Plane Tree Forum
Cussonia Court Room 2
University of Melbourne
Thursday 4 September 2008
5:30pm – 7:30pm
Professor Jacqueline Rowarth,
Institute of Natural Resources,
Massey University, New Zealand
Professor Jacqueline Rowarth was Director of the Office for Environmental Programs at University of Melbourne from 2005 until 2007 when she returned to New Zealand to take up the Chair of Pastoral Agriculture at Massey University, New Zealand. Her research over the past twenty years has focussed on efficient use of fertiliser (product yield and quality with minimum environmental impact), and evaluation of new plant species and cultivars (seed yield, animal growth and wool growth).
Powered by FireStats
2 Comments
Posted on behalf of Professor Jacqueline Rowarth:
Costing the earth….
How much are you prepared to pay for your lifestyle?
Connor’s principle states at most, only two of the following can be high at any one time:
Population
Environmental quality
Freedom from regulation.
Mike Connor is an engineer, established the subject Sustainability, Policy and Management and was a deputy director of the Office for Environmental Programs from 2003 – 2006.
His principle is elegant in its simplicity and provided a frame of reference for participants at the Plane Tree Forum on the 4th September. Population is increasing, environmental quality is deteriorating, and regulation costs money – so how much are we prepared to pay?
Sustainability is the issue. The Brundtland definition (1987) of sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
The International Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Land Management was formulated and adopted at the world congress for Soils in Mexico in 1994: “Sustainable land management combines technologies, policies and activities aimed at integrating socio-economic principles with environmental concerns so as simultaneously to:
maintain and enhance productivity
decrease risks to production
protect the potential of natural resources and prevent the degradation of soil and water quality
be economically viable
be socially acceptable.”
Another aspect for incorporation is, as Barbara Reimer, a PhD student with the Melbourne School of Land and Environment, articulated “Resilience and the capacity for adaptability and making choices…”.
For Tess Reimers, a student in Environmental Programs, sustainability is neutral accounting – aiming for no impact of activity.
All of the definitions are associated with a cost for present generations (which could be considered as redress for free-loading in the past). Accepting that people need food, discussion swung to the cost/impact of various production systems. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK, released a report on The Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption in December 2006. Examination of the environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a wide range of products, from various production systems (e.g., organic and conventional), and in various presentations (e.g., raw and frozen) and revealed some data which challenged common belief…
What consumption trends could be encouraged ‘sustainably’?
Organic v conventional
Organic agriculture poses environmental problems in terms of nutrient release to water, greenhouse warming potential and acidifying potential. It also requires almost twice as much land to produce the same quantity of food as conventional agriculture, though the amount of energy required per unit of food is lower than in conventional agriculture.
Personal v local v global
“Evidence for a lower environmental impact of local preference in food supply and consumption overall is weak and for environmental impact of bulk haulage is not decisive. The wide variation in the agricultural impacts of food grown in different parts of the world (e.g., quantity of water consumed) global sourcing could be a better environmental option for particular foods.
Fresh v chilled v preserved
Refrigerated and frozen food consumes more energy than fresh food, but the potential for wastage with fresh (and also with chilled) food is high.
From the DEFRA analysis, which involved data from many countries, there are no simple answers. What is clear, however, is that food will continue to increase in price over the next few years. Adding any Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) into the equation will cause further increases.
Last year the food price index for Australia increased 3.9%. Although cheese went up 14.2% over the year, and milk 12.1%, fruit decreased 12.7% and vegetables decreased by 3.3%… yet it is the increase in cheese and milk that has stuck in society’s mind. At $25/T Carbon for the emissions trading scheme, a kg of milk solids will require $3.23 to pay for the carbon produced. That cost will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. Countries which have not signed up to the Kyoto Protocol will not require the farmers to pay for the carbon…. the milk and cheese will therefore be cheaper.
Already the consumer is making choices between battery eggs and free-range; some are prepared to pay the difference for ‘happy hens’ – but in the carbon issue animal welfare is not the differentiator.
How much will you be prepared to pay?
Cool site, love the info. I do a lot of research online on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks,
A definite great read.. <a href=”http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/~bill-bartmann”
-Bill-Bartmann