Should we be eating Skippy to solve climate change?
To eat Skippy or not to eat Skippy, that seems to be the question. But of course, it wasn't the question we were interested in at all. Not sure what i'm talking about? Well, it is a simple story about kangaroos, climate change and what Greenpeace said...or didn't say, as it turns out.
Climate change - it seems no matter where you turn these days someone, even politicians, are talking about the biggest threat to the planet. That's good, climate change needs to be discussed.
But far more than discussion, what we really need now is action. Right now, not tomorrow, not next week, now.
So in the spirit of taking action, Greenpeace Australia-Pacific part-funded a study called "Paths to a Low Carbon Future" authored by Dr Mark Diesendorf of the Sustainability Centre. The study aimed to find out how Australia could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, if action was taken now. The good news is that, yes, it can be done!
For those who want to know what the study said, some of the key results are below, but for those only interested in the kangaroo question, the answer is simple. Greenpeace did NOT say that people should eat more kangaroos.
What the study said:
The "Paths to a Low Carbon Future" study details two scenarios to cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
The first scenario explores the more obvious measures like increasing energy efficiency, switching to solar hot water heaters and increasing the use of renewable energy such as wind and solar photovoltaic (solar panels). The total reductions in greenhouse gases would be around 13 per cent below 1990 levels.
The second scenario includes additional measures to further decrease Australia's greenhouse gases such as removing all greenhouse gas emissions from aluminium production, ending land clearing and changing the way Australia uses agricultural land.
The aluminium smelting industry which turns aluminium-bearing ore into pure aluminium consumes around 13 per cent of Australia's entire electricity supply. Eliminating energy-related emissions from this energy-hungry industry could be achieved by switching over to renewable energy.
Ending land clearing is an obvious step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the fact that it hasn't already happened gives an idea of how far behind the rest of the world Australia is in its attempts to tackle climate change.
But the climate change action on which a few people have focused was an option for a change in the use of agricultural land. In particular, the three lines that said, "...this report proposes to reduce beef consumption by 20 per cent, as this agricultural sector makes the biggest contribution to Australia's methane emissions. This could be accomplished by shifting to kangaroo meat and/or lower-meat diets."
As Dr Mark Diesendorf of the Sustainability Centre has pointed out, reducing beef consumption could be accomplished in more than one way and indeed many more ways can be listed other than eating kangaroos. And just to reiterate, Greenpeace does not endorse eating kangaroos nor is it advocating eating kangaroos as a solution to climate change.
Australia needs to dramatically reduce its emissions: it's the highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Changing agricultural practices in Australia is an important component of any climate change response but it ranks towards the bottom of the required measures when compared to greenhouse gas savings from energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Solving climate change requires every possible solution to be examined. Immediate action is required. But, as far as Greenpeace is concerned, eating Skippy isn't a climate change solution.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales and a director of the Sustainability Centre.
The original report can be found here (pdf - 284 KB)
Comments
Cattle, sheep and goats produce less methane and carbon dioxide by eliminating protozoa from their rumen (Kreuzer et al 1986). They also grow far more efficiently. I have patented a very effective way to accomplish this (A61K31/53). This would releive the need to consume Kangaroos
Posted by: Fred Hart | November 4, 2007 10:44 AM
Umm, thanks Fred. Great news. But to clarify...
There is NO need to eat more (or any) kangaroos.
Posted by: Andrew | November 5, 2007 4:30 PM
I understand that the line about kangaroo meat being used as an alternative to beef consumption was only an example used by Dr Mark Diesendorf in his report. But I am concerned by how the kangaroo industry has jumped upon this and is publicly saying that Greenpeace now indorses the eating of Kangaroo!
Greenpeace is seen as the premier NGO in environmental issues and is looked towards as setting the benchmark in this field. By remaining largely silent about this comment, it creates the impression that we are now behind the commercialisation of Australian wildlife.
I wonder that if the good Dr had also suggested that eating Whale meat would also reduce the dependence on cattle, if Greenpeace would still remain so silent about challenging his remarks?
Phillip Relf, Sydney
Posted by: Phillip Relf | April 7, 2008 1:12 AM
I don't understand why Greenpeace and Mark Diesendorf aren't recommending a vegan diet. It's the simplest way to go. If we truly care about the planet, that is what we must do. It's just a matter of changing our attachment from one food to another and requires some discipline.
Greenpeace could be helping by taking the lead. But it isn't. By financing this report it's like an endorsement of Diesendorf's comments.
Why isn't Diesendorf recommending not only less meat but also no meat and also what about dairy? Dairy cows produce even more GHG than non-dairy cows. Why isn't he saying less dairy/no dairy?
Interfering with nature by removing protozoa from livestock's rumen is a sick way of justifying one's bad dietary habits. Just get with the program!
No meat, no dairy and NO ROO!
I can't help but wonder if Greenpeace is sitting on the fence on this issue because they want the benefit of looking like they are helping climate change but also taking a handout from the Kangaroo Industry. After all, why does the KIAA clearly say that Greenpeace endorses kangaroo consumption on their website? According to GP they asked them to take it down but they haven't. Then why no legal action forcing them to?
Posted by: Maggie Henderson | April 23, 2008 5:07 PM