Better cows here than on cleared rainforest

That's not very progressive of you.

Let them burn the rainforest in Brazil, rewild Ireland. Walk in the Woods on Saturdays and protest loike about Brazil in Sunday.

Win win. Unless you are a poor yokel

Doesn't matter that Europe is shutting down lots of production in one of the few really fertile regions in the world. From Nigeria to China growth is largely only achieved by piling on fertilizer and sprays. The ground is very poor.

The rich activists imagine it will come from somewhere else magically and sustainabily.

People value cheap food above all else, and that is just the Green voters.

Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, India, America, China.

Places where food production will increase to meet the short fall being built in European production.

I dont believe that carbon sequestered by grass which is then eaten, is counted against beef emissions. It should be, but isn't.

Most carbon sequestration happens underground, the root, the biome, ie the bacteria, invertebrates, worms etc

Permanent pasture is really good at locking away carbon. A 100 yr old native woodland, not so much.

I've spent thousands over the years planting trees, mind you, any spoilt activist I've ever met largely only ever planted single digits and lived on the snugness for years after.

Have you anything scientific on which to criticise this?

Eamonn Ryan won't get claps on the back and be called a great fella altogether at the next International Green Party Conference thingy if all the work is done by Brazil.

Of course what he doesn't realise is when he leaves the room they all laugh and say thank god their countries weren't the ones who decided to lead the way towards a new stone age.

Intensively raised livestock actually have a lower carbon footprint than those that are outdoors.

It's more efficient, they get to slaughter weight quicker and therefore produce less methane. Your typical American feedlot system more than likely has a lower carbon footprint per kg of produce than your extensive Irish grassland equivalent. But of course there is the animal welfare issues with that too and other pollution type hotspots generated by intensive systems.

With respect to the OP and the damage of the Brazilian rainforest. It doesn't matter where the meat/milk is produced - if it consumes feed in the form of soya from Brazil then it's contributing indirectly to Amazon deforestation.

While permanent grasslands do store carbon they are not an infinite carbon sink - rather it stops storing carbon after a certain period of time.

The whole issue with climate change and livestock production isn't black and white. The food system is complex and all aspects of it need to be evaluated before policy decisions are made. Globally demand for meat is increasing this should be taken into account too.

In a period of soaring global demand for beef and reduced ability to produce in large areas like the American West, taking the 6th largest beef exporter out of the equation is going to be a fantastic boost for places like Brazil.

Brazil have a large forest, no one gives a hoot in reality, which is tragic.

Was looking at a Green party senior member talk about climate change and food sources, they didn't even know about the importance of natural gas for heating glass houses, even in Southern Spain.

The knowledge gap is pretty fuckin wild.

Correction, the OP posted the following:

Its right in front of you yet you insist in selective quoting. Again, very disingenuous of you.

I asked you a question.

Do you think that growing more beef in Brazil and less in Ireland, for a near net-zero change in global herd numbers, will be better or worse for the environment?

Why so defensive? Do you disagree with the statement that growing more beef in brazil to make up for less beef in Ireland, would be worse for the climate?