I NEVER really got The Office and Ricky Gervais.

However he excelled himself this week when he used his presentation role at the Golden Globes to prick so many over-inflated bubbles. This is an industry that brings hypocrisy to new levels. Meat was banned at the event because it 'damages the planet' – but they all arrived in limousines, wearing clothes that cost more than the average person earns in a month.

One actor was even praised as an eco-warrior by Stella McCartney – who had designed his dinner suit – because he had worn it more than once. This prompts two question – what design goes into a black tie suit and what world do people live in that espouses vegan and vegetarian lifestyles to save the planet, but believes you can justify dumping clothes after one outing?

It is easy to laugh at these people, although it is painful to remember that with our Netflix, Amazon or Sky monthly fees we are helping to fuel their inflated egos and lifestyles. However this is a trend that is here to stay and farmers need to be aware of the implications for agriculture. We are slowly but surely moving to a global view that all livestock production is bad, even if only a tiny, tiny minority of the population are vegan.

We have had a month of their undiluted vegan propaganda across all media; we had another television programme this week criticising farming. Its presenter claimed as a positive the fact that 'plant-based food' will save the planet, but destroy conventional farming. This was a leaky dam up to now, but the water is now flowing and the dam is in danger of bursting and engulfing farming, common sense and rational debate.

Fast food outlets are jumping on the plant-based foods bandwagon. This is in reality the ultimate chemically derived fast food, whose big advantage is price because it cuts out the cost of producing meat from animals. Forget the virtuous showmanship and for all fast food businesses and retailers this is about selling a dream that will boost their bottom line.

That things are changing in a green direction is clear at Westminster and in Brussels. It was welcome, if inevitable, news when the government confirmed support payments equivalent to the CAP would remain. Any welcome for this must not deflect the farming lobby from deep suspicion about the government's intentions.

The Defra minister, Theresa Villiers, who is in that post for her Brexit credentials rather than for any knowledge of or interest in agriculture, has confirmed that the government is committed to support around payments for public good, in the shape of environmental gains. This sounds good, but it is not what many farmers voted for when they supported Brexit. This will create more and not less red tape; it also has the potential to disconnect farming from food production. It implies that the present system is not working and ignores the reality that centuries of agriculture shaped the countryside and maintains it.

Farmers are the natural allies of conservation and new red tape is not needed to make that happen. The message farmers need to send out is that they are not apologetic for that they do and are proud of their track record.

Green issues are now mainstream and this is a trend that will grow exponentially in the years ahead. When it comes to agriculture it is more about emotion than science. While it is probably too late to shoehorn radical change into the new CAP, the pressure is there for change.

This week the Irish government announced new policies to reduce carbon across the economy, including in agriculture; the French government has extended its food waste ban to farming and the food industry as well as retailers; a senior adviser to the German government has claimed the CAP is a race to the bottom in terms of delivery for the environment. This is a subject whose time has come.

Farmers cannot escape that reality and need to make sure they are as clever in how they react as their critics have proven themselves to be. It is great to laugh at the luvvies of Hollywood, but social media gives them and even less talented 'influencers' a platform for their views. These lack science but are high on emotion and that is driving public opinion in a direction that makes the case for agriculture much harder to make.