Home | About | Donate

Will the Paris Climate Talks Be a COP of the Crops?


Will the Paris Climate Talks Be a COP of the Crops?

Clare Birkett

Tackling carbon emissions from agriculture from farming isn't even on the table at the UN climate talks in December. It ought to be, and it's big agribusiness that's at the heart of the problem.

In 2006 a report from the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) threw the climate change effects of farming into the spotlight. It claimed that the meat and dairy industries are responsible for more greenhouse gases than the whole transport sector.


This article is right up "Zen Practice's" alley.

It has a lot of good info, to be sure; yet there is a particular form of tunnel vision that always shows up in articles focused on ONE main criterion.

"The situation is only likely to worsen, with food production expected to double by 2050 according to the FAO, as the global population expands and meat consumption per capita rises and more people move into the middle classes."

How can ANYONE speak definitively of projections into 2050 when the earth's rising temperature is already seeing the awakening of long-dormant volcanoes, massive floods and reciprocal droughts, millions of refugees of war, and a continued corporate stranglehold held in place by Big Pharma., the big banks, MIC, Big Media, and Big Oil/coal/gas? The entities with the greatest influence over decisions that pertain to us all are prepared to cash in humanity's population pool in order that THEY reap immediate untold profits.

Escaping methane (a stronger facilitator to global warming than CO2), Fukushima's radioactive breath still "exhaling" death, spreading oceanic dead zones, saber rattling towards a WW III... and a thirty-five year projection seems quite optimistic.

Granted, the emphasis on meat-eating is taking a toll on The Great Mother; but to place this item above WAR--as featured widely across the global "menu"--seems odd.

If the water is tainted, or rains don't fall at all... no cattle will be in place to feed McDonald's and Burger King-trained appetites.

This problem includes meat-eating, but it's hardly limited to that. And I don't eat meat...


If TPP and TIPP make it through the pipeline... the following will prove inevitable until all-out Collapse happens:

"But while the potential of agroecology to reduce emissions is widely acknowledged, the priorities and preferences of the corporate sector still dominate decision making forums. Civil society organisations and indigenous groups will be present at COP21, but their voices are likely to remain systematically ignored in the negotiations in favour of business lobbyists."


But since eliminating meat eating would eliminate half of all greenhouse gases, why does it seem odd to identify it as the number one driver of global warming? And why do self-identified progressives explode in anger when I argue that those who persist in their meat eating are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution?