Reduction in Greenhouse Gases

Dakota Dan

Panch18 wrote: »

The sooner they dramatically reduce, or ban, irrigation of crops in certain parts of the world the better it will be for Irish farmer of all types

We need to actively push for this as Irish farmers. They are growing crops in places that should never be growing crops and this has huge environmental consequences, far worse than anything we are doing here in Ireland

The Ogallala aquifer is only estimated to last 50 years at current use. It will take thousands of years to replenish it.

Panch18

Dakota Dan wrote: »

The Ogallala aquifer is only estimated to last 50 years at current use. It will take thousands of years to replenish it.

Check out the damage that almond farming is doing to water reserves in California

And this vegan clowns are promoting that lifestyle!! It’s some joke

Castlekeeper

Farmer wrote: »

Article in today's Indo looking at the logic around why Ireland should not be carbon taxed on agricultural exports



Worth reading it all

https://m.independent.ie/business/farming/comment/colm-mccarthy-punishing-ireland-will-only-send-carbon-emissions-higher-still-37823746.html

He is of course missing the point that carbon "emissions" are what's being calculated, add therefore attributed to where they are emitted. While he does throw up an old argument for changing that, it is a complex one with lots of side effects, for instance, if OPEC suddenly want to reduce their carbon "figure" and so cut oil production and dairy imports, all the while we mosey on with zero ag emissions but higher energy costs and a poor market...
The last thing most vested interests want is such disruption.

Say my name

ThomasFranklin (@smallFARMhedge) Tweeted:
@cornishgrill This episode is surprising. It looks at the rural-urban divide and reports current understanding of the GHG methane and cows... https://t.co/Nw5hVES5OQ https://twitter.com/smallFARMhedge/status/1097070029470920705?s=17

Say my name

Carroll Hoagland (@70GoingOn100) Tweeted:
@GHGGuru The real story - Green house gasses - The "World" is building at the "Rate" equivalent to 1 NYC (New York City) EVERY MONTH - 1/8 GHG's just from humans making/manufacturing "Iron" and "Concrete" for Expansion/Construction - guess who is funding politicians - unstoppable growth https://t.co/DgLMtOLv4H https://twitter.com/70GoingOn100/status/1097596355072090112?s=17

emaherx

Check this out on Agriland - Is lab-grown meat really better for the environment? https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/is-lab-grown-meat-really-better-for-the-environment/

Replacing conventional cattle farming with ‘labriculture’ – meat grown in the lab using cell culture techniques – has been widely discussed as a way of reducing this environmental impact.


But these estimates are based on carbon-dioxide equivalent footprints, which can be misleading because not all greenhouse gases generate the same amount of warming or have the same lifespan.

“Cattle are very emissions-intensive because they produce a large amount of methane from fermentation in their gut,” study co-author Raymond Pierrehumbert, Halley Prof. of Physics at the University of Oxford said.

Methane is an important greenhouse gas, but the way in which we generally describe methane emissions as ‘carbon dioxide equivalent’ amounts can be misleading because the two gases are very different.

“Per tonne emitted, methane has a much larger warming impact than carbon dioxide, however, it only remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years whereas carbon dioxide persists and accumulates for millennia.

“This means methane’s impact on long-term warming is not cumulative and is impacted greatly if emissions increase or decrease over time.”

To provide a rigorous comparison of the potential climate impacts of lab-grown meat and beef cattle, the researchers examined available data on the emissions associated with three current cattle farming methods and four possible meat culture methods, assuming current energy systems remained unchanged.
Using this data, they modelled the potential temperature impact of each production method over the next 1,000 years.

Their model showed that while cattle initially have a greater warming effect through the release of methane, in some cases the manufacture of lab-grown meat can ultimately result in more warming.

This is due to the fact that even if the consumption of meat stopped entirely, the warming from carbon dioxide would persist, whereas warming caused by methane ceases after only a few decades.

“This is important because while reducing methane emissions would be good – and an important part of our climate policies – if we simply replace that methane with carbon dioxide it could actually have detrimental long-term consequences,” warned Lynch.