Sustainability – The Green Tau

Counting on … day 123

13th November 2026

Waste not!

This chapter begins with facts we probably half know but which are nevertheless staggering. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 1.7 billion Tom es do food is wasted every year – about 30% of all food production. Eliminate waste and we could set aside 30% of farmland for nature, cut 3.3 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and save 250 cubic kilometres of water!

In the global south much of this waste happens during transit and storeage due to frequently high temperatures and humidity, less efficient infrastructure and facilities. (P204-205 Eat the Planet Well).

In the UK Goulson lays much of the blame with supermarkets. Their monopolistic size means they can strike one-sided deals with farmers where the farmers loose out if:

they don’t produce enough of the specified fruit/ vegetables
produce too much – either the supermarket won’t buy the excess or because the product is oversupplied, reduces the price paid
produce is turned down by the supermarket for being the wrong shape, colour etc (p205-206).

We the customer can circumvent this by subscribing to a veg box scheme or buying via an local market – but such options are not always available.

But the supermarkets aren’t the only source of food waste. We the UK consumer, throw away approximately 12% of the food we buy (this doesn’t include natural waste such as egg shells and banana skins). Such food waste is less common in the Global South! (P207)

Goulson lists simple ways to minimise food waste

* Plan meals in advance; check what you already have and make list of what need

Buy wonky food when available
Beware bulk-buy offers unless you know you can use or store the food
Buy from a local greengrocer of veg box scheme
Store foods appropriately – eg apples but not bananas in the fridge
Regularly check the fridge for forgotten foods
Resuscitate bendy carrots in cold water
Weigh pasta and rice rather than guessing
Freeze uneaten food, and/ or use in curries etc
Be sensible about whether a food is edible when it exceeds its ‘sell by date’
Recycle scraps via compost bins (not meat/fish) or via the council’s food waste bin (including meat/fish)
Never put food waste in the general rubbish bin. (P210-211)

Further sources of info:

https://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/food-waste

https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/fhnjffvb/fafw_tips_reduce_food_waste.pdf

https://www.peta.org/lifestyle/humane-home/tips-and-tricks-to-avoid-wasting-food/

Counting on … day 122

12th November 2026

“Don’t Wait for the Government”

Goulson starts this chapter thus: “Governments have a poor track record in promoting healthy eating. They could do huge amounts: running public health campy, taxing unhealthy foods, subsidising heathy foods, supporting farmers to grow healthy foods, providing healthy food in schools, hospitals and prisons, and so on. The options are endless, but governments rarely employ any of them, and when they do, they are often stymied by commercial interests or their own un-joined up policies.” (P196 Eat the Planet Well)

The chapter is full of pertinent examples. Of those with great promise was the National Food Strategy undertaken by Henry Dimbleby at the government’s request, but which was not followed through with government action.

Goulson concludes, “So, while we wait for our governments to solve inequality, eradicate poverty and fix our toxic food system … we should bust ourselves with working out a way to feed our families an affordable and nutritious diet with a small environmental impact while exposing ourselves and the environment to the fewest possible pesticides.” (P203)

I wonder if this is an area where churches and other faith groups can have an impact? Churches etc generally have good knowledge of local needs and opportunities and the communication channels with which to pass on good advice and information.

Counting on … day 121

11th November 2026

Is high tech farming the answer?

Goulson is intrigued by what high tech suggests can be done, but far more doubtful about its usefulness given the high costs of development, the difficulties of scaling up and the likely high input of energy needed. Where he does see more usefulness, is in the development of drones or robots to provide precision information about crops – where there might be problems, or where intervention might be needed – or to provide precision targeted doses of fertiliser etc. But again cost can be an issue plus the risk of becoming tied into the programmes and equipment of big corporations.

Green Tau: farming for a better future

9th November 2026

Walking with Christian Climate Action on a pilgrim way to Avebury, we walked through part of the Yatesbury House Farm. The path was lined with newly saplings (sadly some had succumbed to this year’s extreme hot weather). The fields on each side were a mix of plants including, I think, blue flowering flax. Black cattle grazed a wide expanse of the land, whilst we counted six kites – wheeling overhead – a goodly number of corvids, finches and a butterfly!

Yatesbury House Farm has been farming in harmony with nature organically since 1998, and biodynamically since 2004. The farm is closed to all inputs (excepting, pasture seeds, new seeds, new bulls, essential trace minerals for cattle and fuels for tractors and grain drying) – is everything that keeps the soil fertile and its livestock feed (silage etc – all the grain grown is for human consumption), is produced on the farm. Increasingly solar energy is reducing their dependency on imported fuel. The farm practices Agroforestry -including silvopastoral farming where cattle graze both pasture and woodlands, and where copses and hedgerows are planted to benefit both crops and nature. Future crops will include apples, hazelnuts, pears, plums, and walnuts.

Farms like this, help us to imagine what the wider landscape could look like if farming was so clearly focused on working with nature. On the flip side they remind us that if we want that future, we need to give our support by opting for organic produce and as importantly opting to eat less meat and dairy products. Letting cattle graze in harmony with nature, stocking to low density levels and supplementing their feed not with corn and soy but with silage, produces less – but better – meat.

Farming like this also contributes to the Kunming Montreal Biodiversity Framework. (1)

Target 2 calls for a restoration of 30% of all degraded ecosystems -which I’m sure includes farms where the soil’s fertility has been compromised.

Target 7 which calls for the reduction in pollution to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity – organic farming clearly meets this challenge.

Target 8 calls for the minimising of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and to build up resilience which would include farming practices that increase the ability of the soil to absorb excess flood water, to absorb carbon and that boosts biodiversity.

Target 10 calls for the enhancement of biodiversity and sustainability in agriculture, including the adoption biodiversity friendly practices such as agroecology.

Our walk was the precursor to our attendance at the National Trust’s AGM where a CCA inspired motion called on the NT to align its banking with its environmental credentials, was successfully approved by the members. (2) The two events are welcome signs that a better future is possible if we are willing to press for it.

To find out more about Yatesbury House Farm visit their website – https://www.yatesburyfarm.com/home -or watch this video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24y38h9QvU0

Counting on … day 120

9th November 2026

Room for Rewilding

Goulson understands rewilding to be “[o]ne of the most contentious and divisive issues amongst farmers in the UK at present, seen by some as a threat to the food system… The term refers, so what loosely, to setting aside land – usually farmed land – and then, as far as possible, allowing nature to look after itself.” Such rewilding projects can involve the reintroduction of species to restore the contributions they make to the shaping of a diversity of habitats. eg beavers to restore more flood resilient wetlands; large grazing animals to maintain a balance between scrub and grassland; pine martens to control grey squirrel populations. (P181 Eat the Planet Well)

Goulson advocates for a national land use strategy that identifies what land is best used not just for growing food – ie grade 1 farmland – but for capturing carbon, generating energy, supporting biodiversity, mitigating flooding, providing for recreation etc. (P183) He the draws our attention to what we might think of as the traditional look of the countryside and its associated livelihoods, is a constantly changing picture: from the pre-Neolithic age when farming was in its infancy and the land was a mix of wood and grassland and its people hunter gathers, to the medieval strip fields which were replaced by small enclosed fields and the downgrading of peasant farmers to farm hands, to the huge fields of modern times where miles of hedgerows have been removed, and where meadows have been replaced by monocultures of grasses and grains – and where fewer and fewer people find employment.

So would further change actually be beneficial? Goulson believes so: “You my recall” he writes “from the previous chapter that taking up to 8% of fields out of arable production has no negative impact on yield, in part because farmers choose the least productive bits of land, and in part because the uncropped land then acted as a source of beneficial insects. I would argue that rewinding works in a similar way but on a larger scale. We have long known that farmers get better yields if their farm is near wilder, unfarmed areas, because pollinators spill out of those refuges into the farmland. Similarly, rewilded upland areas with more tree cover and perhaps beaver dams would reduce the catastrophic flooding of lowland farmland that can wipe outcrops ( as well as costing billions in flood damage to property). Rewilded areas help tackle climate change, which poses numerous threats to food production…) (p187)

What Goulson doesn’t mention here, is that if we were to adopt a diet that included less meat and dairy, we would need less land for feeding and rearing livestock. And indeed some of that land could be diverted to growing more of the foods – fruits, vegetables, beans and pulses – that we would be enjoying instead!

Counting on … day 119

6th November 2026

Nature friendly farming

Goulson begins this chapter with what is again at the nub of the issue. “As we have explores, there is overwhelming evidence that the industrialisation of farming is a major driver of the loss of wildlife around the globe; ecosystems rich in wildlife have been swept away, and replaced by serried ranks of oil palms, vines or vast fields of arable crops, which are treated multiple times per year with many different pesticides to keep the crop as close to a perfect monoculture as possible. Industrialised farming and nature are mutually exclusive.

“Loss of wildlife from the land is clearly undesirable for many reasons, not least of which is that it undermines the stability of farming itself, which needs bees and pollinators, ladybirds and other natural enemies of crop pests, and the diverse array of small creatures that keep soil healthy and recycle nutrients.” (P168 Eat the Planet Well)

Goulson follows this with an overview of the many ways in which nature-friendly farming provides a positive and productive alternative. He takes the example of hedgerows which were ripped out following the Second World War to make maximise field size and increase productivity. On the ground trials and research shows the contrary to be true. “If every arable farmer …put the least productive 8% of their land into wildlife habitats, there would apparently be no impact on overall crop production but huge benefits for nature; 8 per cent of arable land in the UK would amount to a staggering 320,000 hectares of wildlife habitat.” (P169) Other examples covered include expanded crop rotations, agroforestry, the UK government’s and various EU environmental policies and subsidies, as well as regenerative and organic farming practices, ending with this recap:-

“In short, conventional farming could adopt a suite of measures that would boost biodiversity considerably with little or no impact on overall crop yield or farm profitability, and some of these would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We should be encouraging and supporting farmers to deploy as many of these measures as possible, ideally with government funding and incentives. Going organic also boosts biodiversity, but comes at the cost of decreased yield for some crops. The ideal system, from both environmental and human health perspectives, would combine both, but to be viable without increasing food imports this would require a shift in diet.” (P179)

Counting on …day 118

5th November 2026

Fish and seafood

Is eating fish sustainable? If we eat them at a faster rate than they can reproduce, then clearly no – which is why various governments have introduced fish quotas. But – “Fishing can be a classic ‘tragedy of the commons’, whereby anyone cheating the system – catching more than thwir share – makes a profit in the short term, while the cost of their selfish action is shared by all.” (P189 Eat the Planet Well).

Further issues around the sustainability of fishing include methods of fishing – bottom trawlers both severely degrade the seabed and drag up by-catch – ie fish and marine life that because is not suitable for sale, is discarded. Lost of discarded fishing gear adds to the already dangerous amounts of plastic in the oceans – this is bad for marine life and potentially for those eating that marine life. Most seafood that is eaten contains a mix of plastic particles. Fish often also contain various potentially harmful chemicals, including mercury, which bio-accumulation become increasingly concentrated in fish at the top of the food chain. (P151)

Ia fish farming sustainable? Like the industrialised farming of livestock, fish farming at scale is far from a natural lifestyle for the fish. Fed on concentrated feed to increase growth rates, over crowded in water which becomes polluted with faeces and in which disease can be rife, leading to an over reliance on antibiotics, sustainability is doubtful.

Goulson’s advice is that “…anyone who plans to continue eating seafood should support initiatives to set aside portions of the marine environment as protected areas. These support biodiversity, capture carbon, and can act s breeding grounds for commercial fish species which then spill out into the surrounding seas, increasing the sustainable catch. Nearly 40% of the UK’s territorial waters are nominally designated as Marine Protected Areas, but most of these provide little or no actual protection, still allowing harmful practices such as bottom trawling and some industrial activities. In 2023, the UK government announced that three small areas would become Highly Protected Marine Areas, with a total ban on fishing, but these cover a pitiful half a per cent of British waters.” (P167)

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 114

28th October 2026

What to do about soy and palm oil?

You well be surprised to learn that soy and palm oil are by far the biggest sources of vegetable oil in our diets: 76 million tonnes of palm oil and 59 million tonnes of soy are harvested every year. The next most co:mon vegetable oil is rape seed coming in at 25 million tonnes, whilst olive oil measures a mere 3 million tonnes. (P100 Eat the Planet Well).

Most of the soy oil is used to manufacture high protein animal feed. Soy that is used to create protein rich tofu, soya milk, soy sauce etc uses but a fraction.

Palm oil is widely used in food processing. Palm oil yields are high, making it a cheap oil. It is versatile, stable during cooking and semi solid at room temperature. It can be found in products as diverse as bread, icecream, biscuits, breakfast cereals, chocolate and even baby food. It is also widely used in products such as shampoo, toothpaste and cosmetics. A wonder ingredient! But the problem lies in where and how oil palms are grown. They grow best in hot humid conditions with plenty of rainfall such as occurs in rainforest habitats. Vast tracts of rainforest have been cleared to make way for mono crop oil palm plantations, causing ecological and climatic devastation.

Another downside of palm oil is that it is higher than other plant oils in saturated fats – 52% (NB Coconut oil is even higher at 89%).*

“So” asks Goulson, “should we boycott palm oil? There is no clear answer, so I can only tell you my decision. If palm oil were a healthy ingredient used in nutritious foods, I might reluctantly recommend that we consume it, choosing products certified by RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) and pushing RSPO standards to be improved to prevent further deforestation. In reality, palm oil offers little nutrition beyond raw calories, is probably bday for our hearts, and is largely only available in ultra-processed foods that are almost universally awful for our health…. I for one will not consume the oil.” (P108 Eat the Planet Well)

*Butter contains about 70% saturated fatty acids.

NB vegan butters tend to contain either palm or coconut oil to gain their semi solid consistency. For more information visit https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/nutrition/is-vegan-butter-healthy

Counting on … day 108

20th October 2026

Local foods

Food miles of themselves don’t add that much to the carbon footprint of the food we eat – about 6% on average, notes Goulson. Although this is much larger for foods brought in by air. Whilst only 0.16% of global food miles are by air, this is seldom indicated on food labels but a good guess would be that perishable foods from the southern hemisphere – such as asparagus, strawberries and berries sold out of season – have come this way.

Local as a term is not that precise! Do we mean food grown or produced within say a 5 mile radius, or food that is regionally grown and produced, of food that is grown in the UK?

Goulson highlights – as have many other experts – that the UK is only about 60% self sufficient in food, rising to 75% of we just consider foods that are well suited to our diet (bananas and citrus fruits are best grown in warmer climes). Disappointingly we only grow 50% of the vegetables we eat and a mere 16% of fruit.

Why do we import food that could be easily grown in the UK? Sometimes it is because other countries can benefit from cheaper labour – Spain has many temporary agricultural workers who come from North Africa and are paid a pittance. Other countries may have less restrictive regulations than in the UK around the use of pesticides or animal welfare which again may reduce the price – but at what cost? This is not to say that UK standards are always the highest – the EU has banned the use of neonictinoids but these continue to be used in the UK under repeatedly issued ‘emergency’ permits.

Goulson concludes that ‘the ethics of the shopping decisions you make re fiendishly complicated. Every food item you buy has influence, funding a particular grower or system of production along with its associated chemical inputs, plus all the transport, processing and packaging costs.’ (P46 Eat the Planet Well).

One advantage I can see for buying food that is locally grown and/or produced, is that it can help strengthen the resilience of local farmers and local communities.