2021-11-08
Briefings for Britain step out into less familiar terrain today with their article on the latest proposals to put a tax on meat "to stave off climate change".
They apply the time-honoured technique of verify-by-approximation to test whether the assertions being made by various (not necessarily disinterested) parties in support of this notion actually stand scrutiny. Do the numbers stack up?
Well, (this to be read in a slow and deliberate 'countryfied' accent!) "Oi think the arrrnser loies in the soil":
"Soils contain more carbon than plants and the atmosphere combined, using agricultural practices to sequester carbon would be better for the environment than taxing meat. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation sustainably managed soils can sequester up to 2.05 giga-tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year"
One should probably prepend the significant qualifier "Healthy" before "Soils" in the above statement, given the significant soil impoverishment resulting from modern farming techniques.
The world is an exceedingly complex place and basing climate change agendas on over-simplified models does nothing to illuminate the true nature of ... well, Nature.
There is a great deal more to be considered here, and BfB have done us a useful service in presenting some of the arguments. I have no doubt that this will in due course expose yet another example of governmental deaf-ear syndrome, but it is up to the rest of us to ensure as best we can that the arguments are properly rehearsed and understood and the correct conclusions drawn.
"All this vegetation – the food crops, the biomass crops, the forests for timber, the national forests, and those green and pleasant grass covered hills – all soak up CO2. It would be a massive mistake to tax the eco-friendly grass-fed meat industry"
Is our government, right on cue, yet again about to step forward right into yet another massive mistake? All for our own good, of course.
