THERE has been a recent focus on the cost of agriculture in terms of greenhouse gas generation.

The agricultural sector accounts for 11 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Britain, with methane from livestock and nitrous oxide due to the use of nitrogen fertiliser and manure management being the main causes.

The problem is bigger in a country like Ireland, where agriculture accounts for 38.4 per cent of emissions. In Ireland, radical moves like mass cattle culls are under consideration by the government.

What the call for a cull highlights is the often blunt instrument approach to the emissions issue. There is a divide between farmers and environmentalists.

Recently, attending a talk in Rye, Sussex, about wildlife and biodiversity in the area, the division between farmers and environmentalists became immediately obvious.

The talk was being given by a National Trust representative. He was explaining what was happening with a rewilding plan, putting back hedges and returning to nature to restore biodiversity and enhance carbon capture. It was all good stuff.

A couple of farmers in the audience, though, were less impressed, criticising certain elements of the plan. The speaker was unwilling to dialogue, so the farmers were shut out.

Speaking to one afterwards, he was just keen to work with the programme so that it worked better for everyone. The farmers, though, had not been taken into the equation. This type of polarisation of opinion is not uncommon.

Writer and Cumbrian hill farmer James Rebanks has explored some of these dilemmas. In his excellent book English Pastoral, he describes a journey, which results in him totally changing his farming methods.

So the farm still deals with livestock, only much more sustainably produced. He also does all that is possible to promote biodiversity and reduce emissions.

The consequence of a Rebanks-style approach is that products like meat will cost the consumer more. Whether the consumer will accept this during a cost-of-living crisis remains to be seen, though government subsidy for this form of sustainable farming can soften the blow.

What is for sure is that this more co-operative approach must be the way forward. Farmers and farming cannot just be slashed to meet an emissions target.

Another project that shows real initiative in this area is the Our Food 1200 in Monmouthshire and the Brecon Beacons.

The local bodies there are trying to bring new farmers in to take on small holdings. There are 1200 acres of plots to be handed out — the amount needed to feed the region.

The plots vary between three and 10 acres. The new farmers then produce the food required in the area. It becomes a virtuous circle. No more transporting food around the country, generating emissions, it is being produced sustainably and consumed locally.

In areas like Redbridge, this locally produced food can be further enhanced by expanding allotments and community gardens, as well as promoting food production in private gardens.

What the moves being taken to address greenhouse emissions to reach net zero underlines is the need for change.

The world has been slow to address the crisis. The warnings of scientists were at first ignored, then only given secondary status. Even today, many governments still believe climate issues can be put on the back burner until affordable.

At least in Ireland, there is a will to embrace the challenges, the British government seems determined to promote the most damaging ways of living — fossil fuel extraction — in a populist desire for electoral success.

There is a recognition in Ireland and Britain that less use of petrol cars and planes plus a better diet all have parts to play. It will mean a different way of living, maybe a step back in some ways to a simpler way of life.

But the benefits are manifold, not just saving the planet from climate and biodiversity disasters but also bringing about a healthier more fulfilled way of living, embracing the land in a more holistic way. The future can be bright.