Dear Editor,
The continued insistence of the environmental campaigners towards criticising dissenting opinions as being representative of “right-wing, climate change denialists” is disheartening. This attitude was evident in the recent piece by Sadhbh O’Neill, which critiqued a discussion between Beef Plan Movement members and atmospheric Physicist Prof Richard Lindzen. The main subject of the discussion was a query regarding the lack of challenge towards erroneous climate information in the farming community.
Prof Lindzen, who has contributed more than 200 research papers over his six-decade-long career, highlighted that the worst potential warming effect of methane, given the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, would roughly equate to a 0.4 degrees Celsius increase.
Given that ruminants are responsible for only about 11% of atmospheric methane, eliminating all ruminants (encompassing cows, sheep, goats, deer, giraffes, among others, over 200 species) would reduce global temperatures by a measly 0.04 degrees Celsius over the following half-century. Thus, the pro-environment campaigners’ obsession over eradicating Ireland’s bovine population appears to be unwarranted.
This isn’t indicative of some political leaning to the right, rather it is an argument grounded in science. The attempt by environmental proponents to curtail scientific conversations about climate change is indeed concerning. The idea that general populace, specifically those residing in rural areas, should be ‘immunised’ against such discussions, as if they are akin to a contagious disease that might mislead their worldview, is even more questionable.
Regrettably, scientific evidence isn’t always the driving force behind climate change measures, a fact evident from Sadhbh O’Neill’s article itself. Despite approving that the accurate method for measuring methane should be using GWP*(Global Warming Potential Star) as opposed to the currently used GWP100, she rejects this approach based on the allegations one scientist made, who believes such a change could lead to “unethical consequences” for developing nations. Real solutions can only be derived from capturing problems as precisely as possible. Considering how global food security is one of the pressing issues surrounding climate change, the suggestion by Irish environmental activists to cut down on food production, even more so when they admit the approach is backed by substandard science, seems highly unethical.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
I concur with your correspondent that the stance taken by Ireland regarding climate change is likely to influence the forthcoming elections. In the previous election, we did not purposely elect a government led by the Green Party. However, this is what we ended up with, due to the similar predicament the Green Party found themselves in as Jackie Healy-Rae did in 1997.
Eamon Ryan, despite never holding the prestigious roles of taoiseach or tánaiste, has arguably exerted a greater influence on our government’s policy than both combined. Notably, he has substantially bolstered the funding directed towards NGOs that share his perspective. Consequently, there’s rarely an opportunity for diverse viewpoints to be voiced. Therefore, I find it misleading for Sadhbh O’Neill to suggest that individuals should exclusively source their information from mainstream media given the considerable sway that NGOs, such as Friends of the Earth, hold over them.
Community-led groups, such as the Beef Plan Movement, do not enjoy the same level of exposure in popular media. However, their perspectives should not be dismissed as any less fact-driven. Best regards,
EMMANUEL O’DEA,
Beef Plan Movement,
Summerhill,
Co Meath.