Introduction

Our reactions to issues and emergencies are a reflection of our predominant world view and beliefs. In the case of climate breakdown, we are finally seeing a willingness from politicians and governments to respond to the looming and potentially catastrophic threat from the collapse of the natural world and its climate regulating functions.

But the response we are witnessing is based on ‘safer’ lagging climate science that comes from a reductionist scientific perspective which is mostly performed out of context. By separating and reducing data and findings you do not get a true or full explanation of how it relates to, and acts within, the whole system.

From this type of science, we often get useful correlations that can and should be used to influence better systems science to verify their findings. Instead this has resulted in the adoption and promotion of partial conclusions by those with a vested interest in such incomplete results.

With a longer timescale in which to operate, such misinformation would not be particularly concerning. Inevitably better science will, and already is, giving us a more complete view of the situation.

Here is an example of recent scientific findings that will lead to a complete revaluation of the contribution of ruminants to GHG emissions. Adoption of this methodology could invalidate all previous studies that include the use of GWP100 :

In June 2018 new research was published by International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists from Oxford Martin School, Oxford University. The research improves upon the methodology currently defining the global warming potential of different greenhouse gases.

The researchers said, “Current climate change policy suggests a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to dealing with emissions, but there are two distinct types of emissions.  We must treat these two groups differently.” (Professor Dave Frame)

“Long-lived pollutants, like carbon dioxide, persist in the atmosphere, building up over centuries.  The CO2 created by burning coal in the 18th Century is still affecting the climate today.”  On the other hand, “Short-lived pollutants, like methane, disappear within a few years.  Their effect on the climate is important, but very different from that of CO2.” (Dr Michelle Cain)

1, 2, 3

But we are running out of time with most scientist believing we have under 12 years to address this issue before we are tied into consequences beyond our ability to resolve.

4, 5

The science and thinking that has led to the demonization of meat comes from reduced scientific findings that are incorrect when considered within whole ecosystem function.

This is no small misinterpretation.

Responding with policies that will influence public buying habits will inevitably lead to faster and more dramatic climate breakdown and a realisation soon, that such flawed policies were behind the rapid deterioration.

In fact, all the credible science any government or influencer could require is already in existence to justify an alternative plan that can, and will, recover the planets ability to maintain conditions congruent with human survival.

What is required is a different perspective from which to view it.

Context

2.1 Carbon

In the context of climate change, we consider carbon in two forms;

• Stored forms such as fossil fuels. This was mostly accumulated into sinks in the carboniferous period when there were much higher levels of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere due to the vast swamps and wetlands that were a feature of this period. Large mega flora with huge photosynthetic capacity sequestered the CO2 into stable solid and liquid forms buried underground which led to high oxygen levels and eventually the stable climate we humans benefit from today.

• Cycling carbon. Carbon is the building block of life and can cycle in many forms and within the biosphere moving easily between states. As gas it cycles as CO2 or CH4 in the atmosphere and as a liquid and solid it cycles through all living, dead and decaying organisms.

As carbon cycles though living organisms such as humans or cattle, it is ingested in the solid and liquid form of plants, or meat from animals that ate plants, and contributes to the growth and reproduction of that organism. Partly respired as CO2 and CH4 it is eventually released and recycled through the process of death and decay. An organism cannot excrete or exhale more carbon that is originally inhaled or ingested so the carbon in this scenario does not represent a net increase in the atmospheric load.

Historically a larger portion of the carbon cycling through the biosphere would be in more stable solid states, such as humus in soils or the biomass of trees, than as a gas state in the atmosphere and this is contributing to the greenhouse gas effect. This issue can be simply resolved by using the very same mechanisms nature previously applied in times of high CO2 and CH4 levels – by increasing the longevity and effectiveness of photosynthesis across the planet. We now have tried and tested methods of managing grazing animals in ways that increase photosynthesis and rapidly sequester significant volumes of CO2 into stable solid forms.

6,

When stored carbon is released in the burning of fossil fuels it is added to the carbon that is being cycled through the atmosphere in its many states.

Reductionist science has been using a partial understanding of the impact of cycling carbon in the form of methane for a large part of our climate science history. This has led to the overreliance and use of stored carbon; the true external cost of this use has not been paid by the companies profiting from it, it will instead lie as a debt humanity will inherit.

7, 8, 9, 10

We must recognise and account for the life-threatening true cost of our reliance on cheap materials and inexpensive foods subsidised by a fossil fuel industry who do not pay for their externalised expenses.

Carbon that is taken from stored sinks then added to the cycling net carbon load should be considered differently to carbon already in the atmosphere that is simply changing states though living processes.

Priority should be given to mediation methods that can increase the time that cycling carbon spends in solid and stable forms and decrease the time it spends in gaseous form where it contributes to warming.

2.2. Methane

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and is currently considered to have 28 times the ‘global warming potential’ of carbon dioxide.

It has been acknowledged for decades that the methodology used to calculate the CO2 equivalent for methane is flawed and hides the fact that 1Gt CH4 has a strong warming influence when it is first emitted, which due to chemical reactions in the atmosphere, rapidly diminishes over a decade. Over the 100 years used to asses GWP100, the methane emitted has almost all been destroyed.

11

By comparison, a 28Gt “equivalent” emission of CO2 would continue to warm the planet over a hundred-year period at the same rate it did when released. The two emissions must be treated differently to ensure policy changes reflect a more accurate impact of methane – including enteric methane from herbivores and other living organisms – on climate.

12

It is also important that we better understand the role of ecology in assisting the oxidisation of methane so that its time in the atmosphere remains short lived – this is not a static mechanism and is significantly influenced by land use. A shift from grazed pastures to conventional cropping to supply an increase in plant food could reduce the biosphere’s capacity to oxidise methane.

13, 14

The complexity and feedback variations of different habits on the effectiveness of the Hydroxyl Radical ‘cleaning’ process is not something that can currently calculated accurately or predictably. Our understanding of these processes is in its infancy and many of our current assumptions were influenced and informed by the stabilisation of atmospheric methane levels at the beginning of the 21^st century.

15

In 2007 methane levels once again started to rise at an alarming rate leaving the scientific community in disarray and disagreement as to the mechanisms that have led to them. The debate will undoubtedly continue well beyond the timescale we have to take effective remedial action.

16

What can be agreed upon is that the atmospheric rise in methane has been caused by an increase in methane emissions, and or, a reduction in the effectiveness of the planet’s ability to oxidise and ‘sink’ the methane. Probably both.

17, 18

If we are to attribute most of the atmospheric observations in 2007 onwards to an increase in emissions, there must have been a statistically significant change in total CH4 emissions around the year 2007 to explain it.

Some recent studies have pointed to an “upturn” in global concentrations of ethane (C2H6), coincident with the recent rise in CH4, which may imply an increase in CH4 emissions caused by an increase in oil and gas extraction.

19, 20, 21, 22

Unlike earlier rises in methane which was enriched with the heavier carbon stable isotope (13C) of methane, the recent atmospheric surge has been attributed to bio-genic sources (microbial) as it shows a depletion in 13C which is more commonly associated with enteric methane from ruminants or microbial activity in anerobic soils.

There are suggestions that at least part of this is due to an increase or change in tropical wetlands, especially the increase of rice paddies and adoption of alternative rice production methods.

23

This is probably exacerbated by global warming which has influenced weather patterns in the tropics leading to an increase in methane emitting wetlands and hotter temperatures that has stimulated methanogen activity in saturated soils.

24

This comprehensive NASA study indicates that both fossil fuels and an increase in wetlands in the tropics are responsible for the increased atmospheric levels post 2007.

25

What has recently come to light is that globally more than half of the increase in natural gas production has come from shale gas which happens to be somewhat depleted in 13C when compared to natural gas and is likely to be a significant contributor to methane increase puzzle.

25a

What we can say with some confidence is that enteric methane from livestock alone is not responsible for the statistically significant rise in emissions as the changes in livestock numbers through this reference period have been gradual and although ruminant numbers have increased in the developing world they have stabilised or reduced in the developed world. Cattle numbers saw their steepest increase between 2000 and 2006, when methane levels were flat.

26

On the counter side of the argument it is likely that we have also reduced the capacity of the biosphere to supply the necessary ecosystem services to induce the oxidisation process of methane through the ‘hydroxyl ion’ pathway and in aerated soils by methanotrophs.

Methane is normally held in check by the hydroxyl radical (OH), which is responsible for the shorter lifespan of methane in the atmosphere.

Formed in the presence of sunlight by water vapor and pollutants like ozone and nitrogen oxides, hydroxyl ions are hard to measure because they persist for just a second in the air before reacting away.

27

Scientist rely upon proxies – chemicals that react with hydroxyl – to measure the presence of hydroxyl in the atmosphere. The proxy studies indicate that OH levels have been relatively constant, a conclusion that is assumed within most models of methane increases.

The carbon atoms in atmospheric methane molecules have shifted toward lighter isotopes which has influenced scientists towards the conclusion that a higher proportion of the post 2007 rise in atmospheric methane is due to microbial activity such as the afore mentioned increase in wetlands.

But there is another explanation.

OH prefers to react with lighter carbon so less OH production due to land management changes that reduce transpiration or block sunlight – such as pollution haze – will lead to higher concentrations than have previously been recorded of light carbon in the atmosphere.

28

Has the increase in light microbial methane been due to increased emissions or is it simply more abundant due to the breakdown of the process that would normally remove this from the atmosphere?

It could be both, but unfortunately there is no science to verify this due to a lack of meaningful historical data.

29, 30

To compound the issue there are multiple and interrelated feedback loops that are so complex and localised that their accurate study is currently impossible.

These complexities could have a significant negative influence on the effectiveness of the hydroxyl radical oxidisation process which relies upon water vapour and direct sunlight to react with pollutants.

Here are a few examples:

• Reduced sunlight levels in the lower troposphere due to pollution, a significant increase in heat haze and dust particles from desertification and or large-scale arable operations. 31
• Pollution from accidental and managed fire smoke, fossil fuel burning and other industrial sources utilising the OH oxidisation pathways therefore reducing the OH available to oxidise methane.
• Over 75% of the Earth’s land area is already degraded, and over 90% could become degraded by 2050. Degraded soils hold less water and grow fewer transpiring plants therefore reduce the water vapour available to support the oxidisation of methane. 32 Globally, a total area half of the size of the European Union (4.18 million km²) is degraded annually, with Africa and Asia being the most affected. This corresponds with the increase of light methane found in the tropics.
• A shift from naturally and managed grazed pastures and woodland to ‘rested’ or re-wet environments where grasses go rank and reduce vigor slow the rate of transpiration.

It is essential we take action on all counts now, rather than wait for scientific confirmation of the exact process that is leading to the significant increases in methane levels in the atmosphere.

We need to reduce all methane sources but focus first on those which come from stored forms rather than become distracted by the sources related to cycling carbon such as enteric methane from livestock – especially when the flip side of these production systems may also be critical for continuing the production of OH.  As all oxidised methane becomes carbon dioxide and oxygen it is important that we respond to any possible explanation for the atmospheric increases in methane with measures that address CO2 in the atmosphere.

Equally importantly we need to increase and enhance the capacity of our biosphere to produce hydroxyl ions and sequester carbon into stable forms through increased longevity of photosynthesising plants on aerated soils so that carbon can be quickly sequestered into stable forms and transpiration can take place.

Regenerative agriculture and the protection of our natural habitats are the most effective way of achieving this while also producing nutrient dense food for a growing population.

Texas A&M study demonstrated 1.2 tons of carbon per acre per year (1.2 tC/ac/yr) drawdown via proper grazing methods. 33

University of Georgia study demonstrated 3 tons of carbon per acre per year (3 tC/ac/yr) drawdown via a conversion from row cropping to regenerative grazing. 34

Michigan State University study demonstrated 1.5 tons of carbon per acre per year (1.5 tC/ac/yr) drawdown via proper grazing methods and demonstrated in a lifecycle analysis that this more than compensated for natural enteric emissions of methane. 35

The drawdown potential on North American pasturelands is 800 million tons (megatons) of carbon per year (800 MtC/yr) 36

2.3. Water vapour.

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere however, changes in its concentration have up until recently been considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialisation.

Unfortunately, due to the complexity of measuring water vapour in space and time it is as yet poorly measured and understood.

37

What is becoming apparent to a growing number of climate scientists is that, as with CO2, the time this greenhouse gas spends in different states is critical to how it interplays and supports several cooling mechanisms within the atmosphere.

38, 39

Significant changes in land management such as desertification and deforestation have caused an increase in heating humid hazes and a reduction in cooling latent heat fluxes along with several other negative hydrological shifts.

40, 41

As we are discovering, the most serious impacts of climate change are related to the hydrology of the atmosphere. It is not the CO2 or CH4 in the atmosphere that will directly harm human life (at predicted levels) it is the drought, violent and unpredictable weather, wild fires and floods that will lead to mass human migration, poverty and hunger, all creating the perfect conditions for civil unrest which will inevitably lead to further loss of life.

42

Regardless of whether the warming influence of water vapour is considered feedback or forcing, we can agree on the cooling influence of several hydrological processes. All are accepted in the scientific community and are well understood in the field of climatology.

It is critical that our management of our agricultural systems and natural habitats is designed to support the cooling hydrological process that have for millennia ensured that most of the 342 watts per square metre of incident solar energy we receive from the sun is returned back out of our atmosphere into space.

Based on internationally recognised climate scientist and soil microbiologist Walter Jehne’s practical plan ‘’Restoring water cycles to naturally cool climates and reverse global warming’’.

43

These include natural processes to;

1.Restore the Earth’s soil carbon sponge and thus its capacity to infiltrate, retain and make available rainfall to sustain green plant growth for longer and over wider areas of land.

2.Sustain the area and longevity of transpiring green growth across the land to dissipate vast quantities of heat from the land surface into the upper air via latent heat fluxes.

3.Maintain plant covers on land surfaces so as to enhance their albedo and reflection of incident solar radiation back out to space as well as aid their retention of soil moisture.

4.Limit the level of dust and particulate aerosol emissions so as to limit the formation of the persistent humid haze micro-droplets that absorb solar energy and aridify climates.

5.Reduce the surface heating of covered moist soils and thus their re-radiation of the long wave infra-red heat that drives the natural and enhanced greenhouse effect. This can safely turn down the main variable governing the natural and enhanced greenhouse effect.

6.Reduce the length of time that transpired or evaporated water vapour is retained in the atmosphere either as a gas able to absorb re-radiated infra-red heat in the greenhouse effects or as liquid haze micro-droplets able to absorb incident short-wave solar energy. 

7.Convert the increase in persistent humid hazes that warm and aridify climates into dense high albedo cloud covers able to reflect incident solar energy back out to space thereby rapidly and safely cooling regions and collectively the global climate.

8.Induce the formation of raindrops from these clouds to remove the humid hazes but also re-supply the Earth’s soils carbon sponges with the water they need to sustain active green plant growth, transpiration and its latent heat fluxes and cooling effects.

9.Reopen night time radiation windows that were blocked by the persistent humid hazes and are responsible for over 60% of the observed global warming effects to date. In doing so we can cool night time plant surfaces so as to enhance the condensation of dew that can contribute to much of the plant’s water needs and survival, particularly as climates aridify. 

10.Restore regional rainfalls by inducing the formation of low-pressure zones over cooler moist landscapes to aid the inflow of further humid air often from marine regions. 

As with methane, the role of water vapour on the warming of the planet is widely debated and locally influenced so hard to measure.

What is certain is that it is the hydrological extremes of climate change such as drought, flood, and dramatic or unpredictable weather patterns that will have the largest impacts on the ability of humans to thrive.

Destroying water retentive landscapes is in and of itself a major cause of changing climatic patterns which is in turn heavily influenced by agriculture – especially conventional plant agriculture.

Any move towards food systems that drives deforestation, creates bare soil and poor soil health from tillage, use of inorganic fertilisers and pesticides is likely to have the biggest destabilising effect on water cycles and therefore climate security.

We must prevent an increase in the use, and therefore production, of conventional grain and vegetables and instead promote the need for regenerative and organic arable production that promotes water retention in the ecosystem.

We must dramatically reduce the inefficient practice of feeding conventional grain foods to livestock.

2.4. Nitrous Oxide

N20 is produced by activities such as agriculture, fuel combustion, wastewater management, and industrial processes and is increasing in the atmosphere.

44

Nitrous oxide is also naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth’s nitrogen cycle and has a variety of natural sources which are balanced and regulated by natural ecosystem processes.

The CO2 equivalent of N2O is 300 so it has a very high impact on global warming. Nitrous oxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years before being removed by a natural sink or destroyed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide can result from various agricultural soil management activities, such as synthetic and organic fertiliser application and other cropping practices, the management of manure, or burning of agricultural residues.

45, 46

Nitrous oxide emissions occur naturally through many sources associated with the nitrogen cycle, which is the natural circulation of nitrogen among the atmosphere, plants, animals, and microorganisms that live in soil and water. Nitrogen takes on a variety of chemical forms throughout the nitrogen cycle, including N2O. Natural emissions of N2O are mainly from bacteria breaking down nitrogen in soils and the oceans. Nitrous oxide is removed from the atmosphere when it is absorbed by certain types of bacteria or destroyed by ultraviolet radiation or chemical reactions.

As with methane, the natural ‘cleaning’ processes that remove this toxic gas are being compromised and altered by our land use which may result in an increased longevity of this gas in the atmosphere.

The use of synthetic fertilisers in agriculture must be reduced dramatically as it impacts the planet two-fold; it increases levels of N2O in the atmosphere and has a damaging impact on soil health rendering it less able to contribute to the natural oxidisation of both N20 and CH4.

47, 48

3.0. Response and mitigation.

Although the complex and ever shifting influences of these greenhouse gasses on our climate are hard to measure and map, what we can be certain of and agree upon, is that planet earth – through natural processes – has successfully regulated our atmosphere and climate for millions of years.

In the face of our looming crisis and in support of an urgent response, we must ensure that while the various details of the exact mechanisms of climate change are being debated, that we only take remedial actions that support these natural ecosystem processes.

By viewing policy and land management decisions though this window it becomes clear that supporting agricultural practices that are responsible for clearing natural habitats to produce food from eroding bare soil that requires high levels of fossil fuel intensive products and practices is not supportive of natural climate cooling processes.

Conventional intensive plant agriculture does exactly that and is in direct conflict with natural processes.

Taxing meat will trigger a shift in eating habits towards more plants so will expand the land base on which this damaging form of agriculture is practiced. This will lead to an increase in the use of fossil fuels and further reduce the capacity of the planet to mitigate warming.

Grass fed animals reared on healthy soils and managed in a regenerative system are a critical part of the solution to climate change whilst still providing sustainable nutrition security.

49

On the other hand, livestock reared in ecologically decoupled systems that inefficiently rely upon conventional plant agriculture and other intensive management practices are highly damaging to climate function.

To tax ‘meat’ is to miss this important distinction. A meat tax is a blunt instrument that does nothing to address the underlying drivers of climate change.

Instead we must penalise the most damaging ‘outs’ in the form of emissions that come from stored sources of carbon such as fossil fuels. Then we must support the ‘ins’ in the form of land management that enhances our planets multiple GHG regulation mechanisms.

Assessing the impact of land management on ecosystem processes is very challenging at global level due to the importance of regional and local contexts, but it can be achieved effectively and objectively on a farm by farm basis.

Methodologies such as Ecological Outcome Verification (EOV), developed by the Savory institute, take a systems science approach to monitoring ecosystem health. EOV offers a way of measuring the complexity of nature, through empirical and tangible outcomes, which in turn provide the farmer with ongoing feedback from which to make better management decisions. EOV measures and trends key indicators of ecosystem function, which in the aggregate indicate positive or negative trends in the overall health of a landscape.

Suggested alternative actions to a meat tax that would address the root cause of the climate change problem;

Heavily tax fossil fuel use to prevent stored carbon being added to the cycling atmospheric carbon load. This will serve to influence the economic drivers that lead to many other associated climate harming outcomes such as deforestation, pollution, use of ecologically damaging fertilisers, and the use of biocides in agricultural systems.

Drive adoption of regenerative agricultural practices and innovation in plant and animal food production systems by assessing food based on their positive or negative impact on natural climate regulating processes. This could form the basis of a subsidy system or be included within carbon offset or reward schemes.