fully a third of the world’s agricultural land is given over to the production of animal feedstock.

One must not forget either that to produce a kilogramme of beef requires 15.5 tonnes of water. Even if people are unwilling to accept this, it will become impossible to sustain the current level of meat production due to a shortage of resources. – Yours, etc,

TERENCE

HOLLINGWORTH,

Blagnac,

France.

Sir, – An 80 per cent reduction in emissions globally will be required by mid-century to limit the effects of climate change. This requires a new approach across all energy-consuming sectors. No sector can opt out if we are to achieve that target, nor the current EU 20 per cent and forthcoming 40 per cent reductions by 2020 and 2030.

As agriculture in Ireland is both such a major contributor to our emissions and our economic wellbeing, it will be necessary that it is given the fullest possible opportunity to contribute. The same is true, of course, for our industrial, transport and housing sectors. Each will need to better understand its role and doubtless redouble its efforts.

There are very difficult and uncomfortable choices to be made and any lack of engagement now will result in much greater problems further, but not much further, down the track. – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL HAMELL,

Oughterard,

Co Galway.