A fair(er) assessment of the climate change debate and the farmers role.

Say my name

I've been reading articles about climate change for God knows how long.
Then I read this and to me it covered everything (and truthfully) unlike previous articles from both sides of the debate.

Now farmers in this country are getting a lot of bashing on the emissions front basically because we're the biggest industry in the country and probably seen by the powers that be as an easy target.
I've even seen the arguments on here from a supposedly carbon counter that set up a software business to a global audience on how to reduce carbon used without reducing profit bemoan the increase in dairy farming in this country as increasing carbon output.

HOWEVER I've never seen or heard acknowledged the important role and potential roles that farmers no matter what enterprise you're involved in have in solving the increasing carbon usage by mainstream society.

Maybe we don't need to do anything?
Carbon dioxide levels were 20 times higher in the earths past than they are now and triceratops were pretty cool looking lizards.:D
But in all honesty there seems to be an initiative now to do something as a species on a global level. Whether it's right or wrong. I think that argument has passed.
But the argument I'm more interested in is what should be done to help the landowners across the world take more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere permanently.
Forget taxes that won't help. But help be it education or/and financial support. But just something to kick start the process of farmers/landowners picking up the slack for the rest of society and instead of men and women in suits looking down on farmers have the farmers worldwide tell them if it wasn't for what their soils were doing they wouldn't be able to drive that Bentley and fly that plane.

Here's the article. It's long but worth the read imo.

https://www.wired.com/story/meet-the-amateur-scientist-who-discovered-climate-change/amp?__twitter_impression=true

yosemitesam1

Spraying all that sulphur into the atmosphere would reduce cop yields by 30% at least, not really an option.
Planting the sahara would need so much water it couldn't possibly be viable.

The author missed the fact that the industrial revolution coincided with the exploitation of the worlds great grasslands. The amount of fossil fuels burned up to the 1950's would have been nothing compared to the emissions from abuse of the prairies, pampas, steppes, Patagonia etc.

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Spraying all that sulphur into the atmosphere would reduce cop yields by 30% at least, not really an option.
Planting the sahara would need so much water it couldn't possibly be viable.

The author missed the fact that the industrial revolution coincided with the exploitation of the worlds great grasslands. The amount of fossil fuels burned up to the 1950's would have been nothing compared to the emissions from abuse of the prairies, pampas, steppes, Patagonia etc.

In the end they point to pyrolysis (fancy name for burning without oxygen) of material and using that carbon as a remediator or kick starter for soil.
The biggest benefit depending on the organic material used is that pyrolised carbon is carbon 13 and a very stable carbon that has a life over 1000 years or more without decay back into carbon dioxide.

If anyone was listening to news talk this evening. There was a speaker on the Ted talks hour talking about carbon capture and removal from the atmosphere. He said there's only two ways either plants or what he was advocating was to use natural gas deposits and to use as a fuel to burn off pure carbon dioxide off limestone. This pure carbon dioxide would then be injected deep into the earth and the limestone minus the carbon would be used for concrete and then this concrete would itself take and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Now I don't know if it should be either or but if it's or I would choose the farmer option and have farmers grow the material. Pyrolyise it. Put that carbon into the soil and repeat. This is in no way affecting crop production actually benefiting the crop and actually increasing carbon capture more than just the original pyrolised carbon itself.

As for the sulphur sprayed in the atmosphere. Basically some people don't care. The Russians and others have done worse.

The discussion needs to be centred on the farmer though and not on or about private multinational businesses looking for self gain which to my mind is currently happening.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

In the end they point to pyrolysis (fancy name for burning without oxygen) of material and using that carbon as a remediator or kick starter for soil.
The biggest benefit depending on the organic material used is that pyrolised carbon is carbon 13 and a very stable carbon that has a life over 1000 years or more without decay back into carbon dioxide.

If anyone was listening to news talk this evening. There was a speaker on the Ted talks hour talking about carbon capture and removal from the atmosphere. He said there's only two ways either plants or what he was advocating was to use natural gas deposits and to use as a fuel to burn off pure carbon dioxide off limestone. This pure carbon dioxide would then be injected deep into the earth and the limestone minus the carbon would be used for concrete and then this concrete would itself take and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Now I don't know if it should be either or but if it's or I would choose the farmer option and have farmers grow the material. Pyrolyise it. Put that carbon into the soil and repeat. This is in no way affecting crop production actually benefiting the crop and actually increasing carbon capture more than just the original pyrolised carbon itself.

As for the sulphur sprayed in the atmosphere. Basically some people don't care. The Russians and others have done worse.

The discussion needs to be centred on the farmer though and not on or about private multinational businesses looking for self gain which to my mind is currently happening.

Think charcoal is likely to be a bit of a gimmick. There was research that showed the vast majority didn't last more than 50 years.
Good land management would make a big difference; reduced reliance on artificial fert, better grazing management on fragile land and reductions in tillage...

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Think charcoal is likely to be a bit of a gimmick. There was research that showed the vast majority didn't last more than 50 years.
Good land management would make a big difference; reduced reliance on artificial fert, better grazing management on fragile land and reductions in tillage...

You haven't read ANY of the thousands of papers out now.
There's a picture somewhere of charcoal even intact in sedimentary rock.

Start reading.

You mustnt have read or watched any of the presentations I've posted up.

A summary is woody char has a lifetime of 1000 years and maybe more.
Char from manure maybe 50 years but is not quantifiable yet.
All have to be done over 400c until all the gas is gone.

There's loads of presentations on YouTube and endless papers published.
Google carbon 13 even if you want to learn which plants can produce carbon 13.

I'm kind of disappointed in you yose.:(
Maybe I've too much time on my hands! :rolleyes:

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

You haven't read ANY of the thousands of papers out now.
There's a picture somewhere of charcoal even intact in sedimentary rock.

Start reading.

You mustnt have read or watched any of the presentations I've posted up.

A summary is woody char has a lifetime of 1000 years and maybe more.
Char from manure maybe 50 years but is not quantifiable yet.
All have to be done over 400c until all the gas is gone.

There's loads of presentations on YouTube and endless papers published.
Google carbon 13 even if you want to learn which plants can produce carbon 13.

I'm kind of disappointed in you yose.:(
Maybe I've too much time on my hands! :rolleyes:

Have a look at that, median age of the charcoal carbon was 650 years old. Would have been 100-150 years old before it was charred. It's a lot less than 5000 years which would be expected if the hype around it was true. Also this is higher than what the real average lifespan would be as there was no fires for circa 100 years.

How much energy would it take to harvest, pyrolyze and spread 1 tonne of timber or straw?
Struggle to see how it would make sense especially as continued applications would be necessary. Easier just to leave mature trees in place and manage farmland well.

The type of carbon doesn't make any difference to carbon storage. The only difference between unstable c14 and stable c12/13 is that over time c14 will lose a neutron or two and become c12/13. The carbon will still be there just a different isotope.

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Have a look at that, median age of the charcoal carbon was 650 years old. Would have been 100-150 years old before it was charred. It's a lot less than 5000 years which would be expected if the hype around it was true. Also this is higher than what the real average lifespan would be as there was no fires for circa 100 years.

How much energy would it take to harvest, pyrolyze and spread 1 tonne of timber or straw?
Struggle to see how it would make sense especially as continued applications would be necessary. Easier just to leave mature trees in place and manage farmland well.

The type of carbon doesn't make any difference to carbon storage. The only difference between unstable c14 and stable c12/13 is that over time c14 will lose a neutron or two and become c12/13. The carbon will still be there just a different isotope.

That was a bit of a waste of a study to be honest.
First you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing a natural forset burn full of oxygen in the open air to a controlled man made cooking of material without oxygen above 400c Celsius.
There's a huge difference in char or charcoal. If produced in the open air all you're doing is just burning. If pyrolyised and the hotter the better the longer the char will last and the more stable the carbon.

There's a big difference in carbons and carbons from specific plants.
You've posted yourself that carbon from prairies when it was cultivated disappeared into the atmosphere. That's unstable carbon. It's a blind alley to be following if you want to try and combine that with agriculture. Expose pyrolyised carbon to the atmosphere and what's it's shelf life?? No comparison about which is safer.
Look it's not just me saying this. It's coming from U.N. agricultural advisors/researchers, Cornell university, NASA scientists, universities in Australia, New Zealand, China, the world over. Even Valmet are building pyrolysis plants to meet the demand.

That's not to mention the add on benefits of increased carbon capture from adding treated pyrolyised carbon to soil and it's continuing carbon capture. Throw in yield benefits and reduced need for fertilisers or elimination in some cases and you've even more carbon saved.

We've got our heads too conditioned into believing that plant and soil growth is a chemical process. What we will eventually understand is that all life has or is an electrical process.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

That was a bit of a waste of a study to be honest.
First you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing a natural forset burn full of oxygen in the open air to a controlled man made cooking of material without oxygen above 400c Celsius.
There's a huge difference in char or charcoal. If produced in the open air all you're doing is just burning. If pyrolyised and the hotter the better the longer the char will last and the more stable the carbon.

There's a big difference in carbons and carbons from specific plants.
You've posted yourself that carbon from prairies when it was cultivated disappeared into the atmosphere. That's unstable carbon. It's a blind alley to be following if you want to try and combine that with agriculture. Expose pyrolyised carbon to the atmosphere and what's it's shelf life?? No comparison about which is safer.
Look it's not just me saying this. It's coming from U.N. agricultural advisors/researchers, Cornell university, NASA scientists, universities in Australia, New Zealand, China, the world over. Even Valmet are building pyrolysis plants to meet the demand.

Those sort of studies are the only thing that should be used to answer the question whether or not it has potential in the long term. There's no point in trying to come up with answers in under 50-100 years because there is no way to know what is going to happen in the long term.
The people pushing this have said it lasts thousands of years but the real world says otherwise. There's been regular fires the past 12000 years, surely with that many fires over a large area you could expect fairly good conditions to have occurred for pyrolysis at different times. The same could be said for the steppe.

The stable forms of carbon are lost to the atmosphere also. They're considered stable because the carbon atoms don't lose anymore neutrons, they will maintain 12 or 13 indefinitely, it's nothing to do with whether or not the carbon will be turned into co2. You can have unstable isotopes of carbon in wood and over time the carbon will lose neutrons and turn into a more stable form, but the original would will still be the exact same.

Paper never refused ink.

Say my name

Terra preta formed by Brazilian people over 600 years ago.
Still full of carbon and continuing to absorb more carbon.
This is how the basis of all this came about.
Two pictures one treated, one on same soil not treated.

https://goo.gl/images/gu4oVu

Now you can't discount that.

Edit: there's no giant worldwide conspiracy going on.

For anyone that doesn't know, carbon is black. And will always be black. Just to help the discussion along.

Say my name

Charcoal in rock.
Still there.

https://www.mindat.org/min-40391.html

A completely different subject but related to carbon capture is that ground/exposed basalt also captures carbon.
Now there's a bit of info.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Terra preta formed by Brazilian people over 600 years ago.
Still full of carbon and continuing to absorb more carbon.
This is how the basis of all this came about.
Two pictures one treated, one on same soil not treated.

https://goo.gl/images/gu4oVu

Now you can't discount that.

Edit: there's no giant worldwide conspiracy going on.

There's more happening there than the charcoal, there would have been huge applications of nutrients through ashes also which helped turn a severely nutrient deficient soil around.
The idea that you or I could make a few applications of this and really transform our soils is nonsense, the reason why it gave results in that situation is because there was very low pH and no nutrients.

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

There's more happening there than the charcoal, there would have been huge applications of nutrients through ashes also which helped turn a severely nutrient deficient soil around.
The idea that you or I could make a few applications of this and really transform our soils is nonsense, the reason why it gave results in that situation is because there was very low pH and no nutrients.

So throw a bit of lime out and some bagged fertiliser on that soil and you would transform it into that that black carbon rich sink?

That's what you've been campaigning all along on here that is ruining soils worldwide and depleting their carbon reserves.

Ashes wash away in soil very quickly.

Admit it you're interested.

Still can't believe you've never read up or watched presentations at least from a neutral soil university such as Cornell especially when you've an interest in the soil.
Just look into it with an open mind.

blue5000

Say my name wrote: »

Charcoal in rock.
Still there.

https://www.mindat.org/min-40391.html

A completely different subject but related to carbon capture is that ground/exposed basalt also captures carbon.
Now there's a bit of info.

That's a lump of coal.

Say my name

blue5000 wrote: »

That's a lump of coal.

This is coal.

https://www.mindat.org/min-9353.html
Same website, different classification.

I feel like St.Patrick here preaching to the heathens.

Lano Lynn

there was a wee bit on morning Ireland this week (Monday I think) with yer man from ear to the ground. typical lazy & not very encouraging waffle about the rise in dairy and greenhouse gas taxes as a solution.

will someone please explain a few things to me

1. if farmers are regulated ,taxed & inspected out of business who is going to feed the 7billion and rising world population.

2. will a hungry population be willing to pay for growing trees etc so they can continue using fossil fuels to produce single use plastic and fly to Dubai to go skiing?

3. does a cow in brazil have less impact on the climate than a cow in bandon?

don't get me wrong I am not a climate change denier, and frankly many of the wasteful irresponsible farming methods I would consider wrong even if they were not contributing to CC.
Agriculture is going to change. we have done it before and are more than up for a challenge, but Is western society willing to change and take responsibility for sucking up so much of the worlds resources .

Say my name

Lano Lynn wrote: »

there was a wee bit on morning Ireland this week (Monday I think) with yer man from ear to the ground. typical lazy & not very encouraging waffle about the rise in dairy and greenhouse gas taxes as a solution.

will someone please explain a few things to me

1. if farmers are regulated ,taxed & inspected out of business who is going to feed the 7billion and rising world population.

2. will a hungry population be willing to pay for growing trees etc so they can continue using fossil fuels to produce single use plastic and fly to Dubai to go skiing?

3. does a cow in brazil have less impact on the climate than a cow in bandon?

don't get me wrong I am not a climate change denier, and frankly many of the wasteful irresponsible farming methods I would consider wrong even if they were not contributing to CC.
Agriculture is going to change. we have done it before and are more than up for a challenge, but Is western society willing to change and take responsibility for sucking up so much of the worlds resources .

Going by France tonight I'd say western society is not willing to change from it's solubrious lifestyle and will throw many tantrums before they get the message.

On the farming and food point.
Look at how people behave at the Black Friday sales for the latest flat screen television.
Imagine how'd they behave if it was the last few loaves of bread left in town.

Water John

The strange thing is a carbon tax is not a tax in the real sense, it's the real cost of the fossil fuel charged to the user. Up until now we have got away with only paying part of the cost and not paying anything for the damage caused.

There is an argument that the dairy cow in Ireland is one of the most efficient GHG wise. The methane they belch only lasts about 12 weeks in the atmosphere also. The full cycle of farm animals, soil etc needs much more study. Darragh might want to do a bit more reading.

_Brian

Water John wrote: »

The strange thing is a carbon tax is not a tax in the real sense, it's the real cost of the fossil fuel charged to the user. Up until now we have got away with only paying part of the cost and not paying anything for the damage caused.

There is an argument that the dairy cow in Ireland is one of the most efficient GHG wise. The methane they belch only lasts about 12 weeks in the atmosphere also. The full cycle of farm animals, soil etc needs much more study. Darragh might want to do a bit more reading.

The science of any system is complex, it’s always dangerous to have people commenting on half the story. Like you say, much more scientific review is needed.

bogman_bass

Water John wrote: »

The strange thing is a carbon tax is not a tax in the real sense, it's the real cost of the fossil fuel charged to the user. Up until now we have got away with only paying part of the cost and not paying anything for the damage caused.

There is an argument that the dairy cow in Ireland is one of the most efficient GHG wise. The methane they belch only lasts about 12 weeks in the atmosphere also. The full cycle of farm animals, soil etc needs much more study. Darragh might want to do a bit more reading.

Where are you getting that 12 weeks figure from?

Any figures i’ve Heard are about 12 years

Dinzee Conlee

Given the feeling that the EU population won’t fund the CAP for over production for ever...
Will the CAP change to pay for carbon farming - is this the next issue that needs solving, rather than food production?

If so - how would this work? How might payments be structured?
Would it be a case of more money being directed to voluntary environmental schemes, or would the pillar 1 be reformed to reward carbon farming (hard to see this happening)

There is also the perception out there that cattle are a major issue... aside from changing this perception, should cattle numbers be controlled somehow?
It would be a hard sell to say cattle are an issue, but then increase the national herd?

Does anyone think there will come a time when it won’t be just nitrates that will be the limiting factor, but there will be a methane type limit as well...

I don’t know much about the research side of things...
Is there much research taking place in Ireland?
And if not - who should be doing this? Do Teagasc have the ability? Or is the research needed more suited to colleges?

Water John

Yes, it should have read 12 years on methane.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Given the feeling that the EU population won’t fund the CAP for over production for ever...
Will the CAP change to pay for carbon farming - is this the next issue that needs solving, rather than food production?

Where is the overproduction? Farmers sell their units of production on the world market. When there's a shortage, the price rises and farmers get more. When there's a surplus the price falls and farmers get less.


The CAP system was designed compensate farmers for having to sell their products at world market prices while having to purchase inputs at first world prices. Without that compensation, food production and the managed environment of farmland collapses and scrub takes over.


The workers in the EU, and Ireland in particular, sell their production (labour) into a managed market which remains above world market prices for labour because of a managed shortfall in inputs of labour. There are millions of people out there who would gladly work here for significantly less wages and legislated rights (holiday pay, sick pay, maternity/paternity leave/pay etc etc etc) that is currently granted to holders of those positions.



After all, when was the last time you heard an economic migrant say they wanted to come to Ireland and farm because the compensation is so much better?

There is also the perception out there that cattle are a major issue... aside from changing this perception, should cattle numbers be controlled somehow?
It would be a hard sell to say cattle are an issue, but then increase the national herd?

Take a look at the following link, it explains better than ever could that methane in the atmosphere is at a constant level because, as more is produced, the methane already in the atmosphere is broken down so more or less a steady state.

Carbon dioxide, however, accumulates and stays accumulating. There are few mechanisms to remove it from the air, bar plant growth, and it doesn't disintegrate in the atmosphere. The graphs explain it better.


https://theconversation.com/why-methane-should-be-treated-differently-compared-to-long-lived-greenhouse-gases-97845

Does anyone think there will come a time when it won’t be just nitrates that will be the limiting factor, but there will be a methane type limit as well...

As above^^^^.


The whole 'cattle are causing climate change' charge has been shown to be a false narrative and it's interesting to look at the motivation of those claiming other wise. Have a read of the whole article it's fairly short.

• This misconception comes from a UN report that claimed livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined.
• The report was proven incorrect and further studies showed that even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6%.

Dinzee Conlee

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Where is the overproduction? Farmers sell their units of production on the world market. When there's a shortage, the price rises and farmers get more. When there's a surplus the price falls and farmers get less.


The CAP system was designed compensate farmers for having to sell their products at world market prices while having to purchase inputs at first world prices. Without that compensation, food production and the managed environment of farmland collapses and scrub takes over.


The workers in the EU, and Ireland in particular, sell their production (labour) into a managed market which remains above world market prices for labour because of a managed shortfall in inputs of labour. There are millions of people out there who would gladly work here for significantly less wages and legislated rights (holiday pay, sick pay, maternity/paternity leave/pay etc etc etc) that is currently granted to holders of those positions.



After all, when was the last time you heard an economic migrant say they wanted to come to Ireland and farm because the compensation is so much better?



Take a look at the following link, it explains better than ever could that methane in the atmosphere is at a constant level because, as more is produced, the methane already in the atmosphere is broken down so more or less a steady state.

Carbon dioxide, however, accumulates and stays accumulating. There are few mechanisms to remove it from the air, bar plant growth, and it doesn't disintegrate in the atmosphere. The graphs explain it better.


https://theconversation.com/why-methane-should-be-treated-differently-compared-to-long-lived-greenhouse-gases-97845



As above^^^^.


The whole 'cattle are causing climate change' charge has been shown to be a false narrative and it's interesting to look at the motivation of those claiming other wise. Have a read of the whole article it's fairly short.



[/B]
[/LIST]

Thanks Buford, I had thought cattle were still the bad guys, that’s good to hear...

As regards over production - I phrased it badly, it’s more production of a product that people don’t want...

On the research topic - who / where is doing this?
It looks to me there maybe something that farmers could do here, if it was taken up on a national level?

To me - farming, like manufacturing, is an industry that has been passed out by other hi tech industries... Maybe by going a bit hitech, and researching what can be achieved from a carbon / climate change perspective, we could reverse this a little?
But - sure I still thought the poor bullocks were the scourge of global warming, so no one should listen to me really...

Say my name

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Thanks Buford, I had thought cattle were still the bad guys, that’s good to hear...

As regards over production - I phrased it badly, it’s more production of a product that people don’t want...

On the research topic - who / where is doing this?
It looks to me there maybe something that farmers could do here, if it was taken up on a national level?

To me - farming, like manufacturing, is an industry that has been passed out by other hi tech industries... Maybe by going a bit hitech, and researching what can be achieved from a carbon / climate change perspective, we could reverse this a little?
But - sure I still thought the poor bullocks were the scourge of global warming, so no one should listen to me really...

The nearest thing that maybe ticks a few boxes for you might be the Smart farming program.

https://smartfarming.ie/

I'm not in it myself but I went to the open evening in Offaly and got some pointers from it. The interesting thing about it was listening to David Wall down in a hole.. :pac:

Say my name

Ye''ve heard and read the carbon theory.

Now see the practical.

Attila Kökeny (@sclehdorn) Tweeted:
@SoilLife Research is written by people never have seen a real carbon sequestration. https://t.co/JE868VbSQJ https://twitter.com/sclehdorn/status/1068281160067964929?s=17

Inoculated cow manure (slurry?) mentioned.

Lano Lynn

the way I see it is that climate change is going to be used as another excuse for a whole load of ticket clippers and agriculture is an easy target as opposed to addressing the real problem of world population and their lifestyle.

please don't freak out but this is not going to be populist or palatable for a lot out there it is not personal.

1.I believe suckler cow numbers should be drastically reduced, they are fantastic for making money for everyone except their owner .I know there are many of you out there who have great cows and do a great job but honestly there are hundreds of thousands of cows producing sfa.
The factories have taken the p1ss for years paying lip service to the quality cattle spin (a good cull cow is making as much as prime steer)

2.the land freed up by the reducution in suckler should be used for contract rearing dairy replacements, subsidised on the basis that the dairy sector must reduce stocking density and use of nitrates etc.

3.a radical land use policy / redistribution to reduce the mileage fodder and slurry travels .

4.unfortunately the beef will have to come from the male dairy byproduct but they will be grand in burgers for the masses. which is what is happening now anyway.

Mooooo

https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI
Lifted off of Twitter.
Biggest issue with doing what he suggests, in Africa in particular is the social issues. My aunt lived in Nigeria for 30 years, with her convent being involved in trying to get villages self sufficient thru farming. Only livestock they had would have been goats, the cattle livestock, in that part of the country anyway, belonged to nomadic tribes who would move with the cattle and when they came around they would on occasion put the cattle in to the crops, one local who had planted the plot of land attempted to turn them out and and ended up getting killed for his trouble. Pity she has passed on as her opinion on the practicalities of the above strategy would have been interesting

Buford T. Justice XIX

This is the kind of productivity gain that has been made in the last 40 years.
https://twitter.com/drsplace/status/1069400272143695877?s=19

Water John

I think we have about the same number of dairy cows now as we had in 1978. Perhaps some one could confirm.

Birdnuts

Water John wrote: »

I think we have about the same number of dairy cows now as we had in 1978. Perhaps some one could confirm.

Probably - I remember them days and most farmers had a few milking shorthorns kept in small byres. The modern industry though is a million miles away from that in terms of the intensification of production per cow, chem use etc.

Water John

Ah, we were long gone from Sh in 1978. EEC expansion had happened. Yes milking cows in most yards, 900/1000 gls at most. Bag fertiliser was pushed heavy.
Certainly as per Buford the milk output is gone up a lot for the same no of cows.

Say my name

Well ye have all heard Sir David Attenborough's opening address at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Poland.

Now this is what the Scientists are calling for.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-scientists-soil-carbon-climate-action.html

Now aren't ye all glad ye''re farmers and not some waster in a suit.

Say my name

Take a bow Ireland!!




Alan Matthews (@xAlan_Matthews) Tweeted:
Did you know that 50% of the EU's soil carbon is in just four countries - Finland, Sweden, UK and Ireland because of the large areas of peatlands in these countries https://t.co/qgVT0y6ipl https://t.co/Z30DIs6Ppt https://twitter.com/xAlan_Matthews/status/1069509136449183744?s=17

alps

Alan Matthews never asked Irish Farmers to take a bow

Say my name

alps wrote: »

Alan Matthews never asked Irish Farmers to take a bow

Didn't you get the memo Alps?

Landowners are going to be financially rewarded on how much carbon their land is storing and we will be incentivised and shown how to store more.

Food production is sooo last year.

It's a whole NEW WORLD now!!!
It's a carbon saving world.

It's skinny people and electricity from here on.

Water John

The Science programme, 10 Things to Know, RTE1 is about renewables incl bio next Monday.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Say my name wrote: »

Didn't you get the memo Alps?

Landowners are going to be financially rewarded on how much carbon their land is storing and we will be incentivised and shown how to store more.

Food production is sooo last year.

It's a whole NEW WORLD now!!!
It's a carbon saving world.

It's skinny people and electricity from here on.

Think of all we'll save from the health budget

blue5000

Say my name wrote: »

Didn't you get the memo Alps?

Landowners are going to be financially rewarded on how much carbon their land is storing and we will be incentivised and shown how to store more.

Food production is sooo last year.

It's a whole NEW WORLD now!!!
It's a carbon saving world.

It's skinny people and electricity from here on.

'This time next year we'll be millionaires, Rodney':rolleyes:

When exactly do we start being incentivised in a positive way?

Say my name

blue5000 wrote: »

'This time next year we'll be millionaires, Rodney':rolleyes:

When exactly do we start being incentivised in a positive way?

When we elect the Green Party again..:D

Eamon Ryan (@EamonRyan) Tweeted:
Likewise we're convinced the better future for Irish farmers is going to be a green one. We need to start paying them for storing carbon, protecting biodiversity, cleaning our water supply & training a new generation to look after our land. CAP reform can help us make the change. https://t.co/5bhrISYvpy https://twitter.com/EamonRyan/status/1068166491391107073?s=17

In fairness to them, they're the only ones who have ever dreamt up of such an option.
All the rest of the parties would like to continue with the current stack em high, cheap food, protest at factories, Chinese inspectors on farms policy.