What are our core messages and video development

There is so much false information being presented about how eating meat is bad for us, if people actually read the original study they would find that it is an epidemiological study based on general data. There’s no proof of red meat being an issue. There are anecdotes of people healing their health from eating vegan lifestyles at www.meatheals.com.
Animals are a necessary part of regenerative farming to help storing carbon and water in the soil. Animals and meat have been part of our history and nature longer than fake foods. Please stop this nonsense.

I don't see eating (and throwing away) less meat (which will help lower emissions, by the way) and sustainably growing whatever meat we'll still be eating as being mutually exclusive. Less is good, and more sustainable is good, too. Let's not go to the extremes, we have enough of that already all over the world. Project Drawdown offers a multitude of solutions that are suitable and feasible in New Zealand, and we can combine them, without focusing on just a handful or asking for extreme measures.

Here's a 3-minute video about farming's role in sustainability: https://biologix.myshopify.com/blogs/news/how-farming-can-save-our-planet.
The following video, Drawdown is Possible, is the type of resource we were discussing last week --a quick summary in 11.5 minutes (Peter may have posted previously):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlowjpqY8QQ

Here's a crack at core values:
Promote the real food of Tai Tokerau accenting vegetables.
Minimize waste and where possible, re-direct resources (waste) to others able to utilize them.
Migrate away from use of fossil fuels for transport (i.e. toward public, electric)
Promote regenerative agriculture.

As you do, I went off and did some further research in the hopes of becoming more informed, and indeed there’s lots of material out there. Intriguing as some of the data was, it raised more questions than answers. To get my mind around it all, I ended up having to export it out of my head onto ‘paper’. And since I wrote it down, I thought I may as well blog it (hoping that it may be of use to others: https://www.catherinemikenn.com/single-post/2018/07/25/Should-we-focus-so-much-on-making-optimal-choices-or-should-we-just-get-on-with-it). Then, the Green’s ‘Drawdown’ video evening on Wednesday night was another reminder of complexity, and that even though Drawdown had ranked GHG reducing action, the mix and match would be different for every country's circumstances – with certain combos of lower-ranked action actually overtaking the top-ranked ones!

Where I landed in terms of core action-oriented values was (and this relates back to our CCTNT aims as well as to Rita’s crack at it - thanks Rita!):
1. Support people who are taking conscious, evidence-based action to reduce and sequester GHGs, and inspire others to do the same.
2. Seize opportunities to share and inspire about the need to reduce and sequester GHGs, and to have that imperative at the forefront of all decision-making:
a. Promote the Drawdown list of actions as a practical response - in particular, in Te Tai Tokerau, in relation to:
i. Diet (i.e. reducing food waste; and increasing a plant based diet); and
ii. Agriculture (i.e. promote silvopasture and regenerative agriculture); and
b. In the spirit of a ‘whole of society response’, actively motivate public and private sector leadership to declare and urgently implement their commitment to meaningful and collaborative Drawdown action.

I disagree with a plant based diet being a “given”.

We have been lead down a path by poor science over the years, fat was deemed bad- no longer considered an issue now
Cholesterol was considered bad - no longer an issue now

People will eat from a huge spectrum of food from plant based through to meat based. Let’s not decide for everyone what they should eat but rather focus upon how all those options are produced and the effects that the production has upon the environment as a whole.
Make our focus on minimal waste and regenerative farming practices so that we are reducing emissions and increasing carbon storage.

If we insist upon a plant based diet as a group aim we will fail to even get consensus among this core group of enthusiastic committed individuals, and if we can’t achieve consensus here, how on earth are we going to convince the community we live in?

Regards

Gary Hayman

Our Trust isn't deciding for anyone or insisting anything. We're advocating action that can be taken by citizens in Te Taitokerau and scaled up. Citizens are, of course, free to choose. But it's important that our messaging contains the right blend that is relatable to ordinary folks as well as business and industry and politicians. There isn't just a production side, there's also the demand side to cause/effect. Everyone eats (so diet-related action seems to be a no-brainer), but not everyone is a farmer (so just advocating farming would limit 'who's in the tent'). So my proposition was tactical as well as science-based. We need to look systemically at our situation as being complex, involving a range of interests both public and private. The solution pathway is not linear - no silver bullets, just silver buckshot (having said that, once we agree on our messaging, we need to be laser-focused in promoting it). Increasing the % of plant based-food in one's diet is evidenced (in the Drawdown ranking at least) as having tremendously high value in reducing GHGs, higher even than farming. It would be irresponsible to willfully suppress (distract away from, omit) that from our messaging, IMHO. And the great thing about our messaging is that others can promote whatever messaging they like as well. The way to reach consensus is compromise. I compromised by listening to the agricultural case, and then proposed two broad categories: diet, and agriculture. Win-win.

If the group decides that we advocate more plant based eating then I see no way that I can remain as part of this group, I cannot in all good conscience advocate such a position based on the knowledge that I have acquired. Just because another group has decided that such a path is high in the ranking does not mean it is right, there are quite often hidden agendas behind “science” particularly in the food and nutrition world.
regards

Gary Hayman

Here is some science about the effect of cattle on GHG and maybe a different focus on diet.

The principal metric for assessing the impact of agriculture on the environment has been estimates of GHGE/kcal of food produced. This metric is conceptually simple to grasp, but interpretation of both the numerator and denominator has limitations. Greenhouse gas emission is certainly a factor that impacts the environment, but it does not capture other components such as energy use, the water footprint, or soil and water contaminations with pesticides and herbicides. Likewise, the denominator suggests that the most limiting component of a sustainable diet is calories, but this factor ignores diet quality. In a world where obesity and diabetes are more widespread than undernutrition, improving diet quality should be at least as important as producing more calories.

File attached

regards

Gary Hayman

And some more regards methane and cattle.

https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/2018/05/04/ruminations-methane-math-and-context/
regards

Gary Hayman

Gary, I think it's unconstructive to veto any mention of a Drawdown proposition (increase plant-based diet) which (1) is well-researched, (2) enables every human being in Te Taitokerau to take action, (3) will lead to improved health with a more balanced diet, (4) has the added benefit of increasing the humane treatment of animals, and (5) is a good compromise because it allows you to advocate your preferred agricultural propositions while recognizing a 'train has already left the station' in terms of the growing popularity of plant-based diets among both consumers and producers (going back to the increasing variety of plant-based products exploding onto supermarket shelves), so it makes sense to slip-stream in on that trend with a complementary message re GHGs. The other point is, irrespective of how right you or any of us think we are on the evidence on this Loomio platform, we will actually never resolve the science of it on this Loomio platform, so it's pointless getting overly-positional about it. Rather, I would suggest you think about what other key message our Trust can advocate around strengthening the evidence-based case for the actions we take, for example my suggested statement "1." might be adapted as follows:

"1. Support people who are taking conscious, evidence-based action to reduce and sequester GHGs, and inspire others to do the same - including more scientific research, expert studies and careful monitoring to determine the most effective GHG-reducing action in Aotearoa."

A statement like that recognizes that Drawdown is a high-level compilation, it doesn't take into account the specific environmental, cultural, socio-economic, political or other factors which may have a bearing on the efficacy of Drawdown's propositions in NZ. That more focused attention will reveal the best action we ought to take based on in situ real time data. If this compromise doesn't work for you, you may wish to propose something better (noting that "omit 'increasing plant-based diet'" is being positional, not comprise).