Less red meat on the dinner tables in the Norwegian home. This was among the most important proposals in the Klimakur 2030. The report was commissioned by the government and came from Miljødirektoratet in January.
Photo: Klimakur 2030
Three weeks later came the protests from the government itself. In Olaug Bollestad said she was a lot tired of the one-sided klimadebatten about red meat.
Afterwards, kronikkene passed as pingpongballer between Miljødirektoratet and the ministry of Agriculture in the newspaper Nationen.
Arguing about ku-rap
– climate crisis is not the cow’s fault, protesting recently, the outgoing permanent secretary of state in the ministry of Agriculture, Leif Forsell.
the environmental movement has a coined the phrase “beef, car and housing.” It is more correct with “fossil fuel, shipping and aircraft”. Actually storfebestanden been almost halved since before the war. So cows in Norway have contributed to less methane, ” says Forsell to NRK.
Leif Forsell has written a number of op-eds the last time. Where he argued for change on the way to calculate the effect of ku-rap on the climate.
Photo: Mette Ballovara / NRK
– We have never intended that the cow has created klimaproblemet, answer Ellen Hambro, director of Miljødirektoratet. But since there is a need for rapid reductions in emissions, agricultural help, she believes.
the Agency has only responded to a mandate from the government to put forward a knowledge base for which emission reductions that can be done, ” Hambro.
– So is it the government who shall decide what action should be used.
Disagree about the measure
But kjøttkutt is short term plan and a threat to agriculture, believes Forsell.
He accuses Miljødirektoratet to conceal that there are alternative ways to calculate klimaeffekten of methane, which gives a better picture of reality.
Hambro rejects the criticism against the Miljødirektoratet.
– Measure is in line with current international measurement – and rapporteringsregler, and is therefore equal for all countries that report their greenhouse gas emissions to the united nations.
Experts have counted on it.
metering method GWP100 provides a common device (in CO₂-equivalents) for all greenhouse gases. How can the world act with cers.
The rains methane as 25 times greater than CO₂ over a hundreårsperiode.
But the method does not take enough account of the fact that methane breaks down in the atmosphere after about 12 years, while the CO₂ remains in up to several hundred years.
– When, and if, the environmental administration in Norway and raining right, regnemåten more in line with intuition and folkevett, type Forsell in his feature article in Nationen.
New arithmetic operation
But the new measure, with the subtle name GWP*, does not give agriculture some victory in the battle against climate change. Rather on the contrary.
the united nations will, therefore, probably not use it, as it will give an unreasonable pressure on the agricultural sector in comparison to the fossil fuel industry.
With GWP* provides kjøttkuttene as Klimakur suggest much larger effect on climate than with GWP100.
NRK has asked the two scientists, Surety Aamaas by Cicero and Klaus Mittenzwei in Nibio, to show us how much:
to put it in perspective: If all the norwegians by 2030 cut out one hamburger a week, equivalent to removing more than half of Norway’s total annual emissions.
And it is only for methane. They had also calculated the nitrous oxide emissions decreased by from meat production, so had utslippskuttene been even greater.
Thomas Cottis is a lecturer in the agriculture and klimakunnskap at the College in the Inland.
The new measure shows that the metankutt can buy us precious time in the fight against climate change. At the same time, it is of course important to supply the world with energy without fossil CO₂ emissions, ” says lecturer in agriculture and klimakunnskap at the College in the Inland, Thomas Cottis to NRK.
Will not cut meat
Agriculture to cut five million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents over the next ten years. It goes forward of the agricultural agreement with the State.
But less meat is not a part of Agricultural klimaplan, as the Norwegian farmers ‘ union recently put forward.
– Why won’t agriculture be to buy us time in the battle against climate change?
– Agricultural klimaplan shows just that a overall industry will help to fulfil the jordbrukets klimaforpliktelse. So I don’t accept the premise of the question, the answer the secretary general of the Bondelaget, Sigrid Hjørnegård.
She thinks we don’t need to choose between Norwegian food and climate. Both are possible with your plan: Phase out fossil emissions from agriculture, improvements in feeding and breeding, manure handling, good agronomy and the soil as karbonlager.
Read also: the New feed to make a cow-belching more climate-friendly
Koronapandemien shows that it is more important than ever to ensure their own food production. And large parts of Norway are only suitable for gressproduksjon and grazers. Food from healthy livestock that provide meat and milk is a good way to exploit the nature of our on.
assistant professor Cottis can not convince. He points out that many of the measures in the agricultural sector suggests will take many years to appear.
– today used too much resources to produce animal feed, meat and milk. In addition, we import over half of both food and animal feed. A wise adaptation for lower kjøttforbruk can both reduce emissions and increase selvforsyningen our. In addition, it is good for public health, argue Cottis.