As I drive through rural Orange County, I like to soak up the beauty and serenity of the dairy and beef cattle that graze the farmland’s rolling hills. Now and then I pull over to relax and enjoy the view.
Imagine my shock at learning I’ve been admiring a way of life that some believe is killing the planet. That’s the conclusion of the Livestock, Environment, and Development Initiative (LEAD), an organization supported by groups such as the World Bank, the European Union, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
In its report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” LEAD concludes livestock farming and farmers are making a “very substantial contribution” to, among other things, climate change and air pollution. The report warns about estimates that over the next 40 years, global production of meat will double, and production of milk will increase substantially as well.
Horrors. Around the world, people will continue to rise out of poverty and add more protein, vitamins, and calcium to their diets. What’s next in this plot?
LEAD’s logic goes like this: Livestock emit methane, methane is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases are destroying Mother Earth, growing demand for meat and milk creates more greenhouse gases, so we must do something about livestock.
To be fair, LEAD acknowledges the worldwide importance of the livestock industry and recommends a range of ways to limit its environmental impact. However, a key LEAD solution is to expand the role of government at all levels — international, national, and local — in farming and livestock-related issues.
Translation: Impose more regulations, taxes, and fees to make raising livestock more costly and complex for farmers, and thus more costly for consumers.
Last week the chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change joined the chorus. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, a vegetarian, wants us to refrain from eating meat at least one day a week. To each his own. Government, however, has no business wading into it, but expect to hear more calls for government intervention. For example, the animal rights group Compassion in World Farming has jumped on board.
“Governments also need to act,” according to a CWF press release supporting Pachauri’s views. “Not only should practical mitigation measures be employed, but plans should be made to reduce the total number of livestock reared.”
Researchers at the University of South Wales have come up with a planet-saving idea for Australians: eat more kangaroos. The university’s study shows kangaroos emit less methane than do cows. But there’s just one problem. The kangaroo is Australia’s national symbol. Encouraging Australians to raise, slaughter, and eat more kangaroos is the cultural equivalent of encouraging Americans to raise, shoot, and eat the bald eagle.
It’s tempting to brush off the LEAD report as alarmist, but support is, in fact, growing for the use of government mandates to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In North Carolina, the focus is on reducing CO2 emissions. To date the Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change has considered proposals from left-leaning groups that have staked out a clear political and social agenda, as documented by the John Locke Foundation, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, and Climate Strategies Watch.
Government mandates and control are at the heart of policies taking shape in the legislature, through a combination of restrictive laws, regulations, and new taxes. “What’s being presented to the commission, and endorsed by many members, is designed to put government in control of our lives, to force us out of our cars, and restrict our choices on everything from gas to home design. It would lead to a marked decline in our economy and lifestyle,” the Locke Foundation’s Roy Cordato warns.
Bad enough. But if legislators start talking about the perils of eating meat, we’re in even bigger trouble.
Martinez is associate editor of Carolina Journal and co-host of “Carolina Journal Radio.”