What we do need to watch is the growth of fugitive emissions from “natural” gas which must accelerate as pipelines and LNG facilities age. Arctic clathrates also stand to count far more than biospheric methane emissions.

2. Cattle do not burn fossil C. They consume forage that has captured atmospheric C during the growth of the forage. Of the C consumed in the forage only 4.5% is belched as methane. Using the factor of 21 (the factor of 100 is a different issue) belched methane as CO2-e is about equal to the CO2 trapped by the growing plant. The net contribution of cattle to CO2-e will only be the CO2 derived from cattle in addition to methane. Consequently decreasing the cattle population, while having a significant impact upon emissions, will have at best a small impact upon climate change.
The net change in CO2-e is the measure that has an impact upon climate change. Emissions (outputs) are only half of the overall biological system, inputs must also be considered to allow an estimate of net change.
The eurocentric rules of the Kyoto agreement focus only on emissions, and Australia for that reason has to control emissions but the Australian community should be aware that control of emissions will not necessarily relate to a proportionate impact upon climate change, particularly in the case of cattle.

I am surprised that someone who appears to be a self professed knowledgeable person is unaware that methane from cattle is belched, not farted, and suggests that decreasing cattle numbers will have a significant impact on climate change and does this by using only half of the relevant information to support the argument. I can only assume that the passion is associated with issues other than climate change alone.

I am not a climate skeptic and discussion is needed but such discussion needs to consider all of the components not just a selection.

However I think that your analogy of blowtorch v hotwater bottle is quite a stretch. As you note yourself,

“the relative impacts of ALL greenhouse gases are averaged over the same period 100 years”.

This means that after 100 years the impact of the tonne of methane will be equivalent to that of 23 tonnes of CO2.

You could not state that after apply a blowtorch for 10 seconds and a hot water bottle for 20 minutes would have the same impact after 20 minutes. Skin is not like an atmosphere. The analogy is quite poor.

If you compared impact over 5 years, then the focus on methane would rightly be relatively higher. I believe that the long term view is more important than the 5 year view. CO2 is also an important part of the equation, and if we only looked at a 5 year view then we would be giving far too much weighting to methane and other gases which break down relatively quickly.

I would suggest that the article draws upon the findings of numerous scientific studies - each of which had to have passed through the rigours of the peer review process prior to publication.

Two sentences seem adequate justification for this piece:

1. …It [the previous article] wasn’t a defence of coal, it was a plea for people to understand the role of methane as a potent climate forcing and to understand that cattle methane is no laughing matter…

2. …Unfortunately, not much has changed. The world’s media continues to misrepresent the potency of methane and cattle methane continues to prompt cartoons rather than action…

You either acknowledge that methane from beef production is a significant and growing factor in global warming, or you don’t. If you don’t, then it’s up to you to demonstrate why not in the face of the science which seems (to this non-scientist) to be movingm to an acceptance of the role of methane in global warming.

If on the other hand you do accept this nexus, then metaphorically holding your hands against your ears and pretending you can’t hear the message, i.e. “man is not a herbivore”, “your brand of vegan activism won’t solve the climate problems of our planet”, etc. isn’t really a viable strategy for how we deal with the problem.

To be fair, some solutions not involving reduction in animal meat production have been proposed. But then, of course, there is the solution of reducing our consumption of (cow) meat. Fairly obvious parallels to reducing our consumption of energy surely exist, and I really don’t see why reducing our consumption of (fossil fuel-derived) energy can be seen as a viable and responsible strategy by those involved in public policy, yet reducing our consumption of animal products is seen as “vegan activism”.

There was a time when those who advocated changing energy consumption for the sake of avoiding catastrophic climate change were seen as “climate extremists”. Those times - thankfully - are increasingly behind us. Why should reducing the emission of methane by reducing our animal meat consumption be seen in such a different light? That is the question that critics of so-called “vegan activists” need to answer, and with more considered responses than setting up straw-men arguments about herbivores and carnivores.

(By the way, “man” [sic] has survived - and indeed, thrived - on much, much smaller servings of animal meat until very, very recently. That’s worth bearing in mind before you dismiss the capacity of human beings to change their diet to achieve other goals.)

Unless I completely missed the nonsense statement you attribute to the author, the article argues primarily for an increased recognition for the critical role of methane in climate change and suggests a significant reduction in global red meat consumption may achieve this.

Although this may arguably be an unrealistic short-term goal (consider the economic and cultural ‘importance’ of the agriculture industry within our society) it is a more constructive component of a necessary conversation than the flippant motherhood statements which are predictably rolled out in response.

Seriously, though, this is a shocking piece of naive intellectual smugness. Come off it Geoff, man is not a herbivore and your brand of vegan activism won’t solve the climate problems of our planet. And incidentally, if you have your way large swathes of the less arable parts of the Third World with high meat, low vegetable diets (Mongolia comes to mind for starters) will starve. Is that what you mind - I somehow doubt it.