I quietly sat through a roundtable on where our industry should stand on the current global agenda of vilifying cattle for emitting methane. There was a piece missing in my argument that the carbon/methane/climate change/overpopulation narrative is a psychotic and dangerous agenda which we should discredit and then ignore. There is another factor we need to consider.
Throughout recorded history humans have attributed bad weather to divine wrath or human evil, a tendency still buried deep in our psyche which is currently accepting the ludicrous myth that human’s bad behaviour of using energy dense fossil fuels to bring humanity into prosperity will somehow lead to an existential crisis and environmental Armageddons. These baseless theories flourish in the absence of a proper understanding of scale and scientific processes. The climate alarmists provide simple, emotionally satisfying explanations where none are easily available, playing on our cognitive biases and need for clear narratives. These theories allow individuals to feel more in control by blaming a tangible source such as the fossil fuel industry or cows.
Sadly, it is very quick and easy to say cattle emit methane therefore cattle are bad. It takes a considerably longer and rational discussion to counteract the delusional assertion that cattle can be bad for the environment, it is about as logical as saying fish are bad for the oceans. The management of cattle is wholly a human decision and that can have positive or negative influences on the environment. If cows were not in the environment grass would still grow, the grass would either rot, releasing methane into the atmosphere or burn releasing more carbon than grazing animals ever could.
It is a lie that human induced climate change is caused by carbon emissions. Over the past 140 million years the earth’s Carbon Dioxide concentrations have been falling from 2,500ppm to 320ppm with a slight uptick to 421ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If we had not arrested this decline all terrestrial life on earth would become extinct at 150ppm of atmospheric Co2. There were no run-away temperature increases over these past 140 million years because Co2 is not a strong greenhouse gas – 95% of the earth’s greenhouse warming is due to water vapor. Carbon Dioxide accounts for 3.6% and Methane 0.45%.
Human mismanagement of billions of hectares of brittle tending environments started when early humans began hunting in organized packs, often with fire and in more recent centuries organized agriculture. Human management over millennia has drastically reduced many green vegetative habitats to desert. This has resulted in a broken small water cycle locally and over enough areas has caused macro climate change, easily reversed with good management and cows. As 95% of the heat dynamics of planet earth are governed by water vapor would it not make logical sense to be dealing with the biggest factor?
Reducing human-induced Co2 emissions is simply not going to happen because the majority of emissions are coming from developing and developed countries. Even if they did decide to impoverish their population and reduce emissions it would make no difference whatsoever. There are about 950 giga tons of Co2 in the atmosphere, 3,000 giga tons of Co2 in the soils and 38,000 giga tons of Co2 in the oceans. Even if we draw down atmospheric carbon into the soils the oceans will act as a giant buffered system and will re-equilibrate Co2 into the atmosphere. Increasing soil organic carbon levels is clever management but why would we commit economic suicide to pursue a pointless and futile illusion of atmospheric carbon or biogenic methane being a problem?
Atmospheric carbon dioxide and water are used by plants to grow, the grass is eaten by a cow, the cow releases Biogenic methane which breaks down in the atmosphere somewhere between 1-12 years to become carbon dioxide and water in what is a very short cycle. Cows cannot produce atmospheric gasses; they can only cycle them.
Consumers are the only ones who put money into the supply chain, the vegan activists and climate extremists do not put anything in. Time and time again it has been proven that consumers will not pay extra for greenwashed initiatives, shoppers walk into supermarkets as environmentally conscious global citizens who are concerned about animal welfare and by the time they get to the register they are economists.
The factor I was missing in dismissing the current climate change swindle is that the Governments are acting as the gatekeepers on behalf of their citizens. Every Government in the world has the agenda of keeping its citizens at a point of contentment where they will either vote them back in or not overthrow them in a revolution. It is with the citizens at the consumer level that agriculture must connect if we want to maintain market access and market share. The activists are filling the information void we have created and are hugely successful at this strategy, the Governments are simply following their citizens sentiments.
The global farm advocacy model is a failed and broken mismatch of antiquated communication strategies. The fight is not against the activist groups, the fight is who can best connect with consumers and tell the most emotive and compelling story. Our story of “what it takes to put a steak on a plate” is the best in town. Next time you are talking to one of your industry representatives, ask them when they are going to get a modern two-way communication strategy that resonates with our consumers and allows us to connect in a meaningful way.
George King has contributed this article in his personal capacity as a cattle producer from NSW. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities he represents or this news website. We emphasise our commitment to fostering open, evidence-based discussions on all scientific matters. We encourage readers to explore diverse viewpoints and engage with the broader body of scientific research to form their own informed opinions.
Large land mammals have been doing the same thing for thousands and thousands of years, we are now told that they are the problem.
“The delusional assertion that cattle can be bad for the environment, it is about as logical as saying fish are bad for the oceans.” Is the perfect analogy
Fantastic article. I m assuming you have read books by Prof Ian Plimer. He oulines your opinion but more emphatically backed by science. His book, ‘Green Murder’, is an excellent read. He is a geologist that has worked in industry and at Universities, has written 11 books for the general public and published 120 scientific papers. Keep spreading the good word.
George is correct about what he has said, The missing methane factor. I am a car nut, and my father was an engineer. Hence, I follow a lot of what is happening regarding alternate synthetic fuels, using a mixture of
Hydrogen, methanol and ethanol. So, basically, the fuel is burnt in an ICE, and all that comes out of the exhaust pipe is water.
This is what Toyota is doing: https://global.toyota/en/mobility/beyond-zero/fuel.html
G’day
Just read the above article.
As an interested observer, I was interested in the comments. I have read that Methane is a cyclical gas and has always been there as a a result of ruminant existence. Co2 is another thing.
I as an observer, have seen the weather change and become more unstable, the seas rise and the graphs of exponential Co2 increase from fossil fuels.
This doesn’t align with the views of the Author who suggest water vapor is the cause that changes microclimates and hence we see the changes locally.
I do think we should be pushing for the animal industry to be blamed less for any climate destabilization and turn the heat up on the fossil fuel industry instead.
Bill Cameron
George this piece is equivalent to saying the earth is flat! The earth is warming due to humans actions which has been supported by scientists…….this doesn’t mean no cattle. A practical approach to reducing our carbon to Net Zero which the MLA have embraced and still have increased productivity .
Well done George. At last someone with the courage to tell it as it is.
As for John Schultz, get a grip on reality and stop believing the tripe that is being peddled by the climate alarmists.
Ah, George, well done, Man! You’ve nailed it … 🔨 👏👏👏
I agree with the writer and if you want some science I suggest you read some papers by Walter Jehne an ex CSIRO professor
Thankyou George for your courage.
You are right – our industry advocacy & “representative” groups need to put much more effort into connecting with people – first with the grass roots producers – & then importantly with our domestic Australian consumers.
Our continually rising population obscures the very poor job that our industry has been doing for the past ~20 years but it is evidenced by the reduction in per capita consumption of red meat in Australia.
The domestic market is not only an important market by even moreso it is our political capital & our “social licence” support base, thus is crucially important.
You are right, we should not be engaging & defending against ludicrous ideas like cattle being a methane problem – we simply should have laughed & pointed out the utter deranged stupidity of it … & more importantly got on with filling Australian’s heads & hearts with all the good stories of our industry & benefits of consuming red meat.
We are loosing the propaganda/information war, & along with it public & political support for our existence.
Good on you- well said George.
The ppl pushing all these red herrings don’t eat meat anyway.
We should ignore them
Sadly, George King is not a scientist and he doesn’t, clearly, understand climate science. Unfortunately George is also a representative of cattle producers, but George, you don’t represent me. Your views on climate change are wrong. Totally wrong, but you did get the disconnect angle between consumers and producers right, though most consumers on reading your piece, would judge cattle producers to be Neanderthals. You need to catch up George. The public demand better.
John, your comments about Neanderthals sums up the climate evangelistic debate. Anyone having a contradictory view should be pilloried and discredited. Hiding behind the science is neither a new, nor novel, approach. Massive scientific blunders like the invention of nuclear weapons, fossil fuels, CFCs, leaded petrol and DDT; and tenuous scientific theories and dubious discoveries like luminiferous aether, the expanding earth, vitalism, blank slate theory, phrenology, and Piltdown Man, all seem to be forgotten, or unknown, to this generation. There are many climate scientists who simply do not agree with current climate theory; and many others, seeking government research funds, who may be prepared to acquiesce their beliefs.
Let’s respect all opinions and, by considering same, arrive at our own, without making personal attacks on individuals.
Hans Christian Anderson, in commenting upon the then climate debate, in 1837, summed up his view in ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’, in that we see what we want to see – not what is actually there!
100% Well written George !
Hello John, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t say that comment if you were locked in a room with me. Another predictable feature of the human psyche is when a subject offends someone’s deeply held beliefs they attack the person not the facts offered forward. Thanks for the personal feedback.
From what I can gather this article supports the science of Walter Jehne on cows being falsely blamed for methane but simultaneously contradicts Graeme Pearman ex CSIRO about carbon dioxide levels measured by Keeling in Hawaii since 1957 and then in country Victoria? I sense that Pearman and Jehne have more or less suggested that you should not lock yourself in an enclosed garage and then sit in there with your Toyota running because you will probably asphyxiate? The world might just be a big garage?
G’day Will, thanks for your comment. I’ve double checked the details, the Keeling measurements started in 1957 at 315ppm of C02 and have risen to 421ppm. As to the dangers of Carbon Dioxide to your health, submarines operate at between 5,000ppm and 7,000ppm of Co2 with no detrimental health effects to the sailors who freely breathe that air. What your Toyota is releasing in the garage is Carbon Monoxide (Co); if the concentration exceeds 100ppm symptoms can include confusion, intense headaches, brain damage, coma, and/or death