Let’s be honest, if we are going to tackle climate change sensibly, we should start with travel emissions, fossil fuels, food waste or technology.

But the political reality is this: Who is willing to have their movements restricted?

Limit people to two flights a year? Have their mileage monitored? Tell them what they can and cannot buy, or how to use artificial intelligence (AI)?

Who is going to buy into that?

Policies which directly restrict personal freedoms are unlikely to win public support.

Cutting our food waste is essential for tackling climate change

Reducing fossil fuel use requires huge change and long-term infrastructure investment.

Cutting food waste is essential, yet incredibly difficult to enforce at scale.

And slowing the growth of technologies like AI may reduce energy demand, but it is economically inconvenient and deeply unpopular.

Remember, leaders are taking part in an urgent race to net-zero.

So, instead of confronting the most politically sensitive issues attention shifted and, somehow, cows became the headline.

Please don’t blame the cows

The real challenge now is public perception. A growing portion of the public believes cattle are a major negative force in climate change.

And who can blame them? Large, well-funded campaigns have successfully delivered that message, repeatedly and loudly.

Yes, cows contribute to greenhouse gas emissions but that doesn’t capture the full story.

These gases are already there – ruminant animals are part of the solution, not the problem, and that is a message we must continue to echo.

A growing portion of the public believes cattle are a major negative force in climate change.”

A growing portion of the public believes cattle are a major negative force in climate change.”

Well-managed grassland is a powerful carbon sink. Through photosynthesis, grass captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it in the soil.

Plants convert CO₂ into cellulose and starch, feeding cattle and building root systems that strengthen soil structure. Well managed grazing stimulates plant growth, encouraging deeper roots, improving soil health, and enhancing water filtration.

Good soil stores carbon

Healthy soils do not just grow grass, they store carbon and build resilience.

Then there is the methane argument. Yes, cattle produce methane. However, this methane is part of a natural carbon cycle.

Unlike greenhouse gases released by fossil fuels, which introduce long-stored carbon into the atmosphere, methane from cattle breaks down after roughly 10 years. It converts to carbon dioxide which is then reabsorbed by plants.

This is a carbon cycle, not a permanent addition.

For many people, removing livestock from the equation appears painless, or so they think.

It feels far easier to give up meat than to give up flights, limit technology use or fundamentally alter consumption habits.

The burden shifts quietly towards farmers and rural communities, because this feels less disruptive to everyday urban life.

In Scotland, around 85% of the land cannot support crop production. It is suitable only for grazing.

Removing livestock will not transform this landscape into fields of vegetables.

The capacity to produce food from it would be gone altogether.

Our council is prepared to feed it (soya) to children under the banner of sustainability.”

Our council is prepared to feed it (soya) to children under the banner of sustainability.”

Meat-free school meals and fewer cows in our fields not a solution for climate change

But this philosophy is creeping into public policy. Our council has promoted meat-free school meals as a climate solution, replacing locally produced meat with imported soya or factory-produced substitutes.

The marketing has been so effective that importing soya or serving highly processed fermented products is seen as more environmentally responsible than sourcing food from local grazing systems.

Ironically, supermarkets recognise the environmental concerns linked to soya production. When auditing farmers, they restrict the use of soya in animal feed.

Yet our council is prepared to feed it to children under the banner of sustainability.

It is important to remember crops extract nutrients from the soil. Without replacing these, soil fertility declines.

Animal manure is one of the most natural and effective ways to restore these nutrients.

Synthetic fertilisers are available but also dependent on fossil fuels for production.

Cows so much more than just food

Cows contribute far more than just food. Their by-products are used in everyday essentials.

These include, for example, collagen in pharmaceuticals, leather goods, tallow in products such as crayons and personal care items, and materials used in specialist applications like fire extinguisher foam.

By-products are woven into modern life in ways few people consider.

I am not suggesting agriculture should avoid scrutiny. Farming, like every sector, must continue to innovate, improve efficiency and help reduce emissions wherever possible.

But reducing a complex global issue to “cows are the problem” is not reality.

It just distracts attention from harder, more uncomfortable conversations.

Are cows really the climate change problem?

Burning diesel, excessive air travel and over-consumption does not have a natural recycling pathway. Livestock and its natural cycle have existed for thousands of years.

You may choose to cut out steak – that is a personal decision. But believing that doing so will save the planet may provide reassurance without delivering meaningful change.

The real question is not whether cows are the problem. Perhaps they have simply become the easiest target.

Lauren Houston runs Glenkilrie Larder with her husband Andrew on the family farm in Highland Perthshire, selling home-reared venison, beef and lamb.

© The Courier