landuse – The Green Tau

Counting on … day 117

4th November 2026

Switch to meat and milk alternatives?

Goulson begins by noting the rising levels of consumption of vegan and vegetarian substitutes – although these may be the result of highly processed ingredients. He also notes the ongoing research into and development of, meat substitutes using ‘precision fermentation’ using microbes such as selected yeasts and bacteria. And of course he reminds us that fermentation is widely used in many existing food items such as beer, cheese, sauerkraut, tofu etc.

However, “The very large plus side is that a switch to a lab-grown meat or precision-fermented protein sources in place of conventional meat and dairy would be a game changer for our planet. It would free up roughly 92% of all land that is currently used for livestock grazing and to grow food for livestock…that could be turned over to nature and carbon capture. This would eliminate the vast greenhouse gas emissions associated with livestock farming. It would be the single largest step we could realistically take in the near future to combat climate change and biodiversity collapse.

“That may seem like a glittering prize for environmentalists, but of course life is rarely quite to simple. A change like this would be hugely controversial, and have obvious and devastating consequences for the livelihoods of livestock farmers. On the other hand, if we carry on along our current trajectory, then climate change will devastate economies and livelihoods, cause extreme weather events that kill millions, flood low-lying lands including many coastal cities, render large chunks of Africa uninhabitable, and drive mass migration and social upheaval. Many scientists, me included, predict the collapse of civilisation this century if we don’t do much to combat biodiversity loss and climate change. Having to adapt to a world without livestock farming seems like small potatoes in comparison.” (143)

This I feel is at the heart of the book. We need to change the way we eat and the way we farm if we are to safeguard our lives on this planet.

Goulson argues that rather than UPFs substitutes, the healthiest option is to eat a diversity of protein-rich plants – lentils, beans and peas and products such as tofu and tempeh. As regards milk alternatives, he commends those plant-based milks that avoid the more complex additions of stabilisers, acidity regulators and emulsifiers. However he equally highlights that dairy milk is a good source of vitamins D and B, calcium and iodine and on that basis recommends dairy milk for children. (P146)

Counting on … day 109

21st October 2026

Limited water and land

“Aside from contributing to climate change, food production has substantial environmental impacts that tend to receive a lot less attention. Most obviously, it takes up an awful lot of land, and its extent continues to grow. Pristine, biodiverse habitats such as rain forests continue to be converted into dull, pesticide-soaked monocultures of soy beans or oil palms, or overgrazed, arid pastures.”

But “One way to reduce our global footprint is by consuming foods that require less land….vegetables, most fruits and wine….”(P47 Eat the Planet Well)

However it is not just land that crops need but water too. How much crops need varies across the range whilst the availability of water across the globe also varies. Sensibly one wouldn’t grow thirsty crops in areas of low rainfall or where there isn’t a guarantee of sufficient water from rivers or aquifers. (These latter cannot supply infinite amounts of water). And climate change is rapidly changing how much water might be available and when.

Agriculture may not be an issue in taking too much water from limited supplies, it may also have a detrimental effect on those very water supplies as the run off from the land can carry with it pollutants from pesticides and herbicides, from fertilisers and from slurry.

Again it is meat and dairy that are the main large consumers of water with fruit, vegetables and pulses being much less needy. However olive oil and nuts – together with cheese – can use even more water per kg of food produced. Some olive and nut orchards rely heavily on irrigation and their produce is best avoided, whilst others are grown in regions where farmers can simply rely on rainwater – Goulson recommends rain fed olives from Portugal and southern Spain, as well as walnuts (they need no irrigations) and Brazil nuts – ditto as they grow in rainforests. W

Climate change may yet require further shifts in where such foods are grown. But eating more plants and less meat and dairy is a good move.

Counting on … day 110

17th July 2025

Over the centuries the British landscape has changed and changed again as farming practices have changed. In recent decades one of the big changes has been the removal of hedgerows to create ever larger fields and the use of ever larger (and heavier) farm vehicles. The Woodlands Trust reports that ‘118,000 miles of hedgerows have disappeared since 1950.’ (1) The hedge was seen as a waste of space. Yet that linear strip of land can serve as a valuable green corridor for wild life and a unique ecosystem supporting a rich biodiversity of plants, animals, birds and insects. Thankfully about 500, 000 miles of hedgerow remain in place but that resource still needs care and protection.

Farm land shouldn’t be seen as solely a place to grow food but as land that provides clean air, fertile soils, pollinators, relief for mental wellbeing, water stewardship, and life-giving biodiversity. Farming needs to include both the production of food and the maintenance of healthy ecosystems, with space for nature to thrive.

Hedgerows are not a waste of space; rather their absence is a waste of ecological benefit.

https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/habitats/hedgerows/

More information

https://www.soilassociation.org/take-action/protect-the-environment/why-are-hedgerows-so-important/

Plant and manage hedgerows

https://www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/blog/why-are-hedgerows-important

Green Tau: issue 100

14th December 2024

How we can make a just transition? Agriculture and land use

Approximately 12% (58MtCO2 as of 2020) of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from farming but of that 10% more than half is methane from livestock and a further 30% is nitrous oxides from fertilisers (1). As the UK moves to a net zero economy, it is obvious that emissions from agriculture need to be reduced – the Climate Change Committee’s target is 21 MtCO2 by 2050. (Agriculture – including deliberate none cultivation of the land – offers opportunities to increase natural carbon absorption which should more than offset this remaining 21Mt of CO2).

The Climate Change Committee which draws up carbon budgets and roadmaps to advise the Government as to the means by which net zero targets can be achieved, recommended in its 2020 report Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK, the following policy proposals:

Increase tree planting – increasing UK forestry cover from 13% to at least 17% by 2050 by planting around 30,000 hectares (90 – 120 million trees) of broadleaf and conifer woodland each year.
Encourage low-carbon farming practices – such as ‘controlled-release’ fertilisers, improving livestock health and slurry acidification.
Restore peatlands – restoring at least 50% of upland peat and 25% of lowland peat.
Encourage bioenergy crops – expanding UK energy crops to around 23,000 hectares each year.
Reduce food waste and consumption of the most carbon-intensive foods – reduce the 13.6 million tonnes of food waste produced annually by 20% and the consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by at least 20% per person, well within current healthy eating guidelines. (2)

In the summer of this year, 2024, the Climate Change Committee’s report on progress found that reducing emissions from agriculture and land use had slowed and that ‘total emissions from agriculture have not significantly decreased since 2008’! (3) Commenting on the Report, ADAS notes “A key CCC recommendation is that tree planting and peatland restoration must be accelerated. Under the CCC pathways to net zero, tree planting must be scaled up in the 2020s in order for abatement (carbon sequestration and storage) to be sufficient to meet later carbon budgets and reach net zero by 2050. This will require a doubling of current rates to get as close as possible to the targets of 30,000ha of new woodland creation per year by 2025 and 32,000ha of peatland restoration a year by 2026.” (4) As regards reducing livestock levels, whilst figures previously showed a decline, this seems to have plateaued, suggesting further focus here is needed.

Whether through converting more arable or grass lands to woodland, restoring peatlands or by reducing livestock numbers, the farming world is going to have to face ongoing change.

The demands of climate change, go beyond just reducing carbon emissions, and include further action in protecting land, properties and lifestyles from the impacts of increasingly adverse weather conditions and rising sea levels. Again referencing the latest CCC report ADAS notes “This latest CCC report comes after the wettest 18 months on record in England. Farmers and land managers have been among the most affected with thousands of acres of farmland flooded, crop yields down and harvesting delayed, as well as knock-on impacts into this season and likely longer-term.

“The impacts of this record rainfall highlight the urgent need to adapt to the physical risks of climate change, to avoid more costly and less effective adaptations further down the line. The CCC reports that currently the UK’s Third National Adaption programme (NAP3) lacks the ambition and pace to address the scale of climate risks we are already experiencing in the UK”. (6)

Under the terms of the Climate Change Act 2008 the UK is required to produce ‘national adaptation plans’ setting out how the government will protect the country from the impacts of climate change by constructing flood defences, developing green spaces, cultivating drought-resistant crops, and building resilient infrastructure etc. NAP3 covers the period 2023 to 2028. To date most commentators note that the provisions made by NAP3 are inadequate, but clearly they will impact on the farming world whether through more farmland suffering the adverse consequences of droughts and floods, or through changing agricultural practices and changes to land use – eg restoring water meadows, planting more woodland and re-setting peatlands.

At the same time as the need to address climate change by transitioning to net zero, the UK also needs to address biodiversity loss which is another issue linked with the need for change in agricultural practices. As regards England (other parts of the UK have their own policies) the Parliament has noted that “the Environment Act 2021 … set legally binding biodiversity targets ….:

to reduce the risk of species going extinct in 2042, compared with 2022
to create or restore 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats by 2042
to ensure overall species abundance is increasing rather than decreasing by 2030, and increases by 10% by 2042, compared with 2030”(5)

These are in addition to the UK’s commitment to meet the international Convention on Biological Diversity’s ‘30 by 30 target’ – vis achieving effective conservation and management of at least 30% of land and sea by 2030.

Again these are targets which are going to impact the farming world, through adopting less intensive farming techniques, and through the restoration – and expansion of – hedgerows, ponds, woods, peatlands and meadows etc.

Not all these changes are going to be self financing. It is possible that less intensive farming by reducing the amount – and therefore cost – of inputs such as fertilisers, may be cost neutral, but in most cases less intensive farming will only be financially viable if the end product can be sold to,the customer at an enhanced price. But weather restoring a pond in a field or rewetting peatland will be self financing is perhaps more doubtful. On the other hand the benefit to us as a whole will be significant – so may be we need to work out how we put a value on that benefit and how we work out who pays and how.

It seems to me that we need a conversation that allows farmers and consumers to explore what the options are and how the transition to climate and biodiversity friendly farming can be achieved. If farms are going to have less livestock, are we consumers going to eat less meat? If crops are grown less intensively, are we consumers willing to pay more? And is the government going to ensure that wages and benefits increase commensurately? If farmers are to convert grazing land to woodlands, are we as tax payers, willing to pay for loss of income? Might we instead see the cost as the cost of protecting our homes from flooding? Might those with the resources (financial and volunteering capacity) be willing to purchase farmland with the aim of rewilding it? Will the government provide funds to encourage new rural industries that would provide employment and maintain or reinvigorate rural communities?

We certainly need to have these conversations urgently to ensure both a just transition and to protect our climate and environment for the wellbeing of current and future generations to come. The next five years look as if they are increasingly going to be when decisive action (not just plans) happens.

(3) https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in-reducing-emissions-2024-report-to-parliament/

(4) https://adas.co.uk/news/credible-plans-and-actions-urgently-needed-to-decarbonise-uk-agriculture-sector/

(5) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/biodiversity-loss-uk-international-obligations/

(6) https://adas.co.uk/news/credible-plans-and-actions-urgently-needed-to-decarbonise-uk-agriculture-sector/

Counting on … day 95

29th April 2024

For a change of emphasis, I plan over the next few weeks to look at some of the things we do as a household to live more sustainably. Maybe what we do might prompt some thoughts for you, and maybe you will have some ideas to share as well.

I follow a vegan diet and as I am the main cook, all home cooking is vegan!

Vegan diets have a smaller carbon footprint and cause less damage to the climate – research suggests somewhere in the region of 75% less! The food grown for vegan diets uses less water and less land – largely because of the significant amounts of land and water needed to grow feed for farm animals. Needing less land has two benefits – first the ability to grow more food for a growing population, and second the ability to set aside more farm land for rewilding and restoring levels of biodiversity.

I also chose a vegan diet on the grounds of animal welfare. Even eating a vegetarian diet involves the slaughter of young animals – principally male chicks and male calves – as well as the likelihood that the females will have stressful lives of repeated birthing.

I can see that for some people raising low intensity livestock can be a key part of a farm’s ecology, and that eating small amounts of meat and dairy would be consistent with that.