A new scientific report on meat and emissions is a little more in line with the opinions of those in the agriculture industry.
The report, published recently in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” suggests that if livestock producers used their land more efficiently — such as feeding cattle more high-energy food and using less land for grazing — they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions more effectively than if consumers across the globe simply consumed less meat and milk.
The suggestions in the new report differ from another released in December, when a U.N. scientists’ analysis took the contentious step of suggesting emissions be cut by pushing up the price of meat through a tax or emissions trading scheme. Before releasing that report, several high-profile figures, from the chief of the U.N.’s climate science panel to the economist Lord Stern, had already advocated eating less meat to reduce the production of global-warming gases from cattle, sheep and other livestock.
The U.N.’s suggestion of higher taxes on meat didn’t find any support from the agriculture industry.
And it apparently hasn’t found any support in Washington, according to ranchers, ag experts, officials in the industry and politicians, many of whom recently reported that the push from U.N. scientists for an additional tax on meat didn’t appear to be picking up any steam in D.C.
For more on the story, see Wednesday’s Tribune.