Agriculture’s ‘crucial part’ in achieving net zero target

Extinction Rebellion held their protests in London at the weekend, but this time it had more of a carnival atmosphere with fancy dress and those who like to wear masks to depict the prime Minister and others (how the left miss Margaret Thatcher).

This was far better than past events when XR protests created havoc and disrupted people’s lives.

They are learning that this is a better way and many families with their children were there; a far cry from the (now excluded) founder Roger Hallam who talked of revolution and fell out even with his supporters.

Planting trees is a simple solution which governments are latching on to in their quest for a simple answer to climate change.

Areas such as the Yorkshire Dales which have great beauty; organically evolved over the centuries are now targeted for tree planting.

These areas where people from all over the world come to see and visit will be obliterated if the likes of the Woodland Trust get their way and the fact that this country like most others were covered in woodland in the distant past is no justification; it is in fact well-meaning vandalism.

In the same vein we have the call for lynx in Scotland; re-wilders can’t bring themselves to shoot deer so they want them savaged to a ‘natural’ death (along with a few sheep)!

Lord Gummer, Chair of the Climate Change Committee for the last 10 years, spoke at the Farmers Club in London recently. The Committee whilst entirely independent, but is a statutory body and draws on the expertise of world-leading scientists and economists in order to assess the facts and advise government. “We only consider the science and in 13 years we have never had the facts we present undermined,” Lord Gummer stressed.

National carbon budgets are proposed and ways of achieving them elucidated, with the best and worst case scenarios together with a preferred pathway.

It’s all about proving that climate action is doable as government cannot be held to account on an impossible demand or promise.

Once government has adopted those carbon budgets, changes can only be made with the committee’s approval. In June of each year the committee undertakes a statutory assessment of government progress and a response is required from government by October: "We have the right to hold their feet to the fire,” Lord Deben emphasises.

Farming is inextricably linked with climate change. Why won’t government do more to help farmers respond, he asked?

Agriculture has a crucial part to play in achieving net zero by 2050, by reducing emissions and reducing carbon.

“There is no way we can reach net zero unless society and politicians realise the farming community has a very important part to play,” said Deben, going on to say that life is not possible without carbon emissions.

The challenge is to get the mix of emissions and sequestration right; helping the planet recover so that it can sequester more carbon is key.

We are facing something that is both serious and something which cannot be put off, and the more one learns the more one realises that the tipping points are quite near. We depend on ocean currents and the Gulf Stream here in the UK for instance; that may not be there in the future.

Elsewhere in the world big impacts are felt with changes to weather system around the Pacific’s El Nino being of particular concern; what we are facing is extremely serious and cannot be put off.

He was also very critical of Defra and said that farming had no chance of delivering the benefits it could, until Defra showed how it would support them so that proper decisions can be made by the industry. Food production is a national good he said, and being more productive and better at it is vital.

It is not true that we would all be better off if we were all vegans as we need animals for fertility, rather than depending on artificial nutrients. We need to assist farmers in becoming more professional as the future is going to be very difficult. Until Defra recognises such issues, farming’s net zero efforts will be severely hampered.

Respect for the soil is vital, including regenerative farming, but profits are needed too. We need a system of farming which accounts for bio-diversity, mixed farming, more complex and different rotations. Innovation and investment are crucially important and that cannot be done without profit and some security. We will need to be more efficient and as we do not have the best productivity in the UK we need to rid ourselves of wasteful systems.

A system to make environmentally benign farming possible is needed and the new government environmental scheme fails to deliver that and is likely to put many farmers out of business.

Proper legislation to ensure overseas trade meets UK standards is needed, but current agreements put UK farming on notice that it will be undermined in 15 years; contrary to political promises.

It will be very tough for farming as huge changes have got to take place and government needs to stand behind what it has promised. Consistency, clarity, coherence and lasting policies are what agriculture needs.

I was interested to see that the National Park responsible for the Brecon Beacons have decided to move away from the English name in favour of Welsh only; Bannau Brycheiniog.

What drew my attention was that the decision to move away from the English name by the National Park was in their words; ‘partly to show support for the Welsh language’.

This sounded to me as odd and somewhat insincere, but as I read more it became clear that the real reason for the move is climate change; whichever way officials try to dress it up.

They did not need to mention ‘partly’, just revert to the Welsh name as the peaks are in Wales and have a Welsh name, but no, the real issue is Brecon ‘Beacons’ , as in their words ; ‘because a fiery greenhouse gas-emitting beacon does not fit well with our ethos of creating a more sustainable, nature-rich area’.

Of course there are many in Wales who support the change as one would expect, but it is duplicitous to say the least. Downing Street has stepped into a growing row over the decision (oh dear!) and the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said he was sure people would continue to use the national park’s English name and questioned the move to drop a symbol of a flaming beacon from the park’s logo.

I was also drawn by the Welsh Liberal Democrat leader, Jane Dodds, who said: “Other countries like New Zealand see the use of their indigenous languages such as Māori as not only key to protecting their history and culture, but also as a key marketing tool. There is no reason we shouldn’t be doing so in Wales.”

My goodness, are the people of Wales now being compared to the Maori in New Zealand or the Aborigines in Australia by the Liberal Democrats; tokenism and a marketing tool.

The new logo is more muted and features nods to a king’s crown and the starry skies, hills and watercourses of the park. In the words of Terry Wogan: “There’s lovely!”