Agriculture  PDF Print E-mail
Description

Moving away from carbon intensive farming will require a largely organic agricultural system in Britain. Our diet will change to support a 60% reduction in land use for livestock, a necessary reduction under the 'Island Britain' constraints.

With cheap energy and transport, rich countries often prefer to import food than to grow it. Most of the imports are non-seasonal and tropical goods. As transport costs increase, these become more expensive relative to indigenous and seasonal foods. The report shows that 'Island Britain' is capable of self sufficiency in food production, allowing for certain agricultural and dietary changes.

Obviously, in reality, the international trading of foodstuffs would to continue. This report aims to show only what Britain is capable of achieving in an effort to devise ways to reduce carbon-embodied produce and therefore the damage we cause to the environment.

The global and national policies recommended in the report would drive up the costs of fossil fuels which in turn would create pressure on farmers to make different, carbon-conscious choices. It would raise the cost of both petroleum based agrochemicals and the transport of produce.

Among the changes that would result is greatly reduced numbers of livestock and land dedicated to feeding them. Farmers would use their land instead for low-input production. Farmers would be given carbon sequestration credits for various agricultural practices, both traditional and innovative and encouraged to produce on-farm fuel and dedicate land for a very limited amount of biofuel crops.

Read more summaries...



User reviews

Average user rating from: 2 user(s)

Rating
5.0
 

Add new review


3 of 3 people found the following review helpful

Reply to Jenny Hall's comment, Thursday, 04 October 2007

Written by nick swallow   -  View all my reviews  - #1 Reviewer

The 10m ha arable suggested in ZeroCarbonBritain is my estimated maximum area that could be used for arable cropping: The land would be rotational and organically managed so it would probably be significantly better in wildlife terms than today's "arable desert" in Eastern England. The area is so large because we have a lot of mouths to feed.
I am aware of the carbon emissions associated with ploughing of grassland, and the decision was a hard one to make because of this (and disruption to wildlife).
On balance the ZCB agriculture model would sequester C in new woodlands rather than release it.
It was encouraging to find that, assessed in very basic terms of food energy requirements, the densely populated island of Great Britain could feed its 60 million or so inhabitants from an indigenous organic agriculture. 60 million is however at the upper limit of the numbers we could support in this manner, and is plainly too many for us to feel comfortably food-secure.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful

Zero carbon agriculture, Saturday, 22 September 2007

Written by Jenny Hall

I think the report in relation to agriculture is very good. My only comment would be that I think that 10 million ha arable is too much. In reality there is usually only about 4.3 million hectares in arable production in any one year and such an increase would have adverse effects on wildlife and carbon releases because soil tillage increases oxidation of carbon.

This is however, not to say that I don't support the report, especially in relation to livestock reduction, just a matter of figures. I think it is possible to feed everyone an organic healthy diet with our present arable land usage.

Kind regards Jenny Hall co-author of "Growing Green: Organic Techniques for a Sustainable Future."

Was this review helpful to you? yes     no


Powered by jReviews





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Facebook!Slashdot!Netscape!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Newsvine!Furl!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!