Scientist: Don’t blame cows for climate change

A scientist in the United States has questioned the impact meat and diary production has on climate change, and accused the United Nations of exaggerating the link.

In 2006, a report published by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” claimed meat production was responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, which it added was greater than the impact of transport.

Livestock farming already occupies 30 percent of the world’s surface and its environmental impact will double by 2050 unless drastic action is taken, the U.N. warned.

Environmentalists and leading campaigners including Paul McCartney, used the findings to urge consumers to eat less meat and save the planet. Last year the former Beatle’s much hyped-campaign featured the slogan: “Less meat = less heat.”

But Frank Mitloehner,(left) an air quality specialist from the University of California at Davis (UCD), said the U.N. reached its conclusions for the livestock sector by adding up emissions from farm to table, including the gases produced by growing animal feed; animals’ digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods.

But its figures for transport did not add up emissions from well to wheel; instead, it considered only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving.

“This lopsided ‘analysis’ is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue,” Mitloehner said on the university’s Web site.

Mitloehner also pointed to the fact that leading authorities agree raising animals for food accounts for about 3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., while transportation creates an estimated 26 percent.

He said campaigners such as McCartney were “well-intentioned,” but “not well-schooled in the complex relationships among human activities, animal digestion, food production and atmospheric chemistry.”

He added “smarter animal farming not less farming will equal less heat.”

One of the report’s authors, Pierre Gerber, told CNN he accepted the comparison with transport data was inaccurate.

“This was not done deliberately,” he said. “But the comparability of the data does not challenge the estimate of 18 percent.

“It has been endorsed by the scientific community, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) made reference to it, so this is not in doubt.

“We thought it would be useful to compare the figures to another sector — transport — and I accept this comparison is now a little doubtful.”

He added that the FAO plans to publish a revised report on the impact of the livestock industry.

Meanwhile, Liz O’Neill of British Vegetarian Society — an educational charity which counts Paul and Stella McCartney among its patrons, told CNN the meat industry remains a hugely significant contributor to climate change despite.

“It’s obviously convenient to have comparisons but 18 percent is still a really massive contribution,” she said.

“But it’s not only about reducing emissions in this area. We have to do it all. The Vegetarian Society has always been careful never to say ‘go vegetarian and then you can go on long-haul flights on your holiday.’ We say this is just one of things you can do to make a contribution.”

Duncan Pullar of the English Beef and LambExecutive (EBLEX), which promotes the beef and lamb industry in Britain, said the “credibility gaps” on both sides of the argument are making it difficult for consumers to understand the impact of food production.

“Talking about livestock production versus transport in a world context is meaningless,” he said. I don’t understand what it offers us,” he told CNN.

“There are claims and counter-claims that don’t help to create a balanced view of how we should individually and collectively respond.

But he added there has been no drop-off in sales of meat across the industry, despite the vigorous media debate about sustainability in the food industry.

Source:
Cable Network News, “Scientist: Don’t blame cows for climate change“, accessed March 24, 2010

From the Inbox: Pledge to End Mountaintop Removal in 2010

WFP Says No Evidence Exist of Food Aid Diversion in Somalia

No evidence of food aid diversion in Somalia: WFP

AFP, GENEVA
Saturday, Mar 27, 2010, Page 6

The World Food Program (WFP) said on Thursday that it had seen “zero evidence” to back up claims made by a UN monitoring group that food aid was being routinely diverted in Somalia.

“We have had no evidence and have not been presented with any evidence of any wide-scale diversion at any level,” Josette Sheeran, director of the WFP, told reporters.

A letter on Tuesday addressed to the Security Council by the UN Coordinator in Somalia, Mark Bowden, also noted that the monitoring group’s report lacked facts to back it up and that some sections were “completely misleading.”

“We are concerned that the report recently submitted to your committee was not prepared with the same level of consultation and that many of the statements made in the humanitarian section were not adequately documented,” he wrote.

Bowden added that the UN team on the ground was “concerned that these estimates of diversion are not apparently based on any documentation but rather on hearsay and commonly held perceptions.”

The report by the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia, originally tasked with tracking violations of the arms embargo, found that up to half of the food aid intended for needy Somalis is diverted.

It also noted that while access to WFP contracts should in theory be subject to tender, there has been “little or no scope for genuine competition.”

“Preliminary investigations by the Monitoring Group indicate the existence of a de facto cartel, characterized by irregular procedures in the awarding of contracts by the WFP country office, discriminatory practices and preferential treatment,” the report said.

WFP spokeswoman Emilia Casella stressed that these were “allegations” and that there were “no facts to support them.”

EU force frees Somali ‘pirates’

The EU’s naval force has freed six Somali pirate suspects, a day after they were captured trying to hijack a vessel off the East African coast.

Cmdr John Harbour said the men had to be released because the crew of the cargo vessel refused to give evidence.

The suspected pirates were allegedly part of a gang who attacked the Panamanian-flagged ship MV Almezaan.

Security guards on board the ship opened fire, killing one of the attackers before an EU warship arrived.

It is believed to be the first time that private security guards have killed a pirate in recent years.

It has sparked a debate about whether more ships should travel with guards.

Some say it might encourage pirates to use more violence, while others say it would help deter attacks.

Cmdr Harbour told the BBC that the case against the suspects captured on Tuesday was “clear-cut”.

“We intercepted the pirates, we destroyed their mother-ship and we went on board the cargo ship to get statements,” he said.

“But we had to release them because the master of the ship would not testify.”

The guards who shot the pirate suspect were also likely to avoid any censure, with Cmdr Harbour saying nothing could be done without statements from those involved.

Body discovered

The EU force, known as Navfor, received a distress signal early on Tuesday from the MV Almezaan.

Navfor said members of an “armed private vessel-protection detachment” on board the ship had been involved in a fire-fight with pirates.

The EU force sent the Spanish warship Navarra to the area and found the pirate suspects trying to flee the area in two skiffs.

When a team from the Navarra boarded the vessels, they found three men in one skiff and three in the second, along with the body of a fourth man.

The authorities have struggled to find a solution to the problem of piracy - both stopping the attacks, and how to punish captured suspects.

War-wracked Somalia has no functioning central government and the chaos there has allowed the pirates to function with relative impunity.

The suspects are often sent to Kenya, where dozens are languishing in jails awaiting trial in a chronically overburdened legal system.

But there is no consensus on how to prosecute the suspects, and moves to set up an international tribunal have foundered.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/8586729.stm
Published: 2010/03/25 11:36:40 GMT