Archives for posts with tag: climate

The state of Queensland is the beef production capital of Australia. At last count (2015), it had 11.7 million cattle, which was more than double its human population, and nearly double the cattle population of its nearest beef-producing rival, New South Wales.

Land clearing for beef production in the two states is the reason the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) nominated eastern Australia as one of eleven global deforestation fronts for the twenty years to 2030.

The states are also fierce rivals in rugby league, and the sport provides an opportunity to highlight the extent of land clearing.

In Queensland alone, from 1988 to 2015, an area equivalent to nearly 11 million rugby fields was cleared for pasture. [Footnote] That’s a rate of three-quarters of a rugby field per minute, and represents 91 per cent of total land clearing in the state. The figures include clearing of regrowth, demonstrating the resilience of forest and other wooded vegetation if given the chance to regenerate. But it is seldom given such a chance in Queensland.

A partial ban on broadscale clearing, introduced in 2006, was overturned by the conservative Liberal National Party government in 2013, and clearing is now accelerating. The problem is illustrated by the following chart.

Figure 1: Extent of Queensland land clearing 1988-2015

In New South Wales, the Native Vegetation Act was repealed by the conservative Liberal Party government in late 2016, with an anticipated loss of biodiversity and increased land clearing.

The clearing contributes significantly to: loss of biodiversity; the release of carbon contained in the vegetation and soil; and an ongoing loss of carbon sequestration. The carbon emissions are not allocated against livestock production in official greenhouse gas inventories, causing livestock-related emissions to be understated.

Impact on the Great Barrier Reef

The clearing, along with cattle grazing in cleared and uncleared areas, causes soil to be eroded and carried by adjoining streams and rivers to the coast, significantly affecting one of the world’s natural wonders, the Great Barrier Reef.

The Queensland Government’s 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement confirmed that beef production in the surrounding catchment was responsible for 75% of sediment, 54% of phosphorus and 40% of nitrogen in the reef’s waters.

Jon Brodie is the Chief Research Scientist at the Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, James Cook University. He has reported that the sediment and nutrients, along with pesticides, have caused: (a) the waters of the reef to become cloudier, thereby reducing the sunlight available for the growth of corals, seagrass and marine algae; (b) increased frequency of crown of thorns starfish outbreaks, increasing the rate of coral deaths (responsible for 42 per cent of coral loss from 1985 to 2012);  (c) some reefs to become dominated by algae and other organisms, rather than coral; and (d) an increase in coral diseases.

He has said:

“These effects, together with those of climate change, have contributed to the severe decline in the overall health of the GBR.”

The government’s most recent Reef Water Quality Protection Plan report card scored graziers’ response to the calamity a “D” for “poor”.

The following image shows sediment that has been carried to the coast along the Burdekin River, where some of the highest cattle numbers are found.

Figure 2: Satellite image of heavy sediment along the Queensland coast

No word on cattle grazing’s reef impacts from the Climate Council

In late 2016, the Climate Council of Australia released a video of chairman Tim Flannery, commissioner Lesley Hughes and CEO Amanda McKenzie snorkeling in the waters of the reef. They were expressing grave concern about the reef’s condition, but said nothing about the devastating impact of beef production.

The Climate Council’s silence might not be surprising when you consider Flannery’s close association with the livestock sector, including his former contract with Meat & Livestock Australia. However, I am not in a position to say that any person or organisation has tried to influence others, or that any person or organisation has been influenced.

Figure 3: Professor Tim Flannery reporting from the Great Barrier Reef

Nevertheless, I feel it’s worth noting that a search for the word “beef” on the council’s website yields only four results, while the term “fossil fuel” yields one hundred and seventy.

Even then, three of the items on beef, and their related reports, were expressing concern over the adverse impact of climate change on its production, rather than the other way around! Could you imagine the council expressing concern over a reduction in coal production?

The one short website article (for which there was no related report) that raised some concerns about the impact of animal-based foods was not published until October 2016, more than five years after the councilors came together in the council’s predecessor organisation, the Climate Commission. In that article, the adverse impacts were conservative, and the council still couldn’t help itself; it concluded with comments not on the livestock sector, but on power generation.

At a Melbourne presentation in April 2013 by Flannery, McKenzie and fellow climate commissioner, Will Steffen, I pointed out that the then forthcoming discussion paper by climate change campaign group Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (University of Melbourne) would indicate that animal agriculture was responsible for around 50 percent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions after allowing for various factors, such as: livestock-related land clearing; soil carbon losses; shorter-lived greenhouse gases; and a 20-year “global warming potential“. The response was lukewarm, and I received no meaningful response to a subsequent email on the matter.

Here are some comments from the councilors’ reef video:


“The Great Barrier Reef is telling us that we must stop burning fossil fuels if we are to have a Great Barrier Reef that our children and grandchildren can enjoy in the future.”

Terrastendo: So the reef is telling us that? Why aren’t you telling us about the impact of diet?


“So what we’re seeing today is that some of the corals in this site have recovered from the bleaching but others haven’t. And the ones that have died have started to become covered in a greeny, browny, sludgey algae. And what we’re really worried about is that if bleaching keeps happening due to warming, then there’ll be less and less time for our reefs to recover.”

Terrastendo: Could that algae be caused by the run-off from cattle farms, which also reduces the coral’s resilience?

Here’s what the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says (consistent with Jon Brodie’s comments referred to earlier):

“Most sediment entering the Great Barrier Reef comes from catchments in major pastoral areas such as the Burdekin, Herbert and Fitzroy rivers.”

“Changes in water quality affect the biodiversity and resilience of Reef systems. Higher concentrations of pollutants, such as suspended sediments, nitrogen and phosphorus, indicated by higher levels of chlorophyll and lower water clarity, leader [sic] to more algae and less coral diversity. In these conditions, algae take over and reduce the chances for new hard corals to establish and grow.”


“Our request to you is simple; keep talking about the reef.”

Terrastendo: What, just talk about it? No need to avoid eating meat?


“It really is time to start making some noise again. So whether it’s around the dinner table, or at work or when you’re talking to your local politician, start talking about the reef. It’s too important to stay silent.”

Terrastendo: But still nothing about diet? Isn’t that important too? What are you eating at the dinner table?

The growing “tsunami” of land clearing in Queensland

As if all that’s not bad enough, land clearing in Queensland may be entering a new phase of growth, primarily driven by beef production. WWF has recently released a report with the title, “Accelerating bushland destruction in Queensland”.

It reported that the legislative changes of 2013 allow clearing of remnant bushland at unlimited scale under “self-assessable codes” for various purposes, when previously most such clearing had required a permit. One of those codes is thinning to correct supposed “thickening” of forests. WWF has stated (with my underline):

“Thinning in particular, allows the bulldozing of up to 75% of trees in a forest, leaving only a scatter of trees behind. It is merely clearing for pasture masquerading as a beneficial treatment.”

“The Queensland Government must tighten these codes as soon as possible to prevent the growing tsunami of land clearing in Queensland.”

The report includes the following map, showing notifications of 10 hectares or more under the self-assessable codes from end of July 2016 to February 2017. Those marked in purple are within the Great Barrier Reef catchment. The smaller icons indicate notifications of 1-10 hectares, while larger icons indicate notifications of more than 100 hectares. After adjusting for anomalies in the data, WWF reported that notifications jumped fifty per cent from January to February 2017.

Figure 4: Land clearing notifications in Queensland Jul 2016 – Feb 2017


Expansion of China-Australia Free Trade Agreement

In late March, 2017, Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, jointly announced a major extension to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA), allowing an increase in chilled meat exports from Australia. The announcement was described as a “huge win” within the Australian beef sector, but at what cost for the country’s environment and other sectors of the economy, such as tourism?

Figure 5: Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang

The dramatic increase in livestock-related land clearing in Queensland and New South Wales, with its devastating environmental consequences, could have been strongly influenced by ChAFTA (the first phase of which was announced in November 2014) and its recent expansion. Australia’s response to the rapidly increasing demand for red meat in China could contribute significantly to the eventual demise of the Great Barrier Reef.

Queensland government helps by purchasing cattle station

The minority Labor government in Queensland, elected in 2015, had sought to reintroduce the ban on broadscale land clearing, but was unable to generate enough votes in parliament. So what else could it do?

In an effort to reduce erosion run-off from uncleared lands, it purchased the 56,000 hectare Springvale cattle station on Cape York (north-west of Port Douglas and twenty kilometres north of the Daintree National Park), with the intention of removing the cattle and rehabilitating the station’s stream and river banks and gullies. Here’s an ABC news bulletin from June 2016 (duration 2:24).

Video: ABC News: Queensland Government buys Cape York Cattle Property

As stated in the report, this one property has been responsible for forty per cent (500,000 tonnes) of sediment flowing into the Normanby River system. That system, in turn, contributes around fifty per cent of the total run off to the northern section of the reef. However, with 4,300 cattle, it has only a tiny percentage of the cattle population within the overall Great Barrier Reef catchment area, so it seems much more work is required. Environment minister, Steven Miles, has said the state may purchase additional properties that are also polluting the reef system.

A telling segment of the video shows a man walking through a massive gully (much taller than himself) created by generations of cattle grazing.


The massive extent of livestock production and its destructive environmental impacts are almost universally under-stated by environmental organisations, and conveniently ignored by governments looking to satisfy electorates with supposedly positive short-term economic news. With that sort of selective vision, the eventual outcomes may be catastrophic for our natural environment and the people and economies ultimately depending on its well-being. Any opportunity that may remain to avoid disaster is rapidly disappearing.


Paul Mahony


At 8,400 square metres, the area of a rugby field is 56 per cent larger than that of an American football field (5,363 square metres) and between 2 and 31 per cent larger than that of a FIFA soccer field (6,400 – 8,250 square metres).


Meat & Livestock Australia, “Fast Facts 2016: Australia’s Beef Industry”,–markets/documents/trends–analysis/fast-facts–maps/mla_beef-fast-facts-2016.pdf

World Wide Fund for Nature (World Wildlife Fund), “WWF Living Forests Report”, Chapter 5 and Chapter 5 Executive Summary,;

Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation. 2015. Land cover change in Queensland 2012–13 and 2013–14: a Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) report. DSITI, Brisbane, Table 4, p. 34

Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation. 2016. Land cover change in Queensland 2014–15: a Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) report. DSITI, Brisbane, Table 4, p. 21

Perry, N., “The NSW government is choosing to undermine native vegetation and biodiversity”, The Conversation, 9th May 2016,

Raper, A., “NSW Government laws to make it easier for farmers to clear land”, ABC News, 3rd May 2016,

New South Wales Government, “Legislation to repeal Native Vegetation Act passes NSW Parliament”, 17th November 2016,

Brodie, J., “Cloudy issue: we need to fix the Barrier Reef’s murky waters”, The Conversation, 21st May 2015,

Kroon, F., Turner, R., Smith, R., Warne, M., Hunter, H., Bartley, R., Wilkinson, S., Lewis, S., Waters, D., Caroll, C., 2013 “Scientific Consensus Statement: Sources of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment”, Ch. 4, p. 12, The State of Queensland, Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, July, 2013,

Queensland Government, “Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2015: Reef water quality protection plan”, and

The Climate Council of Australia, “Raise the reef”, 13th October 2016,

Manning, P., “Wrestling with a climate conundrum”, Sydney Morning Herald, 19th Feb 2011,

De’ath, G., Katharina Fabricius, K.E., Sweatman, H., Puotinen, M., “The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes”, PNAS 2012 109 (44) 17995-17999; published ahead of print October 1, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1208909109 (Cited in Brodie, J. ibid.),

The Climate Council of Australia, “From farm to plate to the atmosphere: food-related emissions”, 16th October 2016,

The Climate Council of Australia, “Feeding a Hungry Nation: Climate change, Food and Farming in Australia” by Lesley Hughes, Will Steffen, Martin Rice and Alix Pearce, 7th October 2015, and

The Climate Council of Australia, “The Critical Decade: Queensland climate impacts and opportunities” by Will Steffen, Lesley Hughes, Veena Sahajwalla and Gerry Hueston, 2012, and

Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute of The University of Melbourne, “Zero Carbon Australia – Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry – Discussion Paper”, October, 2014,

Australian Government, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, “Managing the reef”, undated,

Australian Government, Australian Institute of Marine Science, “Backgrounder: Impact of land runoff”, undated,

World Wide Fund for Nature, “Accelerating bushland destruction in Queensland: Clearing under Self Assessable Codes takes major leap upward”, March 2017,

Barbour, L. and Locke, S., “Australian meat industry wins better access to lucrative Chinese market”, ABC News, 24th March 2017,, “Australian state buys cattle station to help Barrier Reef”, 22nd June 2016,

Willacy, M., ABC News, “Great Barrier Reef: Queensland Government buys $7m cattle station in ‘unprecedented’ protection bid”, 28th June 2016,

Thomsen, S., “The Queensland government just spent $7 million buying a huge farm to stop run-off into the Great Barrier Reef”, 22nd June 2016,

The State of Queensland, “Springvale Station”, undated,
The State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection) 2017, Plan of Springvale Station,

Slaney & Co, “Springvale Station, Lakeland: Largescale irrigated farming opportunity” (Property ID #1297) (accessed 24th March 2017),


NASA Goddard Space Flight Center | Heavy Sediment along the Queensland Coast | Flickr | Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

Climate Council of Australia, “Raise the Reef”, op cit., Creative Commons attribution 3.0 Australia license (CC By 3.0 AU) (Climate Council reports note that “Climate Council of Australia Ltd copyright material is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License.”)

Map of landclearing notifications in Queensland, Notifications of 10 ha or more under Queensland’s Self-Assessable clearing codes from end of July 2016 to Feb 2017, by lots on plans, originally accessed at

World Economic Forum | The Global Impact of China’s Economic Transformation: Li Keqiang | Flickr | 21st January 2015 | Creative Commons NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)


WWF, “ABC News: Qld Government buys Cape York Cattle Property”, 23rd June 2016,


For clarity, the term “the overall area” has been replaced with “the figures” in the fourth paragraph.

5th August 2017: Two paragraphs have been amended to clarify the fact that erosion from cattle grazing occurs on uncleared, as well as cleared, land (consistent with many of my previous articles).


Australian Pork Limited (APL) is an industry organisation that describes itself as “the producer owned organisation supporting and promoting the Australian pork industry”.

Despite potential bias, the organisation is seemingly permitted to supply “educational” material to kindergartens and schools as part of its “Pigs in Schools” program. [1] [2] This article comments on its publication for Foundation – Year 2 levels (generally ages 4-7) and also refers to APL-provided feedback from a teacher on material prepared for older students. [3]

Promotional and other videos

In February 2016, APL published a video (Video 1 below) of teacher Kiara Edwards from Mt Compass Area School in South Australia, praising the APL material. Ms Edwards is clearly a committed and enthusiastic teacher, seemingly with a strong background in certain aspects of animal agriculture. However, in respect of pigs, she may have been over-reliant on material supplied by APL.

Despite admitting to having almost no knowledge of pigs before receiving the APL material, Ms Edwards seemed convinced, after watching an APL promotional video contained within the package (Video 2 below), that material produced by animal activist groups was inaccurate. Here’s some of what she said:

“One [resource] that stood out to me just allowed the kids to be able to see it from a different point of view, that not everything they see on TV and read in the newspaper is true and correct. There was a really good video that was in the package where I set it up with the kids. They had the video that was put up by an animal activist group. I played that video. I got the kids to go through that video and say right, what do we think about pig farming, and this was the start of my lesson, and they said, you know, they just listened to that video, and then in the resource pack, they actually had the farmer’s point of view.

[Cross to video of pig farmer, Ean Pollard, sitting amongst hay bales and piglets, talking about the night activists had filmed inside one of his sheds.]

And our eyes were just amazed to think that, you know, wow . . .  what you hear isn’t happening in the pork industry and they are so proactive in what they’re doing, so they’re really, really good resources. I’d recommend them to anybody.”

She was also clearly impressed with industry personnel (with my underline):

“They’re the only industry that have really got their resources spot on, like with resources and being able to contact people like Popey, like just on the call.” [“Popey” may have been Graeme Pope of Graeme Pope Consulting, founder of the South Australian Future Pork Network and a quality auditor for APL.] [Footnote 1]

It seems Ms Edwards is comfortable with the idea of the students using marking paint on live piglets to demonstrate the “main cuts”:

“So they [the kids] do art in terms of they go and we learn the parts of a pig and then when they get big enough we go out and we get some marking paint and they do the main cuts and all that.”

That activity helped to support her focus on a cross-curricular approach to studying pigs, including art.

She seems similarly comfortable with the practice of naming the piglets, then sending them to slaughter and selling and eating the end “product”:

“And what we do is we actually sell the meat.

[Cross to image of pig meat.]

We get it processed at an abattoir, then it goes to our local butcher, and then we sell the fresh pork to the staff, and there’s a waiting list so we can’t get enough of it and it’s delicious and it’s great because the kids set up – we do a cost analogy [sic] on how much, like, the input costs, they work out how much profit they would like to make, which sometimes is a lot because they think it buys them all sorts of good things but, and then we scale it down and work out that, hang on, this is actually going home to parents and all that, and yeah, they sell the pork. They actually go to the, um, when the pork is getting sold.

We bring it here. The customer or consumer comes direct here and we let them know about the pork, what the pigs were like, they name them and that sort of stuff, so it’s a bit of paddock to plate all the way through and the kids absolutely love it so it’s really good.”

Here’s the video featuring Kiara Edwards (duration 9:28).

APL Promotional Video 1 (discussing “Pigs in Schools” program)

I’d like to have seen some empathy for the piglets, who are in the school’s care for ten weeks at a time, but it was not apparent.

Here’s the promotional video (duration 2:44) referred to earlier, which is included in the kit supplied to schools. Ean Pollard concludes the video with these words: “If we can’t produce pork in God’s country, God knows where we’re gonna get it from.”

APL Promotional Video 2 (included in school kit)

The keeper of the “maternity ward” in Video 2 says, “And did you know over a million piglets Australia-wide are saved by having these farrowing crates”. That’s the annual figure according to the APL educational material and a separate “fact sheet“. [4] No verification has been supplied in either document. It may be an adventurous claim in the context of between 4.5 and 5 million pigs born in Australia each year. In nature, the problem is almost non-existent, as described by author Jeffrey Masson in his book “The Pig who sang to the Moon” [5]:

“In the wild, . . . sows getting ready to give birth will often construct protective nests as high as three feet. They line these farrowing nests with mouthfuls of grass and sometimes even manage to construct a roof made of sticks – a safe and comfortable home-like structure. On modern pig farms, where the mother is forced to give birth on concrete floors, her babies are often crushed when she rolls over. This never happens in the wild because the baby simply slips through the nest and finds her way back to her own teat.”

A video from Animal Liberation ACT, reported to be of Mr Pollard’s Lansdowne piggery, was prepared in response to APL Video 2. [6] The video focused on the farrowing crate area of the piggery (with plenty of steel and concrete but no hay). Images were also released, including the group housing area.

Selection of images from Animal Liberation ACT reportedly from Ean Pollard’s Lansdowne piggery

Go to bottom of page. WARNING: Graphic images.

Animal Liberation ACT Video

Here is Animal Liberation ACT’s video of the farrowing crate area (duration 7:17). WARNING: Graphic footage.


Teachers as co-learners

The “Educational Unit” booklet contains the following rhetorical teacher’s question:

“I don’t know much about pork production myself – will I be able to teach it effectively?”


“Yes! The unit is designed in such a way that you, as the teacher are a co-learner and you are provided with teacher notes, plus the resources are mainly web-based and are readily available. Most importantly, you will find that you learn with the students and make discoveries with them.”

So teachers may depend entirely on what an organisation, established for the purpose of supporting and promoting the pig meat industry, tells it.

Is that the sort of education we want in Australia?

Looking after pigs

The booklet refers glowingly to the euphemistically-titled Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals (Pigs). Epitomising the world of political doublespeak, the “welfare” code (reflected in exemptions to state-based “prevention of cruelty to animals” legislation) permits the following horrendously cruel practices, most of which apply routinely to the vast majority of pigs used for food:

  • life-long confinement indoors;
  • confinement in a sow stall, with insufficient room to turn around, for up to 16.5 weeks, day and night;
  • confinement in a farrowing crate, with insufficient room to turn around or interact with piglets, for up to 6 weeks, day and night;
  • tail docking without anaesthetic;
  • ear notching without anaesthetic;
  • teeth clipping without anaesthetic;
  • castration without anaesthetic.

APL’s so-called voluntary ban on sow stalls, scheduled to commence this year (and already implemented by many member establishments but possibly irrelevant to non-members), will still allow them to be used for up to eleven days per pregnancy, and will not be binding on individual producers. In any event, the ability to monitor compliance must be questionable.

The industry has not indicated any action in respect of farrowing crates, which are even more restrictive than sow stalls. In its educational material, APL states, “a farrowing stall allows a sow to stand up, lie down and stretch out . . .”. But they cannot turn around. They cannot interact with their piglets. They cannot behave naturally. It sounds like hell on earth.

In his video appearance referred to earlier, Ean Pollard said:

“You may have seen some footage that activists have taken of sows [in sow stalls] that have been woken up early in the morning, and expected to be fed. And then when they weren’t fed, they got upset. So how would you feel if someone came into your bedroom in the early hours of the morning and woke you up.”

My answer is that I would not be happy, but I’d be far less happy if I spent 24 hours per day for sixteen weeks locked in an indoor cage that was so small, I couldn’t even turn around. I would also not be happy living my entire life indoors. Being woken in the early hours would be the least of my worries.


The booklet and Video 1 also commented on sustainability aspects of pig meat production, with the issue said to be “the dominant cross curriculum perspective”. The booklet claims: “GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions produced by the pork industry are significantly lower than other agricultural sectors, such as beef cattle, dairy cattle and sheep.”

It’s amusing that they chose the highest-emitting agricultural sectors to compare themselves against. Here’s how the emissions intensity of pig meat compares to that of some plant-based options, noting that soybeans contain more high-quality protein per kilogram than pig meat. [7] [Footnotes 2 and 3] (The term “GWP” relates to the global warming potential of different greenhouse gases measured over 100-year or 20-year time horizons.)

Figure 1: Emissions intensity per kg protein (kg CO2-e/kg protein)

Video 1 (referred to earlier) included Edwina Beveridge of Blantyre Farms demonstrating some aspects of her establishment’s biogas facility, whereby methane from effluent ponds is used to produce electricity. Such facilities are not widespread. In any event, the methane they use (which is a potent greenhouse gas) would not exist if consumers utilised plant-based options rather than pig meat.

Also, nitrous oxide emitted from manure, along with any fugitive methane emissions from the biogas process, would almost certainly offset any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions achieved by the farm using self-generated electricity. The respective global warming impacts of nitrous oxide and methane are 268 and 86 times that of carbon dioxide when measured over a 20-year time horizon. The figures are 298 and 34 over a 100-year time horizon.

The grossly and inherently inefficient nature of animal-based nutrition is also a major concern. It takes 5.7 kilograms of plant-based protein to create 1 kilogram of pig meat protein, with the result that far more resources, including land, are used than would otherwise be required. [8] That has major implications for forested areas such as the Amazon and Cerrado regions of South America, where most of the soy bean production that contributes to land clearing is destined for pigs and other farm animals. The clearing increases the likelihood of tipping points being breached and runaway climate change being triggered, over which we will have virtually no control. The trade in soy beans is global, with demand in any one country contributing to the overall extent of land clearing, including the clearing in South America.

Relatively high water usage and massive amounts of effluent (whether or not used in biogas production) are other key issues for pig meat establishments.

Promoting Australian pork: “Get some pork on your fork”

The educational booklet points out (possibly with despair) that 65 per cent of processed pig meat sold in Australia “is made from frozen boneless pork imported from places like Denmark, Canada and the United States”.

It then tells the teachers and students how to identify the Australian product.

That could be a strong example of the possible promotional intent of APL’s education kits.

In line with its major “get some pork on your fork” advertising campaign, on one page of the educational booklet’s teacher notes, there are four references to getting product from farm to fork. The line between advertising, PR and “education” appears to be extremely thin.

Healthy eating?

The booklet identifies a key activity in the form of investigating concepts and ideas about how food produced by pigs can be prepared for healthy eating.

Contrary to that notion, World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF International) published its Second Expert Report in 2007, titled “Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective”. The report was issued jointly with one of WCRF’s network members, the American Institute for Cancer Research. [9]

The report contained recommendations relating to red and processed meat (Recommendation 5, Chapter 12). For the purpose of the analysis, beef, pork, lamb, and goat were all considered to be forms of red meat. Processed meat consisted of meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or addition of chemical preservatives. Such meat includes ham and bacon.

WCRF International stated (p. 382):

“The evidence that red meat is a cause of colorectal cancer is convincing. The evidence that processed meat is a cause of colorectal cancer is also convincing.” (The “convincing” category is WCRF’s strongest.)

WCRF UK has stated:

“The Panel of Experts could find no amount of processed meat that can be confidently shown not to increase cancer risk. That is why WCRF UK recommends people avoid processed meat to reduce their bowel cancer risk.” [10]

As part of WCRF International’s Continuous Update Project, in 2010, a research team at Imperial College London produced an updated systematic literature review of the evidence from 263 new papers on food, nutrition and physical activity. [11] WCRF International’s Expert Panel considered the updated evidence and agreed that the findings confirmed or strengthened the convincing and probable conclusions of the Second Expert Report for colorectal cancer.

One of WCRF’s key recommendations is to eat mostly foods of plant origin.

Similar findings on red and processed meat were reported in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization (WHO). In reporting the findings, Harvard University stated [12]:

“Consumption of processed meat was classified as carcinogenic and red meat as probably carcinogenic after the IARC Working Group – comprised of 22 scientists from ten countries – evaluated over 800 studies. Conclusions were primarily based on the evidence for colorectal cancer. Data also showed positive associations between processed meat consumption and stomach cancer, and between red meat consumption and pancreatic and prostate cancer.”

Processed red meats, such as bacon, sausage, salami and deli meats, are also associated with much higher risk of heart disease. [13]

Quality assurance and Oliver’s Piggery

APL is the owner and managing agent of the Australian Pork Industry Quality Assurance Program (APIQ). The questionable validity of this industry self audit process was highlighted in the 2009 case of Olivers Piggery in Tasmania.

Just three months before visits by animal activists and police, the piggery was inspected by an APIQ auditor. According to presenter Liam Bartlett in Channel 9’s60 Minutes” episode “The Hidden Truth”, the auditor gave the piggery “the all-clear”. [14] He said it was only a clerical error by Mr Oliver that prevented the piggery from being accredited by APL. A court convicted Mr Oliver and the company that operated the piggery with animal cruelty.

At the time the activists recorded their video, Mr Oliver was appearing in brochures as one of Woolworths “fresh food people”. The business had been supplying Woolworths for ten years, and was supplying 20 per cent of the fresh pork sold in its Tasmanian supermarkets.

A shareholder and director of the company operating the piggery was a board member of APL.

APL Disclaimer

Perhaps wisely, APL has included this comment in a disclaimer within the educational booklet (with my underlines):

“. . . While APL has no reason to believe that the information contained in this publication is inaccurate, APL is unable to guarantee the accuracy of the information . . . The information contained in this publication should not be relied upon for any purpose . . .”

A similar disclaimer appeared in Video 1.


Parents and children place enormous trust in educational institutions. To subject children to biased promotional material in support of a profit-oriented industry group is an extremely questionable practice that each state’s education and agriculture departments need to address.


Paul Mahony

Related article

Meat, the environment and industry brainwashing (relating to a similar exercise by Meat & Livestock Australia in support of cattle meat, sheep meat and goat meat producers)


  1. Graeme Pope’s industry bio states (with my underline) that he “has a strong interest in working with rural media and agricultural students to improve the public image of commercial pork production”.
  2. The protein-based emissions intensity figures for pig meat shown here (from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) are higher than estimates I have conservatively reported elsewhere, where I chose not to adjust for yield.
  3. Pulses comprise chickpeas, lentils, dried beans and dried peas. Along with soybeans, peanuts, fresh beans and fresh peas, they are members of the “legume” food group.


Vegetarian Starter Kit (Animals Australia)

Vegan Easy (Animal Liberation Victoria)

Vegan Australia


Comments on land clearing added on 13th March 2017


[1] Australian Pork Limited, Library and Resources, Units,

[2] Australian Pork Limited, Media Release, “APL Serves up new teaching resource”, 9th January 2017,

[3] Australian Pork Limited, “An Educational Unit for Foundation – Year 2: Investigating pigs and what they produce”,

[4] Australian Pork Limited, “Get the facts on your pork industry”, undated,

[5] Masson, J.M., “The pig who sang to the moon: The emotional world of farm animals”, Ballantine, 2005

[6] Aussie Pigs, Lansdowne Piggery,

[7] Derived from: (a) MacLeod, M., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., Falcucci, A., Opio, C., Vellinga, T., Henderson, B. and Steinfeld, H. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains – A global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Table 32, p. 68 [Pig meat]; (b) Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Figure 18, p. 35 [Pig meat]; (c) Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1 [Pulses and soybeans] (d) Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” , Table 8.7, p. 714 [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, [GWP]

[8] Tilman, D., Clark, M., “Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health”, Nature515, 518–522 (27 November 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13959, Extended Data Table 7 “Protein conversion ratios of livestock production systems”,

[9] World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research, “Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective”, Washington DC: AICR, 2007, and, Chapter 12

[10] World Cancer Research Fund UK, “Informed – Issue 36, Winter 2009”,

[11] World Cancer Research Fund International, Colorectal Cancer, Latest Evidence,

[12] Harvard University, T.H. Chan School of Public Health, “WHO report says eating processed meat is carcinogenic: Understanding the findings”, undated, https://www.hsph.harvard.ed/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/

[13] Pendick, D., “New study links L-carnitine in red meat to heart disease”, Harvard Health Publications – Harvard Medical School, 17th April, 2013,

[14] 60 Minutes, Nine Network, “The Hidden Truth”, 20th November, 2009


School children in classroom at lesson © Oksana Kuzmina | Shutterstock

Aussie Pigs, Lansdowne Piggery,

Selection of images from Animal Liberation ACT reportedly from Ean Pollard’s Lansdowne piggery

WARNING: Graphic images.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Director general of the International Livestock Research Institute, Dr Jimmy Smith, seems to have got it wrong a couple of times when commenting on dietary choices.

Speaking on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio National Breakfast program in 2013, he sought to perpetuate the so-called “protein myth” in favour of livestock production, ignoring the fact that soybeans (for example) contain around thirty-five per cent more protein per kilogram than beef, with all the essential amino acids. [1] [2]

Then in August 2016, he appeared to misstate the findings of an analysis published the previous month in the journal Elementa. [3] [4] The researchers on that occasion had found that the vegan diet (which excludes all animal products) required the least amount of land (per person fed and in absolute terms) out of ten alternative dietary scenarios. However, Smith claimed in the Guardian that the researchers had found that the vegan diet fell behind certain other diets (including some containing meat) on that measure.

Here’s a chart from the researcher’s paper, showing the vegan diet on the right.

Figure 1: Annual per capita requirements for productive agricultural land by diet scenario and category of land use


Seven of the diets that were analysed included meat. The best-performing of those required nearly twice as much land per person as the vegan diet, while the worst-performing required more than eight times as much. The vegetarian diets, including dairy and/or egg, required nearly eight per cent more land per person than the vegan diet.

While four of the diets were able to feed between 2.3 and 9.7  per cent more people than the vegan diet, the researchers did not analyse consequences in terms of human health, planetary health (along with resultant food production impacts), biodiversity loss or the impact on food production animals themselves. The purpose of the analysis was to compare, firstly, per capita land requirements and secondly, potential carrying capacity as measured by the number of people fed.

Even on the second measure, the vegan diet performed extremely well. The research was based on the US food system, where the authors estimated that a vegan diet could support a population nearly 2.4 times the 2010 figure (although there was no suggestion we should aim for such a population level). The five worst-performing diets based on that measure, all containing meat and other animal products, would feed between 9 and 45 per cent fewer people than the vegan diet.

In the same Guardian article, Smith said that other research had found that medium levels of livestock grazing, rather than none at all, were better for the health, productivity and biodiversity of certain rangelands. [5] However, the cited paper did not consider the zero livestock grazing option.

The same problem applied to his assertion (citing material from the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) that such areas sequester large amounts of carbon in their soils when managed well. [6]

Smith acknowledged livestock-related problems concerning: resource usage (including water); greenhouse gas emissions; human health (including obesity); infectious disease; overuse of antibiotics; and animal welfare. He argued that such problems should not cause us to “turn away from livestock”, noting that the problems are “being addressed today in multi-institutional initiatives”.

However, the problems are so great that the outcome of those “multi-institutional initiatives” might only represent some tinkering around the edges, with little or no meaningful benefit.

In addition to a general transition away from animal products, the solution may include what The Pew Charitable Trusts have referred to in the Australian context as “alternative economic options to pay for stewardship on pastoral properties”, including “the valuing of land management as a vital contribution to a sustainable Australia”. They have reported on the extensive economic and ecological benefits that have been derived from the introduction of indigenous ranger groups and the declaration of indigenous protected areas across huge regions.

They have also highlighted the improved conditions created when pastoralists have transitioned from grazing to ecotourism. Here’s a before-and-after photo showing the “slow but sure regeneration of saltbush and other native vegetation” on the Western Australian property of David Pollock and Frances Jones, Wooleen Station. [7]


To encourage reduced consumption of animal products, governments could introduce appropriate pricing signals, with related tax revenues being returned to the community through personal income tax reductions and adjustments to welfare payments.


Paul Mahony


[1] ABC Radio National Breakfast, “Feeding a hungry world”, 17th September 2013,

[2] USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference at via Nutrition Data at

[3] Smith, J., “Veganism is not the key to sustainable development – natural resources are vital”, The Guardian, 16th August 2016,

[4] Peters, C.J., Picardy, J., Darrouzet-Nardi, A.F., Wilkins, J.L., Griffin, T.S., Fick, G.W., Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios“, Elementa,

[5] Conant, R. T., and K. Paustian, “Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems”, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16(4), 1143, doi:10.1029/2001GB001661, 2002

[6] Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G., 2013, “Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome,

[7] Woinarski, J., Traill, B., Booth, C., “The Modern Outback: Nature, people, and the future of remote Australia”, The Pew Charitable Trusts, October 2014, p. 206-212, including image © Sue Vittori (p. 210),


International Livestock Research Institute (Paul Karaimu), “Jimmy Smith, director general of ILRI”, Flickr, 2nd June 2011, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Peters, C.J., et al., op. cit., Figure 2, Creative Commons Attribution License

Wooleen Station © Sue Vittori, from Woinarski, J., et al., “The Modern Outback”, op. cit., p. 210, used with permission


  • The words “per person” have been added twice to the first paragraph below Figure 1. [18th February, 2016]
  • The third paragraph below Figure 1 has been extended to include a comment on the five worst-performing diets (all animal-based) in terms of the number of people fed. [18th February, 2016]
  • The third paragraph of the article has been amended to refer to the amount of land “per person fed and in absolute terms”. [23rd February, 2016]


It may be easy to assume that an organisation with the word “youth” in the title is progressive. However, there have been exceptions in the past, and sadly, it seems there are today.

I have commented previously on Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s failure to adequately consider the impact of a major contributor to climate change, animal agriculture. [1]

This article focuses on Youth Food Movement Australia (YFM) and its collaborations with Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA).

What are YFM’s mission and objectives?

Something I find a little confusing is that YFM has two mission statements.

Mission Statement as described on YFM’s website:

“To build a healthy and secure food future for all Australians.” [2]

Mission Statement as described on YFM’s 2015 annual statement to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC):

“To grow a generation of young Australians empowered with the ability to make healthy and sustainable food choices.” [3]

The first is far broader than the second, with no hint as to which one actually applies. Neither seems to be adequately supported by the organisation’s actions, as referred to below.

YFM’s objectives (with my underlines):

Educate and empower Consumers to make informed decisions regarding food systems; including, health, environmental, biodiversity and equitable [sic] issues surrounding how food is bought, consumed and disposed of locally and in Australia.

Facilitate and organise networks and events for Producers and Consumers to strengthen individual activism and community projects and to raise awareness of food related issues as a platform for knowledge exchange and communication.

Publically [sic] advocate and make written submissions on issues of food sustainability and equality on behalf of Producers and Consumers to any Commonwealth, State of [sic] any other governmental authority or tribunal to further the advancement of food policy in Australia. [3]

That may be a mouthful, but YFM seems to be claiming it is concerned about:

  • human health;
  • the environment, including sustainability and biodiversity;
  • equity (assuming that’s what it means when referring to “equitable issues” and “equality”).

The objectives raise a key question:

As part of its objective to “educate” consumers, why does YFM largely ignore the negative impacts of animal agriculture on animals, the planet, human health and social justice?

The social justice issue partially arises from the fact that animal agriculture is a grossly and inherently inefficient way to obtain our nutritional requirements. A 2013 paper from the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota indicated [4]:

“The world’s croplands could feed 4 billion more people than they do now just by shifting from producing animal feed and biofuels to producing exclusively food for human consumption.”

Animal feed crops represent 90% of that figure (in turn representing 3.6 billion people), and biofuels only 10%.

Although the authors were not advocating for another 4 billion people, the transition would enable us to feed the nearly 800 million people who are chronically under-nourished, provided we were willing to share the benefits fairly. [5]

YFM’s failure to adequately consider livestock’s negative impacts is particularly concerning when it states:

“We simply advocate for the importance of understanding your food.”

It claims that two of its values are authenticity and transparency, but are they evident?

Contrived PR?

YFM seems to try hard to match its language to that of its target market, but I find it tiresome and contrived. Here’s an example from its “Spoonled” anti-waste page:

“Gen-Y (18-30) we’re lookin’ at’choo.”

Is this really young people talking to young people, or could external PR consultants be involved, such as those used extensively by MLA? [Footnote 1]

Another example was this response when I asked on Twitter about YFM’s 2015 “beefjam” collaboration with MLA (as referred to below):

#beefjam is a project collaboration with @Target100AUS amazeballs crew.”



YFM’s Collaborations with Meat & Livestock Australia

YFM has collaborated with MLA in two exercises; a project known as “Beefjam” and a three-day visit to Bangor Farm in Tasmania. Both were organised in conjunction with MLA through its Target 100 initiative, which it claims involves “100 research, development and extension activities covering soil, water, energy, pests and weeds, biodiversity, emissions and animal welfare”.

I comment on both projects below, but firstly, it’s important to consider some aspects of MLA.

The organisation describes itself as:

“the marketing, research and development body for Australia’s red meat and livestock industry”. [6]

Is the marketing role compatible with legitimate research and development?

The question may be particularly relevant when, in the same description, MLA states (with my underlines):

“MLA’s core focus is to deliver value to its 50,000 levy paying members by:

growing demand for red meat; and

– improving profitability, sustainability and global competitiveness.”

I have challenged material from MLA in my articles “Meat, the environment and industry brainwashing“, “An industry shooting itself in the foot over “Cowspiracy” and “Emissions intensity of Australian beef“.

In the first of those (as an example), I commented on a so-called “curriculum guide” created by MLA for primary school students.

I argued that the guide:

  • inadequately allowed for livestock related water use, land clearing, land degradation (including erosion), loss of habitat and loss of biodiversity;
  • misstated the ability of livestock’s direct emissions to be absorbed by the biosphere;
  • ignored the very significant global warming impact of those emissions; and
  • misstated the extent of modern ruminant livestock numbers relative to historic figures.

I concluded with concern about the PR machine of an industry group such as MLA seeking to influence the thoughts and actions of children via publications represented as legitimate educational tools.

MLA has not limited its reach to the class room, and YFM may represent another means of extending its audience using sophisticated PR techniques.


The Beefjam project occurred in mid-2015. Here’s how YFM described it (with my underlines):

“BeefJam is a 3-day event that takes young producers and consumers on a crash course of the Australian beef supply chain and gives them 48hrs to reshape the way we grow, buy and eat our red meat.

Fifteen lucky applicants – 8 young consumers and 7 young producers – were given the chance to see, hear, smell and touch the whole Australian beef supply chain. That means all the different stages a piece of meat will travel through before it reaches your plate. From farm, to feedlot, to processor (you might know that as an abattoir) and then to retailer, ‘Jammers’ were able to experience the whole system, but also given the opportunity to ask big questions about how we feed ourselves, and the world, as we move into a food-challenged future.

BeefJam culminated with a 48 hour ‘jam’ where young producers and consumers collectively designed and prototyped solutions to challenges surrounding Australian beef.”

It may be insightful that a cow or lamb enjoying a warm day in an open field could be considered “a piece of meat”.

In its article about a visit to a slaughterhouse, we were presented with a photo of twenty-one mostly smiling faces, decked out in biosecurity gear, ready to check out the process. [7] YFM and MLA did not choose a “run of the mill” slaughterhouse for the visit. It was the Stanbroke Pastoral Company slaughterhouse, which the organisation’s website indicates is in the Lockyer Valley, Queensland. According to Stanbroke, it “sets world standards in equipment methods and technology”.

Regardless of what the attendees were shown, no animals at the facility or elsewhere choose to have a bolt gun fired into their skull, then hoisted by a rear leg for the purpose of having their throat cut.

Yet a Beefjam participant in a related video tells us repeatedly that slaughterhouse workers “respect” the animals.

That type of respect is something I could do without.

Some other points YFM and MLA did not raise with Beefjam attendees

Mark Pershin is the founder and CEO of climate change campaign group Less Meat Less Heat. He attended Beefjam, and I asked him about the information the attendees had been provided in their exploration of “the whole Australian beef supply chain”. Sadly, YFM and MLA said nothing about the following issues:

  • the extent of land cleared in Australia for beef production;
  • cattle’s impact on land degradation, biodiversity loss and introduction of invasive grass species;
  • legalised cruelty, such as castration; dehorning; disbudding; and hot iron branding (usually performed without anaesthetic).


MLA claims to be concerned about sustainability, which it suggests includes (in an unusual interpretation of the term) “good animal welfare”. [Footnote 2] Here’s what they’ve said (with my underline) [8]:

“Australian cattle and sheep farmers are committed to producing beef and lamb sustainably . . . For Australia’s cattle and sheep farmers, sustainability isn’t only about the environment, it’s also about good animal welfare, contributing to their local communities, and ensuring that cattle and sheep farming is economically viable for future generations.”

Do the practices described above represent good animal welfare? They may be legal, but that simply means that governments around Australia consider animal cruelty to be an acceptable outcome of producing various types of food we do not need.

In relation to beef production’s environmental impacts, Beefjam attendees were addressed by Steve Wiedemann, who at that time was a principal consultant with FSA Consulting. The firm provides services to the agriculture sector, describing itself as “Australia’s predominant environmental consultancy for intensive livestock industries, environmental and natural resource management and water supply and irrigation”.

Wiedemann was the corresponding author of the paper I commented on in my article “Emissions intensity of Australian beef“, as referred to earlier. [9] [10] I highlighted the following concerns about that paper and/or the related promotional efforts of MLA:

  • Out of date 100-year “global warming potential” (GWP) used for the purpose of assessing the warming impact of non-CO2 greenhouse gases.
  • 20-year GWP should be considered, in addition to the 100-year figure, in order to allow for the near-term impact of the various greenhouse gases. That is a critical factor when considering potential climate change tipping points and runaway climate change.
  • The figures were based on the live weight of the animals, rather than the more conventional carcass weight or retail weight.
  • Livestock-related land clearing is increasing despite MLA’s implication to the contrary.
  • Savanna burning was omitted.
  • Foregone sequestration was omitted.
  • Short-lived global warming agents such as tropospheric ozone and black carbon were omitted.
  • Soil carbon losses may have been understated.

There are many ways to present data and information, and the authors of the paper may legitimately argue that their findings, published in a peer-reviewed journal, were valid. However, there are valid alternative approaches that result in findings that are less favourable to the livestock sector.

When applying only some of the factors referred to above, the emissions intensity of beef nearly triples from the figure estimated by Weidemann and his co-authors. When basing the results on figures for Oceania (dominated by Australia) from the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), there is a 5.6-fold increase from Wiedemann’s figure. [Footnote 3]

Some footage YFM and MLA did not show Beefjam attendees

If you’d like to see some of the reality of Australian cattle and lamb slaughter (a key component of the industry serviced by MLA), you can check out undercover footage from the Aussie Farms website here and from Animal Liberation NSW here. [11] [12] Warning: Graphic footage.

As stated in the first video, every year, around 17-19 million lambs are killed in Australian slaughterhouses at around six months of age. Due to the high demand for meat and the resultant speed of the process, many are killed without being properly stunned. Many in the videos writhe on the kill table before and after having their throat cut.

What were the outcomes of Beefjam?

As stated earlier, YFM has reported that Beefjam participants collectively designed and prototyped solutions to challenges surrounding Australian beef.

But where are the details?

For such a commitment in terms of time and money, the output from the event seems incredibly scant.

Bangor Farm, Tasmania

While “Beefjam” involved YFM and Target 100 selecting the “lucky” participants, the role was left solely to Target 100 for the three-day visit to Bangor Farm in Tasmania.

And who should be among the three participants this time? None other than YFM co-founder, Joanna Baker. [13]

As with the slaughterhouse mentioned earlier, Target 100 did not select any old farm for the visit. A farm in northern Australian (where 70 per cent of our beef is produced), denuded of grass and losing top soil at a rapid rate, just wouldn’t do. They chose a farm in temperate Tasmania, with sweeping ocean views and much of the original forest cover in place.

Such an approach largely ignores the overall environmental impact of livestock production compared to the benefits that could be achieved with a general transition away from animal-based foods.

One of the highlights of a related Target 100 promotional video was weed control on the farm, which the grazing of sheep is said to enhance. There was no mention of comments from The Pew Charitable Trusts, who have reported on the destructive environmental impacts of livestock grazing, including the introduction of invasive pasture grasses, manipulation of fire regimes, tree clearing, and degradation of land and natural water sources. [14]

15 per cent of Bangor farm is said to have been cleared for pasture, with the balance being native grasslands and forest where light grazing occurs. [15] [16]

Regardless of how one may perceive Bangor, because we need to allow massive areas of cleared grazing lands to regenerate to something approaching their original state in order to overcome climate change, livestock farming at current levels cannot realistically be considered sustainable. [17] [18]

A report by the World Wildlife Fund has identified eastern Australia as one of eleven global “deforestation fronts” for the twenty years to 2030 due to livestock-related land clearing in Queensland and New South Wales. [19]

Here are some extracts from Target 100’s videos dealing with the visit, along with some of my thoughts:

Jo: “Hearing from Matt that we aren’t producing beyond our land’s capacity was a surprise for me.” [Terrastendo: But overall, we are Jo, and it’s primarily because of animal agriculture.]

Matt: “People talk about emissions, carbon emissions from sheep and cattle. Part of the way we address that is to try and grow them quickly.” [Terrastendo: Do we grow a cow or a sheep like a plant in a pot? Even raising the animals quickly leaves the emissions from animal agriculture on a different paradigm to those from plant-based agriculture.]

Jo: “So that there’s less inputs that go into actually growing that lamb, which in a way makes it a lot more sustainable for the farmer and the landscape.” [Terrastendo: But Jo, beef production is not sustainable at levels required to feed the masses. And do you also believe we can grow an animal like a pot plant?]

Even allowing for faster growth rates in Australia than many other countries, along with better feed digestibility and other factors, the Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN has estimated that the emissions intensity of beef production in Oceania (dominated by Australia) is around 35 kilograms of greenhouse gases per kilogram of product. That’s based on a 100-year time horizon for measuring the global warming potential (GWP) of different greenhouse gases. If we convert the figure to a 20-year estimate, it increases to around 72 kilograms. [Footnote 3]

The FAO’s global average figure for beef from grass-fed cattle is 102 tonnes of greenhouse gases per tonne of product based on a 100-year GWP. [20] That increases to 209 tonnes per tonne of product based on a twenty year figure, which is equivalent to around 774 tonnes of greenhouse gases per tonne of protein. [Footnote 3]

Compare those figures to the figure of 1 tonne of CO2 per tonne of product for cement production, as referred to by Professor Tim Flannery in his book, “Atmosphere of Hope”. [21] Flannery (who was previously contracted to MLA) expressed concern over the figure for cement, but seems unconcerned about the high level of emissions from beef production. [22]

Direct funding

The relationship between YFM and MLA includes direct funding.

As part of a crowd funding campaign in 2016, under the MLA logo and the heading “An extra big thank you”, YFM announced:

“High fives to Meat and Livestock Australia, who purchased our $5,500 perk!”

It is not known to what extent, if any, MLA contributed to YFM’s non-government income of $148,536 for the year ended 30th June 2015. The 2015/16 income statement is yet to be published by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

There are no “joining” or “subscription” fees for individuals who want to become involved with YFM.

In early 2016, YFM announced a three-year grant from Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation. [23]


To conclude, let’s consider some thoughts of Alexandra Iljadica, who co-founded YFM with Baker.

Asked about her “favourite food moment” in an interview on the YFM website, Iljadica nominated the annual family feast in Croatia with her in-laws.

“Uncle Mile is a shepherd so will slaughter a lamb for the occasion, which we’ll enjoy with home-made prsut (Croatian for prosciutto), hard cheese made from sheep and goat milk and a tomato and cucumber salad picked 30 seconds before serving.” [24]

It seems that any one of the beauties shown here could be considered fair game by Uncle Mile, with Alexandra savouring the end result.


Don’t they deserve much better? Luckily for these happy individuals, they are living peacefully at Edgar’s Mission Farm Sanctuary in Victoria.


Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)


Thank you to Greg McFarlane for information on YFM’s funding, including the donation from MLA.


  1. MLA has won advertising industry awards such as Marketing Team of the Year and Advertiser of the Year. [25] PR and advertising firms it has utilised include: Republic of Everyone (“Bettertarian”); Totem (“#Goodmeat”); One Green Bean (one of two firms with “You’re better on beef”); BMF (one of two firms with “You’re better on beef”, plus “Generation Lamb”, “The beef oracle”, and “The Opponent”); and The Monkeys (Australia Day 2016 “Richie’s BBQ” and 2017 “Boat People”). Republic of Everyone has also created graphics proclaiming the supposed health benefits of eating red meat. I beg to differ, as outlined in my article “If you think it’s healthy to eat animals, perhaps you should think again” and elsewhere.
  2. Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) defined ecologically sustainable development as: “using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased” [26]
  3. The revised figures allow for the global average percentage split of the various factors contributing to the products’ emissions intensity, and are intended to be approximations only.

Related booklet

The low emissions diet: Eating for a safe climate


Additional comments and references added on 13th January 2017 in relation to the paper co-authored by Steve Wiedemann.

Footnote 1 extended on 26th January 2017.


Youth Food Movement Australia | YFM logo badge only | Flickr | Creative Commons NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) | |

Lambs | Edgar’s Mission Farm Sanctuary |


[1] Mahony, P., “The real elephant in AYCC’s climate change room”, 5th September 2013,

[2] Youth Food Movement Australia, “About”, (Accessed 9th January, 2016)

[3] Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, Annual Information Statement 2015, Youth Food Movement Australia Ltd, (Accessed 14th Sep 2016)

[4] CassidyE.S., West, P.C., Gerber, J.S., Foley, J.A., “Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare”, Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 034015 (8pp), doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015, cited in University of Minnesota News Release, 1 Aug 2013, “Existing Cropland Could Feed 4 Billion More”,

[5] World Hunger Education Service, Hunger Notes, “2016 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics”, (Accessed 30th September 2016)

[6] Meat and Livestock Australia, “About MLA”, (accessed 4th Sep 2016)

[7] Soutar, T., Youth Food Movement Australia, “Behind the scenes at an Australian abattoir”, 20th January 2016,

[8] Target 100, “About”, (accessed 4th Sep 2016)

[9] Mahony, P., “Emissions intensity of Australian beef”, Terrastendo, 30th June 2015,

[10] Wiedemann, S.G, Henry, B.K., McGahan, E.J., Grant, T., Murphy, C.M., Niethe, G., “Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981–2010″, Agricultural Systems, Volume 133, February 2015, Pages 109–118, and

[11] Aussie Farms, “Australian lambs slaughtered at Gathercole’s Abattoir, Wangaratta Vic”, Undated,

[12] Animal Liberation New South Wales, “Cruelty exposed at Hawkesbury Valley Abattoir”, 9th February 2012,

[13] Youth Food Movement Australia, “Can meat production and sustainability go hand in hand?”, 26th June 2014,

[14] Woinarski, J., Traill, B., Booth, C., “The Modern Outback: Nature, people, and the future of remote Australia”, The Pew Charitable Trusts, October 2014, p. 167-171

[15] True Aussie Beef and Lamb (Meat & Livestock Australia), What is Sustainable Farming | Where Does Our Meat Come From“, 4:07,,

[16] Paul Howard Cinematographer, “Target 100 Bettertarian Documentary”, 7:04,

[17] Hansen, J; Sato, M; Kharecha, P; Beerling, D; Berner, R; Masson-Delmotte, V; Pagani, M; Raymo, M; Royer, D.L.; and Zachos, J.C. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, 2008.

[18] Stehfest, E, Bouwman, L, van Vuuren, DP, den Elzen, MGJ, Eickhout, B and Kabat, P, “Climate benefits of changing diet” Climatic Change, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2 (2009), 83-102, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6 (Also

[19] World Wildlife Fund (Worldwide Fund for Nature), “WWF Living Forests Report”, Chapter 5 and Chapter 5 Executive Summary,;

[20] Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G., 2013, “Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Table 5, p. 24,;

[21] Flannery, T., “Atmosphere of Hope: Searching for Solutions to the Climate Crisis”, Text Publishing (2015), p. 170

[22] Manning, P., “Wrestling with a climate conundrum”, 19th Feb 2011,

[23] Youth Food Movement Australia, “Youth Food Movement Australia is getting bigger than ever”, 3rd February 2016,

[24] Youth Food Movement Australia, “Alexandra Iljadica: Tell us a bit about you?”, (Accessed 11th January 2016)

[25] Baker, R., “The Marketer: Meat & Livestock Australia, cleaving, the brave way”, AdNews, 16th November 2015,

[26] Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Energy, “Ecologically sustainable development”, (Accessed 14th Sep 2016)

The clouds begin to thin over the Arctic Ocean Aug. 19, 2009.

Sea ice is a critical factor in the global climate crisis. Although melting sea ice does not contribute directly to sea level rise, it causes the oceans to warm due to the loss of reflectivity; the dark ocean absorbs solar radiation rather than reflecting it. That has major flow-on effects, such as increased warming of the Greenland ice sheet.

Unlike the melting of sea ice, melting ice sheets (on land) do contribute to sea level rise. Any eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels nearly 7 metres, while the figure for Antarctica would be around ten times higher.

Leading climate scientist, Dr James Hansen, has said that he finds it difficult to imagine the Greenland ice sheet surviving if Arctic sea ice were to be lost entirely in the warm season.

The area (extent) of sea ice increases and falls with the seasons. In the Arctic, the annual minimum is reached during September, while in the Antarctic, that month or October represents the annual maximum.

An alarming development in October 2016 has been the slump in the extent of sea ice relative to the same month in previous years. The fall is demonstrated by these charts for the Arctic (northern hemisphere) and Antarctic (southern hemisphere) from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the US. The Arctic sea ice reached its lowest October level in the satellite record (from 1979), while Antarctica was at its second lowest.

Figure 1: Northern and southern hemisphere sea ice extent anomalies for month of October 1979 – 2016



If we consider the Arctic in isolation, here’s how the trend for October compares to September, with a significant fall this year for the former. While the average sea ice extent for September was similar to that of the same month last year, October was 19 per cent lower than October 2015.

Figure 2: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 1979-2016 for months of Sep and Oct (million sq km)


Even those dramatic results only tell part of the story. While the area of Arctic sea ice is reducing, so is the thickness and therefore the volume. This chart compares the change in area (in blue) and volume (in red), with the latter reducing 73 per cent in 37 years.

Figure 3: Arctic Sea Ice Extent and Volume September 1979-2016


Thicker ice tends to be older and more robust than thinner ice, and its extent has reduced significantly in the Arctic.

At the time of this year’s minimum Arctic sea ice extent, only 106,000 square kilometres of ice 4 years or older remained, representing 3.1 per cent of the total. That compares to the mid-1980s, when ice of that age covered over 2 million square kilometres, representing 33 per cent of the summer minimum extent, with the change representing a reduction of 95%.

The comparison is depicted in the following slideshow.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

These changes are dramatic but possibly not surprising given the rapid increase in global temperatures, with the increase in the Arctic being multiples of the average.

On 14th November 2016, the World Meteorological Organization reported that 2016 is very likely to be the hottest year on record, with preliminary data indicating that global temperatures are approximately 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels. Here’s WMO’s temperature chart, showing a significant spike in 2016.

Figure 4: Global temperatures – change from pre-industrial


The WMO stated that temperatures in parts of Arctic Russia were 6°C to 7°C above average, while many other Arctic and sub-Arctic regions in Russia, Alaska and northwest Canada were at least 3°C above average.

The following slideshow demonstrates the increase in global temperatures from 1884 to 2015, with a very rapid increase from 1980.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Abrupt climate change?

Could we be seeing abrupt climate change in action? The following comments from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in 2011 may reflect our current reality:

“Climate change does not proceed smoothly for a given change in radiative forcing from changing greenhouse gas levels. There is a risk of abrupt changes as the climate shifts from one state to another as a result of feedbacks in the climate system. . . . Their hazard lies in the fact that, once they have occurred, it may be hard for the planet to return to its previous steady state. For example, once Greenland’s ice cap is committed to melting it is unlikely to reform for thousands of years, leading eventually to sea level rises of several metres.”

Emergency action is required

Our current predicament requires emergency action far beyond current voluntary commitments stemming from the 2015 Paris climate conference. Despite the impression to the contrary generally portrayed by governments and media, those commitments are expected to lead to average global warming of 3.5°C in the absence of progress beyond the pledge period (up to 2030).

To put that figure in perspective, Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has estimated that with warming of 4°C, our planet could only support around 1 billion people, compared to our current figure of 7.4 billion.


Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)

Additional comment regarding Antarctic sea ice

There has been an upward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent through a combination of winds and ocean circulation. The increase has been more than offset by contraction in the Arctic, which has been accelerating. Since satellite records began in 1979, the extent of sea ice has reduced an average of 35,000 square kilometres per annum globally. That comprised 21,500 sq. km from 1979 to 1996 and 50,000 sq. km from 1996 to 2015, with the latter being equivalent to 74 per cent of the Australian state of Tasmania and 80 per cent of the US state of West Virginia. (There have also been extremely concerning developments in relation to the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets, including reports that the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica had “passed the point of no return”.)


Hansen, J., “Storms of my grandchildren, p. 164

U.S. Geological Survey, “Sea Level and Climate”, last updated 27th October 2016,

National Snow & Ice Data Center, Sea Ice Index, Monthly Sea Ice Extent Anomaly, Arctic, and Antarctic,

National Snow & Ice Data Center, Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis, “Sluggish Ice Growth in the Arctic”, 2 Nov 2016,

World Meteorological Organization, “Provisional WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2016”, 14th November 2016,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sea Ice and Snow Cover Extent, Sea ice for northern hemisphere Sep and Oct,,;

National Snow & Ice Data Center, “State of the Cryosphere, SOTC: Sea Ice”,

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio, “Rapid ice growth follows the seasonal minimum, rapid drop in Antarctic extent”, 5th Oct 2016,

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio, “Weekly Animation of Arctic Sea Ice Age with Graph of Ice Age by Percent of Total: 1984 – 2016”,

Whetton, P, “Future Australian Climate Scenarios”, Chapter 3, p. 43 “Climate Change”, CSIRO Publishing, 2011, Cleugh, H; Stafford Smith, M; Battaglia, M; Graham, P (Editors), (Accessed 4 February 2012)

Tschudi, M.A., J.C. Stroeve, and J.S. Stewart. 2016. Relating the age of Arctic sea ice to its thickness, as measured during NASA’s ICESat and IceBridge campaigns. Remote Sensing, 8, 457, doi:10.3390/rs8060457, cited in NASA Scientific Visualization Studio, “Rapid ice growth follows the seasonal minimum, rapid drop in Antarctic extent”, op. cit.

NASA Earth Observatory, Despite Antarctic Gains, Global Sea Ice Is Shrinking, 11th Feb 2015,

Climate Interactive,, cited in Spratt, D. “Climate Reality Check: After Paris, counting the cost”, 2016

Manning, P. “Too hot to handle: can we afford a 4-degree rise?”, Sydney Morning Herald, 9th July 2011,


Main image: U.S. Geological Survey, “Arctic Ice (The clouds begin to thin over the Arctic Ocean Aug. 19, 2009)”, Public Domain

Global temperature chart: World Meteorological Organization, op. cit., Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Slideshow images:

NASA Global Climate Change, Global Temperature,

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio, “Weekly Animation of Arctic Sea Ice Age with Graph of Ice Age by Percent of Total: 1984 – 2016”,


The information contained in this article was included in a presentation given by the author on 15th November 2016.


I was disappointed to see an article on the US website of Huffington Post by president and CEO of Heifer International, Pierre Ferrari. He was spruiking the supposed benefits of his organisation’s livestock programs in Africa.

Heifer International raises funds to provide “gifts” in developing countries, usually in the form of goats, cattle and water buffalo. Although the organisation claims to relieve hunger and poverty, such programs generally appear to have the opposite effect.

Here’s the comment I left on Ferrari’s article:

Please see Geoff Russell’s 2010 article “Burning the biosphere, boverty blues (Part 2)” on Prof. Barry Brook’s “Brave New Climate” website, in which he commented on the extremely negative impact of livestock grazing in Africa.

Russell coined the term “boverty blues” to mean “the human impact of too many bovines overwhelming the local biosphere’s ability to feed them”. (The FAO has since reported there were around 310 million head of cattle in its most recent reporting period, 2014.)

Russell described Heifer International as “the king in the international spread of boverty”.

Along with other material, he cited a study by Sankaran, et al. (“Determinants of woody cover in African savannas”, Nature 438, 846-849, 8 December 2005), indicating the massive potential for reforestation in the northern and southern Guinea savanna if livestock were removed and the related annual savanna burning ceased.

Cattle degrade soil through hoof action and residue grazing. He said, “. . . these grazing practices are effectively trading the long term food security of good soil management for a little milk and an even tinier amount of meat”.

Also: “Nigerian studies compared leaving residues in place with removal and showed that residue removal halved crop yields over a period of 13 years and had a range of bad impacts on soil parameters.”

And: “If you want perfection in land degradation, you need to add an animal who can clean up any young shrubs and trees which the cattle hooves miss. You don’t want any vegetation to impede the winds in their efforts to blow away your topsoil. Goats are pretty well perfect for the job.”

Commenting on an alternative approach in an October 2012 interview on Australian radio station 3CR, former principal scientist with the Queensland government, Gerard Wedderburn-Bisshop, referred to the Kenya Hunger Halt program, administered by the World Food Program. Under the program, people have been taught to grow alternatives such as root crops. The Maasai, traditional herders, have been converting to the program, growing nutritious crops and thriving.


Similar material elsewhere

The Huffington Post article reminded me of the sort of material disseminated by other livestock related groups, such as the International Livestock Research Institute.

Interviewed on ABC Radio National Breakfast on 17th September, 2013, the institute’s Director General, Dr Jimmy Smith, sought to perpetuate the so-called “protein myth” in favour of meat production. He ignored the fact that soybeans (for example) contain around 35 per cent more protein per kilogram than beef, with all the essential amino acids.

In discussing livestock-related climate change impacts, he also ignored the fact that soybean production emits around 5.5 kilograms of greenhouse gases per kilogram of protein, while “grass-fed” beef production emits around 774 kilograms. [Footnote]

The beef figure is the global average for specialised beef, calculated over a 20-year time horizon for determining the warming impact of methane and nitrous oxide. The 20-year time horizon is critical when considering potential climate change tipping points and the possibility of runaway climate change, whereby we would lose any ability to overcome the crisis.

A major contributor to deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado regions of South America is conversion of forest and other wooded vegetation to soy bean plantations. Most of the world’s soy is fed to livestock, including around 480 million pigs in China, in an inherently and grossly inefficient system of producing nutrition for the world’s human population.

That inefficiency also leads to under-nourished populations in developing nations, who could be adequately fed if we had the political will to distribute food equitably and decided to transition, in general, from animal-based to plant-based agriculture.


If we are serious about overcoming climate change and ending world hunger, we must address the livestock issue with the urgency those issues require.


Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)


See page 57 of “The Low Emissions Diet: Eating for a safe climate“, which utilised emissions intensity figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Oxford University, and nutritional information from the United States Department of Agriculture. The combination of different emissions factors in the FAO analysis reflected overall non-dairy figures, including cattle exclusively “grass-fed” and others. As methane’s percentage contribution would be lower in mixed systems than in grazing systems, the figure of 774 kilograms shown here for “grass-fed” product may be understated.


Ferrari, P., “Surprise! Livestock Helps Farmers Become Resilient to Climate Change”, Huffington Post, 15th October 2016,

Russel, G., “Burning the biosphere, boverty blues (Part 2)”, 10th February, 2010,

Sankaran, M; Hanan, N.P.; Scholes, R.J.; Ratnam, J; Augustine, D.J.; Cade, B.S.; Gignoux, J; Higgins, S.I.; Le Roux, X; Ludwig, F; Ardo, J.; Banyikwa, F; Bronn, A; Bucini, G; Caylor, K.K.; Coughenour, M.B.; Diouf, A; Ekaya, W; Feral, C.J.; February, E.C.; Frost, P.G.H.; Hiernaux, P; Hrabar, H; Metzger, K.L.; Prins, H.H.T.; Ringrose, S; Sea, W; Tews, J; Worden, J; & Zambatis, N., Determinants of woody cover in African savannas, Nature 438, 846-849 (8 December 2005), cited in Russell, G., ibid.

Lal, R., “Crop Residues and Soil Carbon”, Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA,, cited in Russell, G. op. cit.

FAOSTAT, Production, Live Animals 2014, Cattle in Africa (310,277,515) and Pigs in China (480,093,253),

3CR Freedom of SpeciesGerard Wedderburn-BisshopThe environmental impacts of livestock farming”, 7th October, 2012

ABC Radio National Breakfast, “Feeding a hungry world”, 17th September 2013,

Brown, L.R., “Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity, Chapter 9, China and the Soybean Challenge”, Earth Policy Institute, 6 November, 2013,


IFPRI Images | “Cattle in Senegal” | Flickr | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)


Reference to “grass-fed” beef inserted 16th October 2016.


This post contains the text of my open letter to the Sydney Peace Foundation concerning its decision to award the 2016 Sydney Peace Prize to author and activist, Naomi Klein.

The organisation is a University of Sydney foundation that was created in 1998. It says it “promotes peace with justice and the practice of nonviolence by awarding the annual Sydney Peace Prize and encouraging public interest and discussion about issues of peace, social justice, human rights, and non-violent conflict resolution”.

It describes the prize as “Australia’s international prize of peace”.

My letter

The Sydney Peace Foundation
Mackie Building K01
University of Sydney
New South Wales
Australia, 2006


30th September 2016

Dear Sydney Peace Foundation,

Re: Sydney Peace Prize 2016

I understand you have awarded the 2016 Sydney Peace Prize to author and activist Naomi Klein, with the following citation:

For exposing the structural causes and responsibility for the climate crisis, for inspiring us to stand up locally, nationally and internationally to demand a new agenda for sharing the planet that respects human rights and equality, and for reminding us of the power of authentic democracy to achieve transformative change and justice.

Unfortunately, in her writing and campaigning, Ms Klein appears to have overlooked or ignored a major “structural cause” of the climate crisis, namely animal agriculture.

Leading climate scientist, Dr James Hansen (along with his fellow researchers), argues that we will not overcome the crisis without massive reforestation and significant cuts in emissions of non-CO2 climate forcers, such as methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and black carbon. [1] Meaningful action in that regard cannot be achieved without a general move toward a plant-based diet.

Consistent with that view were the findings of a 2009 study by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, indicating that a global transition to a completely animal-free diet would reduce climate change mitigation costs by around 80 per cent. A meat-free diet would reduce them by 70 per cent. A key factor would be the ability of lands cleared or degraded for livestock grazing and feed crop production to regenerate forests and other forms of vegetation. [2]

The assessment was based on a targeted atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450 ppm. The issue is even more critical when aiming for essential lower levels.

Similarly, a paper from researchers at the Institute for Social Ecology, Vienna, published in April 2016, reported on the potential to avoid further deforestation while feeding a growing global population. [3] They considered 500 food supply scenarios using forecasts for crop yields, agricultural area, livestock feed and human diet supplied by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The lead author, Karl-Heinz Erb, has stated: [4]

“The only diet found to work with all future possible scenarios of yield and cropland area, including 100% organic agriculture, was a plant-based one.”

In Australia, since European settlement, we have cleared nearly 1 million square kilometres of our 7.7 million square kilometre land mass. Of the cleared land, around 70 per cent has resulted from animal agriculture, including meat, dairy and wool. [5]

The World Wildlife Fund has identified Australia as one of eleven global “deforestation fronts” in the twenty years to 2030 due to livestock production. [6]

The grossly and inherently inefficient nature of animals as a source of nutrition causes us to use far more resources, including land, than would be required on a plant-based diet.

Peace with Justice

A general transition toward a plant-based diet is also consistent with the Sydney Peace Foundation’s promotion of peace with justice and the practice of non-violence.

The issue of social justice was highlighted in a 2013 paper from the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, which stated: [7]

“The world’s croplands could feed 4 billion more people than they do now just by shifting from producing animal feed and biofuels to producing exclusively food for human consumption”.

Animal feed crops represent 90% of that figure (in turn representing 3.6 billion people), and biofuels only 10%.

The FAO estimates that around 795 million people were chronically under-nourished in the period 2014-2016. [8]

The lead author of the University of Minnesota paper, Emily Cassidy, has said:

“We essentially have uncovered an astoundingly abundant supply of food for a hungry world, hidden in plain sight in the farmlands we already cultivate. Depending on the extent to which farmers and consumers are willing to change current practices, existing croplands could feed millions or even billions more people.”

And let’s not forget the animals themselves. We currently breed and slaughter around 70 billion land animals annually, compared to a human population of around 7.4 billion. [9] The livestock reproduction rate is significantly above natural levels, and involves abuse and confinement on a massive scale, even for so-called “free range” systems.

In Australia and elsewhere, animal cruelty has been legalised by way of exemptions to so-called “prevention of cruelty to animals” legislation in favour of livestock and other industries.

Human health

I note that you support the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, including the goal to “ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages”.

The detrimental health impacts of animal-based foods have been well documented by organisations such as the World Cancer Research Fund, the World Health Organization, and others.

A recent example was the April 2016 study by researchers from the Oxford Martin School (University of Oxford) reporting on the health and climate change benefits of changing diets, including reduced consumption of animal products. [10]

The researchers estimated that if the global population were to adopt a vegetarian diet, 7.3 million lives per year would be saved by 2050. If a vegan diet were adopted, the figure would be 8.1 million per year.

More than half the avoided deaths would be due to reduced red meat consumption. The results would primarily reflect reductions in the rate of coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, and type 2 diabetes.

Former winner calls for vegan diet

The 2002 winner of the Sydney Peace Prize, Mary Robinson, has recently called for those who care about climate change to stop eating animals and animal-based products. [11]


Here is some of what she said:

“We have to change, we cannot go on with business as usual. We need each of us to think about our carbon footprint. Eat less meat, or no meat at all. Become vegetarian or vegan.”

Mrs Robinson was speaking at the “One Young World Summit” in Ottawa, Canada, earlier this month, attended by young leaders from 196 nations.


A positive gesture to highlight these critical issues would be to serve only vegan food at the Sydney Peace Prize Gala Dinner on 11th November.

You may also wish to consider broadening your approach on peace, social justice and non-violence to include animals.

I would be pleased to discuss the issues in more detail if you are interested in doing so.

Kind Regards,

Paul Mahony


Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)


[1] Hansen, J; Sato, M; Kharecha, P; Beerling, D; Berner, R; Masson-Delmotte, V; Pagani, M; Raymo, M; Royer, D.L.; and Zachos, J.C. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, 2008.

[2] Stehfest, E, Bouwman, L, van Vuuren, DP, den Elzen, MGJ, Eickhout, B and Kabat, P, “Climate benefits of changing diet” Climatic Change, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2 (2009), 83-102, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6 (Also

[3] Erb, K-H, Lauk, C., Kastner, T., Mayer, A., Theurl, M.C., Haberl, H., “Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation”, Nat. Commun. 7:11382 doi: 10.1038/ncomms11382 (2016), and

[4] Kehoe, L., “Can we feed the world and stop deforestation? Depends what’s for dinner”, The Conversation, 20 Apr 2016 (Updated 26 Apr 2016),

[5] Derived from Russell, G. “The global food system and climate change – Part 1”, 9 Oct 2008, ( and “Bulbs, bags, and Kelly’s bush: defining `green’ in Australia”, 19 Mar 2010 (p. 10) (, which utilised: Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, State of the Environment Report 2006, Indicator: LD-01 The proportion and area of native vegetation and changes over time, March 2009; and ABS, 4613.0 “Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends”, Jan 2010; and ABS 1301.0 Australian Year Book 2008, since updated for 2009-10, 16.13 Area of crops

[6] World Wildlife Fund (World Wide Fund for Nature), “WWF Living Forests Report”, Chapter 5 and Chapter 5 Executive Summary,;

[7] Emily S Cassidy et al., 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 034015 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015, cited in University of Minnesota News Release, 1 Aug 2013, “Existing Cropland Could Feed 4 Billion More”,

[8] World Hunger Education Service, Hunger Notes, “2016 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics”, (Accessed 30th September 2016)

[9] FAOSTAT, Livestock Primary, Slaughter numbers 2013,

[10] Springmann, M., Godfray, H.C.J., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., “Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change”, PNAS 2016 113 (15) 4146-4151; published ahead of print March 21, 2016, doi:10.1073/pnas.1523119113, (print edition 12 Apr 2016), and

[11] Virk, K., “‘Eat less meat, or no meat at all’ – Mary Robinson suggests going vegan to reduce carbon footprint”, The Independent, 29 Sep 2016,


Troy Page | | “Naomi Klein” | Flickr | Creative Commons | NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Simon Ruf | United Nations Information Centre | “Climate Envoy Mary Robinson” | Flickr | Creative Commons | NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0)


Second paragraph introducing the letter amended 2nd October 2016.

Comment on World Wildlife Fund added 2nd October 2016.

The purpose of this post is to introduce the embedded presentation, “The link that too many ignore: Australian climate campaigners and the livestock sector”.

As mentioned in the presentation description, there are actually two links: firstly, the link between livestock production and climate change; and secondly, the link between the livestock sector and so-called environmentalists. 

The second link may be related to the fact that Australia has the highest per capita meat consumption in the world.

The link between livestock production and climate change is widely understood and well documented. Yet many climate change campaigning organisations and individuals barely mention it, or seek to dispute it. It’s ironic that such people and groups complain that climate change denialists ignore the science of climate change, while they themselves ignore the science surrounding animal agriculture’s impacts.

Here is the presentation, followed by sources and image credits. This is an updated and expanded version as at 9 Sep 2016. (The original was published on 26th August 2016.)

I recommend you view it in full screen mode. Also, it is best to view it on a desktop or laptop, as the zooming effect may not work on a phone or tablet unless the “prezi” app has been installed.


Here’s a video version that should work on any device, although full screen mode is still recommended:


An expanded version of the chart (released on 30th December 2018) can be seen in detail by clicking the image below.


Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)


This author does not claim that the links referred to here have influenced any person or organisation, or that any person or organisation has sought to influence others, as I am not in a position to say.

Related Articles

Some Critical Omissions from Climate Change Discussions (The Greens)

Do the math: There are too many cows! (Bill McKibben,

The real elephant in AYCC’s climate change room (Australian Youth Climate Coalition)

Emissions intensity of Australian beef (MLA-funded research)


ABC, 7.30, Reporter Sarah Dingle, “Purves throws weight behind climate science”, 22 Dec 2011,

ABC, “One Plus One” Video Interview, Amanda McKenzie, 19th January, 2016, updated 16th Feb 2016,‘nature-plus-nurture’-summer-series:/7173224 and

Australia Institute – About, (accessed 19th August 2016)

Australian Conservation Foundation, “ACF leads the environmental evolution”, (Accessed 19th August 2016)

Australian Conservation Foundation, “Find out how 60L was conceived”, (Accessed 19th August 2016)

Australian Conservation Foundation, 2009-10 Annual Report,

Australian Youth Climate Coalition, “About AYCC”, (Accessed 19th August 2016)

Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute of The University of Melbourne, “Zero Carbon Australia – Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry – Discussion Paper”, October, 2014, Executive Summary and pp. 97 and 168,

Boomerang Alliance, “Who we are”, (accessed 22nd August 2016)

“Building our hopes and dreams: Australia’s building industry now has a superb green model to emulate–and there’s no reason why it can’t”, The Free Library. 2003 Australian Conservation Foundation 19 Aug. 2016…-a098415135

Bush Telegraph, “Reduce livestock numbers by 20 per cent, revegetate 55.6 million hectares of land: climate change report proposes options to reach zero carbon target”, 24th Oct 2014,

Climate Action Network Australia, National Organising Committee, (accessed 19th August 2016)

Climate Council Australia Annual Report 2014/15,

Climate Council, “Climate Council Board Member, Rob Purves wins Australian Geographic Lifetime of Conservation Award”, 13th Nov 2015,

Climate Emergency Declaration,

The Climate Institute, “Towards Climate Friendly Farming”, Oct 2009, and

Davies, A., “Environmental philanthropist Rob Purves warns that green groups under attack”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 19th Sep 2015,

Eckard, R., “Could your diet save the planet?”, The Conversation, 2nd Nov 2011,

Eckard, R., “It’s not enough to go vegetarian to fight climate change”, The Conversation, 24th Feb 2015,

Farm Weekly, “Red meat: Amazing for youth”, 30th Sep 2010,

Find the Company by Graphiq, “Carwoola Pastoral Company Pty Ltd”, (accessed 23rd August 2016)

Friends of the Earth Australia, Annual Report 2012-13,

Green Capital,!total-environment-centre/ctgt (accessed 22nd August 2016)

The Greens, “10 facts about Richard Di Natale”, 6th May 2015,

Griffiths, M., “Food production driving up greenhouse gas emissions”, ABC News, PM, 10th Mar 2016,

Hamilton, C., “Speech at the Dinner to Celebrate the Tenth Anniversary of The Australia Institute”, 4th August 2004,

McGilvray, A., “Diet key to feeding the world in 2050 without further deforestation, modelling suggests”, ABC news online, 20th Apr 2016,

McKibben, Bill, The only way to have a cow, Orion Magazine, Mar/Apr 2010,

Manning, P., “Wrestling with a climate conundrum”, 19th Feb 2011,

Meat & Livestock Australia, “Who we are”, (Accessed 24th August 2016)

Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, Annual Report 2011, p. 13,

Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, Annual Report 2015,

Munro, K., “Climate warriors march behind little green book”, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 July 2009,

Pearse, G., “The climate movement: Australia’s patrons of climate change activism”, Sep 2011,

Rose, A. “Thoughts on retiring from AYCC”, Powershifting Towards Tomorrow, 26 April, 2010,

Russell, G., Quarterly Essay 32 (2008), Correspondence in response to Now or Never (Quarterly Essay 31) by Tim Flannery, p. 104

Sinclair, L., “Junior MasterChef signs six sponsors”, The Australian, 1st Sep 2010,

Ting, I., “Australia is the meat-eating capital of the world”, Sydney Morning Herald, 27th October 2015,

Victoria McKenzie-McHarg Linkedin Profile, (accessed 17th August 2016)

Wedderburn-Bisshop, G., Longmire, A., Rickards, L., “Neglected Transformational Responses: Implications of Excluding Short Lived Emissions and Near Term Projections in Greenhouse Gas Accounting”, International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2015, pp.11-27. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Published Online: August 17, 2015,

Thomas, T., “March of the Climate Cult Kiddies”, Quadrant, 19th May 2015,

Total Environment Centre: What is TEC?, (accessed 22nd August 2016)

WWF Australia, “Robert Purves”, (accessed 23rd August 2016)

WWF Australia, “Conservationist of the Year Anna Rose Calls for Increased Renewable Energy Target”, 29th October 2014,

WWF International, Beef, (Accessed 20th August 2016)

WWF International, “WWF Living Forests Report”, Chapter 5 and Chapter 5 Executive Summary,;


AgriLife Today | Flickr | Brahman Cattle | Creative Commons | Attribution: NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Andrew Anderson | Flickr |Queens College – Melbourne University 2010| Creative Commons | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The Aspen Institute | Flickr | Bill McKibben talks about life on Earth | Creative Commons | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

AusSMC-2009-Dec-11_IMG_0476 | Flickr | Professor Tim Flannery from Macquarie University and chair of the Copenhagen Climate Council with Amanda McKenzie from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) at a event, COP15, Copenhagen 2009 | Creative Commons | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Climate Council | 13 Nov 2015 | Robert Purves| Creative Commons | Attribution-3.0 Australia | “Climate Council Board Member, Rob Purves wins Australian Geographic Lifetime of Conservation Award”

Cow, cattle, livestock © Visuall2 |

Cows grazing  © Ondrez |

Dairy Cows Photo © Nengloveyou |

Earth Hour | Flickr | Earth Hour Australia 2013, Sydney Opera House Lights On | Creative Commons | Attribution: NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Environmental activists © Rrodrickbeiler |

Find an Expert – University of Melbourne | Richard Eckard | Creative Commons | Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Gavin Tapp | Flickr |Don Henry 2011 | Creative Commons | Attribution- 2.0 Generic

Greg Johnston | Flickr | The last straw| Creative Commons | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Greens MPs | Flickr | Your Vote = Our Future, AYCC Youth Climate Summit | Creative Commons | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Indigo Skies Photography | Golden Hour | Flickr | Attribution: NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Indigo Skies Photography | Misty | Flickr | Attribution: NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Indigo Skies Photography | Rural sunset scene | Flickr | Attribution: NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Jeremy Buckingham | Flickr | Hazelwood Power Station 4 | Flickr | Creative Commons | Attribution: 2.0 Generic

Jonathan Doig | 2500 people encircle Parliament House calling for action on the climate emergency (2009) | Flickr | Creative Commons | Attribution: 2.0 Generic

Koza1983 | PS20 and PS10 in Andalusia, Spain | Wikipedia | Creative Commons | Attribution: 3.0 Unported

KnitSpirit | Sheep | Flickr | Creative Commons | Attribution: NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Labour Youth | Flickr | Friends of the Earth | Creative Commons | Attribution: NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

McLac2000 | Pixabay

Mark A Coleman | Sheep | Flickr | Creative Commons | Attribution: ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Marley Cook | Flickr | Amanda McKenzie (AYCC Co-Director) 2009 | Creative Commons | Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Micolo J | Flickr | Young cattle 2014 | Creative Commons | Attribution 2.0 Generic (Cropped and border removed)

National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) | Flickr | Lesley Hughes | Creative Commons | Attribution: NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility | Flickr | NCCARF Welcome Reception 1.5 Tim Flannery | Creative Commons | Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

Newtown grafitti | Flickr | Playing God with the climate, IV (Clive Hamilton) | Creative Commons | Attribution – 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

The original facade of the 60L Green Building in Carlton, Melbourne, Australia | Nick Carson | Sep 2010| Wikimedia | Creative Commons | Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported | CC BY-SA 3.0

Peter Thoeny – Quality HDR Photography | Flickr | Creative Commons | Nay for fossil fuel, yea for renewable energy (Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, Nevada)| Attribution: NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Philip Morton | Flickr | Outback Sunrise | Creative Commons | Attribution: NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Pierre Pouliquin | Flickr | Three mousquetaires!! 2008 | Creative Commons | Attribution – NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

Pinar Cildiroglu | University of Western Sydney | Tim Flannery | Flickr | Creative Commons | Attribution: NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Scott Anderson Imagery | Flickr | Wind Farm Outside Port Fairy | Attribution: All rights reserved (Used with permission)

Stephen Hass | Power_Of_Great_Barrier_Reef_024 | Flickr | Creative Commons | Attribution: 2.0 Generic

skeeze | | CC0 Public Domain

Takver | Flickr | Ban onshore gas, Grow renewables rally | Creative Commons | Attribution: ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Takver | Flickr | Climate Emergency campaigner David Spratt | Creative Commons | Attribution: ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Takver | Flickr | Replace Hazelwood | Creative Commons | Attribution: ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Takver | Flickr | Replace Hazelwood – Victorian Parliament House steps | Creative Commons | Attribution: ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Terrastendo image: Morning mist © Anekoho |

Tony Webster | Wikimedia | Wind Energy | Creative Commons | Attribution: 2.0 Generic | Flickr | Anna Rose | Creative Commons | Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

yassan-yukky | Flickr | Cooking | Creative Commons | Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic | Peter Solness | Sydney, Australia | Flickr | Creative Commons | Attribution: NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

“If cattle were to form their own nation, they would rank third behind China and the United States among the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.”

World Resources Institute 2016 [1]


Ceres Agricultural Company Pty Ltd has applied to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to register a Free Range Pasture Finished certification trademark in respect of cattle raised for slaughter within the food production system. This is my submission (in conjunction with Vegan Australia) in response to the application.

Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 12.16.37 am

The submission highlights some of the many detrimental impacts of beef production.

Here’s the Executive Summary:


  • Whether produced in free range or more intensive systems, red meat is extremely detrimental to animals, human health and the environment.

Animal Health and Welfare

  • Many exemptions in favour of the livestock sector apply to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals legislation in Australia (and similar legislation elsewhere), thereby permitting cruelty.
  • There are no legislated free range standards, and the standards proposed by Ceres offer only limited protection to animals.
  • Free range animals are usually slaughtered at the same abattoirs as more intensively farmed animals. Regardless of the effectiveness or otherwise of different stunning methods, the sights, sounds and smells of an abattoir create a terrifying experience for animals awaiting their fate.

Safety of Meat

  • The evidence of red and processed meat’s adverse health impacts is overwhelming, whether or not produced in a free range system.
  • Oxford University researchers have estimated that that if the global population were to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet, more than 7 million lives would be saved per year by 2050 due to reductions in the rate of coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, and type 2 diabetes. More than half the avoided deaths would be due to reduced red meat consumption.


  • Beef production is a key contributor to global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, introduction of invasive pasture grasses, loss of biodiversity, and destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.
  • In addition to dealing with coal-fired power, we will not achieve a critical threshold level of 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere without massive reforestation. The only way to meaningfully reforest in the context of the climate emergency is to reduce the extent of animal agriculture.
  • Beef from grass-fed cattle is far more emissions intensive than beef from mixed feed systems, involving grain and grass.

What is the Answer?

  • Ceres’ proposed CTM certification may cause consumers to wrongly believe that critical problems involved in red meat production do not exist in relation to the relevant products.
  • As such, we believe the proposed certification should be considered unacceptable in terms of the spirit, and potentially the letter, of consumer protection regulations.
  • A general transition from animal-based to plant-based diets is essential if we wish to maximise our effectiveness in protecting the environment, avoiding catastrophic climate change, preventing animal cruelty, and achieving optimum human health.


Paul Mahony


[1] Ranganathan, J. and Waite, R., “Sustainable Diets: What you need to know in 12 charts”, World Resources Institute, 20th April, 2016,


skeeze | | CC0 Public Domain


Doug Boucher of the Union of Concerned Scientists has published an online critique of the documentary “Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret“.

Boucher’s main concern is the film’s assertion that at least 51% of greenhouse gas emissions come from animal agriculture.

I have argued previously that the movie was wrong in relying so heavily on that figure, which came from a 2009 World Watch magazine article by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. [1] [2] [Footnote ] However, there are some holes in Boucher’s arguments which, in turn, cause me some concern.

Livestock’s share of emissions

The main concern of Boucher and many others with the 51% figure is that it includes livestock respiration. Goodland and Anhang have argued that such respiration was overwhelming photosynthesis in absorbing carbon due to the massive human-driven increase in livestock numbers and removal of vegetation. Goodland subsequently stated, “In our assessment, reality no longer reflects the old model of the carbon cycle, in which photosynthesis balanced respiration”. [3]

Based on my interpretation of their figures, Goodland and Anhang’s non-respiration factors would have resulted in a livestock contribution of 43%.

However, Boucher also argues against other components of their estimate.

He suggests that, according to scientific “consensus” (a word he uses seven times), livestock are “currently” responsible for “about 15%” of global emissions. The paper he cites for that figure actually uses a range of 8% to 18%. [4] Its references, in turn, are from five papers published from 2005 to 2013, so they are hardly current, particularly when their reference periods are even earlier. The 2013 paper is from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, which used a figure of 14.5%. [5]

Within the figure of 51%, Boucher’s main concern is the use by Goodland and Anhang of a 20-year time horizon for estimating the warming impact of the various greenhouse gases. Boucher’s case against that approach is poorly argued. Let’s look at his key points.

Firstly, like many others, he claims methane’s global warming potential (GWP) (although not using that term) is 25 when measured over 100 years. Despite claiming that the figure is based on “recent scientific consensus” (there’s that word again), his figure is out of date.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used a 100-year GWP of 25 in 2007 but increased it to 34 (with climate-carbon feedbacks) and 28 (without those feedbacks) in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report. It also increased the figure for 20 years from 72 to 86 (with climate-carbon feedbacks) and 84 (without them). [6]

I have argued elsewhere that a 20-year GWP for methane may be more valid than the 100-year figure used by most reporting bodies. That’s because methane, a critical factor in livestock’s climate change impacts, generally breaks down in the atmosphere to a significant extent within around 12 years. Accordingly, a 100-year GWP (which shows the average impact over a period of 100 years) greatly understates its shorter term impact.

Boucher fails to recognise that the issue is critical when considering the impact of climate change tipping points, with potentially catastrophic and irreversible consequences due to the prospect of runaway climate change over which (as the term implies) humanity will have virtually no control.

In applying the 20-year (or shorter) time horizon, Goodland, Anhang, and others (including me) are reflecting profound concern for “our children, our grandchildren, and future generations”, despite Boucher asserting that we are selfishly ignoring them.

Secondly, Boucher says that those who apply a 20-year time horizon do not count methane’s impact “in the same way that most scientists do”. In other words, they are not using “the standard method”.

He seems to have overlooked the fact that the IPCC, in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, acknowledged that the 100-year figure is not always appropriate, when it stated:

“There is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices. The choice of time horizon is a value judgement because it depends on the relative weight assigned to effects at different times.” [7]

Does Boucher consider the IPCC to be beyond the scope of his much-loved scientific “consensus”?

Environmental Organisations

Boucher claims that the creators of Cowspiracy gave the impression that various environmental groups are part of a conspiracy because they don’t accept that livestock are responsible for 51% of global emissions. However, the issues discussed in the movie with those organisations extended well beyond that one. For example, when the interviewer questioned the sustainability of industrial scale fishing with Geoff Shester of Oceana (26:50), and rainforest destruction with Lindsey Allen of the Rainforest Action Network (31:30), the 51% figure was not mentioned.

Boucher also claims that Greenpeace politely declined to be interviewed. But why wouldn’t they be willing to discuss the issue, particularly when one of their “core values” is to “promote open, informed debate about society’s environmental choices”? [8]

Here’s an extract of the movie’s interview with Emily Meredith, spokesperson for Animal Agriculture Alliance (57:50), which seems to raise serious questions in relation to Greenpeace:

Question: “Does the meat and dairy industry ever support or donate to environmental non-profits?”

Emily Meredith (looking across to President and CEO, Kay Smith, who is out of sight): “I don’t know that I would want to comment on that.”

Voice of Kay Smith: “I don’t know that we would know what they donate to or don’t donate to.”

Question: “Does the meat and dairy industry ever support or donate to, say, Greenpeace?”

Emily Meredith (laughing nervously and looking across to Kay Smith): “Again, I don’t know that I would feel comfortable . . .”


If Boucher wishes to criticise Cowspiracy under the seemingly authoritative banner of the Union of Concerned Scientists, then his arguments should be based more on fact than they have been in this instance.

For my part, I will continue to argue that we will not overcome climate change unless we deal with both fossil fuels and animal agriculture, and that arguing over relative percentages may serve little purpose.


Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)


The late Robert Goodland was the lead environmental adviser to the World Bank. Jeff Anhang is a research officer and environmental specialist at the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation.

At the time of writing, the full documentary could be seen here.


[1] Mahony, P. “Livestock and climate change: Do percentages matter?”, Terrastendo, 15th November, 2014,

[2] Goodland, R & Anhang, J, “Livestock and Climate Change – What if the key actors in climate change are cows, pigs, and chickens?”, World Watch, Nov/Dec, 2009, pp 10-19, /pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

[3] Goodland, R., “Lifting lifestock’s long shadow”, Nature Climate Change 3, 2 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1755, Published online 21 December 2012, and

[4] Herrero, M., Wirsenius, S., Henderson, B., Rigolot, C., Thornton, P., Havlik, P., de Boer, I., Gerber, P.J., “Livestock and the Environment:What Have We Learned in the Past Decade?”, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2015. 40:177–202, and

[5] Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G., 2013, “Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, pp. xii and 15,;

[6] Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T., and Zhang, H., 2013: “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” , Table 8.7, p. 714 [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,

[7] Myhre, G., et al., ibid. pp. 711-712

[8] Greenpeace International, “Our Core Values”,


Skitterphoto | Pixabay | CC0 Public Domain

%d bloggers like this: