Meat and CO2

Sir Guy who smiles

Just came across this today, a quote from Kimberly Nichols, Associate Professor, Sustainability Science, Lund University Center for Sustainability Studies

"you would have to recycle for four years to equal the climate benefit of a year without eating meat; you emit as much carbon in one roundtrip flight (eg New York-London) as two years of eating meat, or eight months of driving a car)"

Now this lady gives meat and cars a lash too, but I think recent chat about meat tends to skip just how muck worse flying is.

_Brian

I read an article about the original calculation on beef emissions and it incorrectly factored in the co2 released in felling forest to clear for grassland.

The group themselves issued a statement on the extreme calculation they had done but no use, every vegan, vegetarian and whack job group has latched onto it and forever now beef production is labelled as being worse than all transport.

Sir Guy who smiles

Thant's interesting, link?

_Brian

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

Thant's interesting, link?

I’ll search for it when I’m at a pc

emaherx

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

Thant's interesting, link?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

It's fairly old news

Buford T. Justice XIX

https://twitter.com/drsplace/status/1130908313858785281?s=19

bilbot79

Beef still bad all the same and there's a lot more people eating burgers than there are taking roundtrip flights to new york

_Brian

bilbot79 wrote: »

Beef still bad all the same and there's a lot more people eating burgers than there are taking roundtrip flights to new york

Beef isn’t “bad”, it’s an essential nutritious food that’s been given a bad rap by poor science and a section of the public with differing beliefs.

There is no way in hell that the likes of Ryanair cheap €10 flights are accounting for their emissions in that €10, seriously, nobody believes that.

Plenty of extensively produced beef in Ireland has little to no emissions footprint. I can fully see us going down the lines of Australia where premiums are paid to farms for beef farming measures that minimise and indeed sequester carbon during its production.

But never ever will we get to ansituation where flights of any type can sequester carbon, these are the real dilemma that needs to be tackled.

emaherx

bilbot79 wrote: »

Beef still bad all the same and there's a lot more people eating burgers than there are taking roundtrip flights to new york

The way food is produced in general is bad, but we do need to eat more than we need multiple foreign trips per year. There is a certain irony in those who choose to fly around the world to proclaim beef is bad, if they just stayed put and ate beef they'd have a much lower carbon footprint.

Say my name

bilbot79 wrote: »

Beef still bad all the same and there's a lot more people eating burgers than there are taking roundtrip flights to new york

I really don't understand this Beef is bad talk from people. Well I do because it was put out there in a highly financed well run campaign.

If you read the books from the soil experts they all extoll the need for ruminants in a fully functional soil ecosystem.
Even the so called "experts" who put the Drawdown list together of measures to save the world and help mitigate against climate change gave grazing cattle negative carbon figures.
Yet here we have the media and general public and other vested interests still coming out with "Beef is bad".
As a farmer in this country, you just can't win.

Sir Guy who smiles

It doesn't have to be New York; what is a round trip to Lanzarotte? A year of eating meat, compared to two years for New York?
Very few people fly to New York, but lots of people take some flight, maybe several, during the year.

Sir Guy who smiles

34 million passengers flew from Irish airports in 2017
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/as/aviationstatisticsquarter4andyear2017/

bilbot79

So what's the consensus here? Is it that flights are bad and beef is not or is it that both are bad and both should be curtailed?

I think both should be so expensive to consumers that you can only have it on rare occasions

Buford T. Justice XIX

bilbot79 wrote: »

So what's the consensus here? Is it that flights are bad and beef is not or is it that both are bad and both should be curtailed?

I think both should be so expensive to consumers that you can only have it on rare occasions

Ruminants mostly use land unsuitable for the arable crops beloved by the anti beef brigade. Even the vast majority non grass feed they consume are byproducts of the food industry.

Some interesting points about this debate. There is no excise duty on aviation fuel so it is cheaper than would be justified. And the whole lets-blame-beef-for-all-emissions is deflecting from the actual cause of the global warming, our lifestyle aspirations causing huge emissions of CO2
https://twitter.com/neilrkaye/status/1129416281910910976

bilbot79

I feel this is a very pro beef thread. It's not possible to simply fob off emissions responsibility to other areas because it doesn't suit.

Beef is rightly in the crosshairs. So is aviation, buses, diesel trains the lot. Everyone has to contribute.

If I remember correctly cows are a major source of methane which is a serious greenhouse gas.

gozunda

bilbot79 wrote: »

So what's the consensus here? Is it that flights are bad and beef is not or is it that both are bad and both should be curtailed?

I think both should be so expensive to consumers that you can only have it on rare occasions

One is a healthy whole food, produced here from a locally based sustainable system (grassland) - acknowledged as a good method of carbon sequestration*

The other is galavanting off around the planet so you can burn yourself on a crowded beach somewhere or grab some cheap tat in a mall in the US or elsewhere.

Hard call tbh...

* I posted this in reply to a different rabid anti animal farming rant. From the European Environment Agency

The most carbon-rich soils are peatlands, mostly found in northern Europe, the UK and Ireland. Grassland soils also store a lot of carbon per hectare...

The fastest way to increase organic carbon in farmed soil is to convert arable land to grassland...

On farmland, ploughing the soil is known to accelerate decomposition and mineralisation of organic matter. In order to keep carbon and nutrients in the soil, researchers suggest reducing tillage

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

_Brian

bilbot79 wrote: »

I feel this is a very pro beef thread. It's not possible to simply fob off emissions responsibility to other areas because it doesn't suit.

Beef is rightly in the crosshairs. So is aviation, buses, diesel trains the lot. Everyone has to contribute.

If I remember correctly cows are a major source of methane which is a serious greenhouse gas.

Comes onto a farming forum and wonders at s thread being “pro beef” 🙄

Beef can and is farmed sustainably, more can move that way if the public will it to.

Flying passengers round the world can never be sustainable, ever.

There is a fair bit of trolling going on in this thread.

Buford T. Justice XIX

bilbot79 wrote: »

I feel this is a very pro beef thread. It's not possible to simply fob off emissions responsibility to other areas because it doesn't suit.

Beef is rightly in the crosshairs. So is aviation, buses, diesel trains the lot. Everyone has to contribute.

If I remember correctly cows are a major source of methane which is a serious greenhouse gas.

Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist, behavioral economist and Nobel prize winner, once said. “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth.”

https://twitter.com/GRSBeef/status/1130933470987980802

Sir Guy who smiles

bilbot79 wrote: »

I feel this is a very pro beef thread. It's not possible to simply fob off emissions responsibility to other areas because it doesn't suit.

Beef is rightly in the crosshairs. So is aviation, buses, diesel trains the lot. Everyone has to contribute.

If I remember correctly cows are a major source of methane which is a serious greenhouse gas.

Well my original post was not "fobbing off emissions" onto aviation, my point was that there is so much emphasis on beef now that one would think it is far more significant than aviation as a source of CO2, and aviation is getting away lightly.

You were doing a bit of "fobbing of" yourself with your "not too many people fly to New York" comment.

Sir Guy who smiles

We should remember that it is not just flying for pleasure that causes problems; there is an awful lot of business travel that might not be necessary in this age of video-conferencing.

emaherx

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

Well my original post was not "fobbing off emissions" onto aviation, my point was that there is so much emphasis on beef now that one would think it is far more significant than aviation as a source of CO2, and aviation is getting away lightly.

You were doing a bit of "fobbing of" yourself with your "not too many people fly to New York" comment.

Planes run on fuel that has had carbon stored in it for millions of years. Every part of aviation adds carbon to the atmosphere. Cattle on the other hand form part of a carbon cycle both in releasing and capturing carbon. Yet aviation company's that have a half arsed tree planting scheme are patted on the back for doing their bit but farms get 0 credit for carbon sequestered yet are demonized for every gram released, it makes no sense.

emaherx

bilbot79 wrote: »

I feel this is a very pro beef thread. It's not possible to simply fob off emissions responsibility to other areas because it doesn't suit.

Beef is rightly in the crosshairs. So is aviation, buses, diesel trains the lot. Everyone has to contribute.

If I remember correctly cows are a major source of methane which is a serious greenhouse gas.

Cows are a source of Methane, but according to NASA not responsible for the recent sharp increase of Methane in the atmosphere.

https://unfccc.int/news/nasa-confirms-methane-spike-is-tied-to-oil-and-gas

Fossil fuels, global fires and rice make up most of it. Nobody is shouting for a reduction in rice consumption which is a bit weird.

And more importantly we don't want to remove all greenhouse gases, this would be a very bad thing. We have to sooner or later change from fossil fuels they are a finite resource so it's not just fobbing off to other areas. We need to eat and most forms of modern food production have a high carbon footprint.

Sir Guy who smiles

emaherx wrote: »

And more importantly we don't want to remove all greenhouse gases, this would be a very bad thing. QUOTE]

I don't think there is much of that happening! Every time I go on a diet I say to myself "better not get TOO thin", yet I'm still a big round blob!

_Brian

It shows there is a massive education needed of the general population regarding what “bad” for the environment means.

It beggars belief that any adult could beleive that beef farming is “bad” for the environment and yet see no problem with the tens of thousands of frivolous flights taken daily.

Dakota Dan

bilbot79 wrote: »

I feel this is a very pro beef thread. It's not possible to simply fob off emissions responsibility to other areas because it doesn't suit.

Beef is rightly in the crosshairs. So is aviation, buses, diesel trains the lot. Everyone has to contribute.

If I remember correctly cows are a major source of methane which is a serious greenhouse gas.

The main greenhouse gas is water vapour but is always fobbed off as you can’t tax anyone for that.

Dakota Dan

emaherx wrote: »

Planes run on fuel that has had carbon stored in it for millions of years. Every part of aviation adds carbon to the atmosphere. Cattle on the other hand form part of a carbon cycle both in releasing and capturing carbon. Yet aviation company's that have a half arsed tree planting scheme are patted on the back for doing their bit but farms get 0 credit for carbon sequestered yet are demonized for every gram released, it makes no sense.

And every 100 acre farm has 4-6 acres of trees and hedge grows that us completely ignored.

oneten

Emissions ?
check this out , live tracking of every plane in the sky https://www.flightradar24.com/49.47,11.04/4
jet fuel is kerosene is diesel

emaherx

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

I don't think there is much of that happening! Every time I go on a diet I say to myself "better not get TOO thin", yet I'm still a big round blob!

This is very true, but my point is we don't need to eliminate greenhouse gases, lots of things emit greenhouse gases including breathing/farting/burping humans but eliminating the fossil fuel sources which we will need to do sooner or later anyway will leave us a lot better off.

Dakota Dan

emaherx wrote: »

This is very true, but my point is we don't need to eliminate greenhouse gases, lots of things emit greenhouse gases including breathing/farting/burping humans but eliminating the fossil fuel sources which we will need to do sooner or later anyway will leave us a lot better off.

Oil companies are spending 5 trillion dollars exploring, they know that oil won’t be replaced anytime soon.

emaherx

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Oil companies are spending 5 trillion dollars exploring, they know that oil won’t be replaced anytime soon.

Soon? No I don't think so it will be a long and slow process, but it has started already.

_Brian

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/farming/news/plantbased-food-only-cuts-emissions-by-10pc-38130308.html

Interesting research by Teagasc there and kinda trumps all the calls to get rid of cattle and grow crops everywhere.

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

I really don't understand this Beef is bad talk from people. Well I do because it was put out there in a highly financed well run campaign.

If you read the books from the soil experts they all extoll the need for ruminants in a fully functional soil ecosystem.
Even the so called "experts" who put the Drawdown list together of measures to save the world and help mitigate against climate change gave grazing cattle negative carbon figures.
Yet here we have the media and general public and other vested interests still coming out with "Beef is bad".
As a farmer in this country, you just can't win.

Just in case people hadn't a clue what I meant by the Drawdown list. This was a list of measures put together by the big heads of the world with a figure of what is possible if implemented.
Now forget the plant rich diet obviously they haven't a clue what they're on about but pay attention to the managed grazing, regenerative agriculture and silviopasture models that are also in the top 20 measures to drawdown carbon.
It's the how not the cow comes to mind.

Short Ted talk of it here.

https://www.ted.com/talks/chad_frischmann_100_solutions_to_climate_change?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare

Dakota Dan

_Brian wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/farming/news/plantbased-food-only-cuts-emissions-by-10pc-38130308.html

Interesting research by Teagasc there and kinda trumps all the calls to get rid of cattle and grow crops everywhere.

Even the guardian newspaper that keeps trumpeting about climate change don't agree with going vegan but anyone with knowledge of soil know that already.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize

Waffletraktor

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Even the guardian newspaper that keeps trumpeting about climate change don't agree with going vegan but anyone with knowledge of soil know that already.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize

I find the guardian has the same properties as a used sheet of Andrex.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Waffletraktor wrote: »

I find the guardian has the same properties as a used sheet of Andrex.

That's fairly harsh on Andrex, tbf.

Dakota Dan

Waffletraktor wrote: »

I find the guardian has the same properties as a used sheet of Andrex.

Just like a lot of news rags but you have to admit that article is fairly accurate.

Sir Guy who smiles

Dakota Dan wrote: »

The main greenhouse gas is water vapour but is always fobbed off as you can’t tax anyone for that.

Or is it that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is fairly constant, and hasn't risen like Co2 and methane have?

Or that reducing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is extremely difficult to do?

Or that if it was reduced that the water cycle would be disrupted, and the effects on the environment would be disastrous?

Sir Guy who smiles

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

...my point was that there is so much emphasis on beef now that one would think it is far more significant than aviation as a source of CO2....

I know it looks bad quoting yourself....:o

On the whole perception issue of beef v planes,
On boards.ie a search of the Aviation & Aircraft forum for "carbon" returns 109 results. A search of Farming & Forestry returns 1022.

I didn't search After Hours for the sake of my sanity.

Say my name

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

I know it looks bad quoting yourself....:o

On the whole perception issue of beef v planes,
On boards.ie a search of the Aviation & Aircraft forum for "carbon" returns 109 results. A search of Farming & Forestry returns 1022.

I didn't search After Hours for the sake of my sanity.

Yea you're a complete weirdo!

Carbon is essential for farming. Hence the reason it's posted about here.
Well it's essential for aviation too or else planes fall from the sky. But the aviation nuts usually post about the makes and models and operations of the airports and traffic control rather than the boring fuel.

Carbon is the fuel for aviation but it's the fuel for farming too. It's just the majority of farmers haven't grasped that fact yet and remains an enigma to most and hence carbon posting on boards farming & forestry.

gozunda

Say my name wrote: »

Yea you're a complete weirdo!

Carbon is essential for farming. Hence the reason it's posted about here.
Well it's essential for aviation too or else planes fall from the sky. But the aviation nuts usually post about the makes and models and operations of the airports and traffic control rather than the boring fuel.

Carbon is the fuel for aviation but it's the fuel for farming too. It's just the majority of farmers haven't grasped that fact yet and remains an enigma to most and hence carbon posting on boards farming & forestry.

I wouldn't agree the " majority of farmers haven't grasped that fact yet . The opposite in fact going by the detailed discussions on this very subject.

Regarding agriculture and aviation ...

The main difference is that farming and agriculture feed people

Planes are well planes ...

And yet which one is getting pilloried by every nutjob out there who wouldn't know a cows arse from the proverbial barn door ?...

c.p.w.g.w

Did i read somewhere that grasslands are a better that woodlands as a carbon sink.

Also the fact that livestock eat the grass, and its continually growing that it consumes more carbon as a result?

Or am imagining that?

Say my name

gozunda wrote: »

I wouldn't agree the " majority of farmers haven't grasped that fact yet . The opposite in fact going by the detailed discussions on this very subject.

Regarding agriculture and aviation ...

The main difference is that farming and agriculture feed people

Planes are well planes ...

And yet which one is getting pilloried by every nutjob out there who wouldn't know a cows arse from the proverbial barn door ...

Quick question then.

What is carbon in an agricultural and soil sense and what function does it do?

gozunda

Whoa there cowboy. Are you seriously only now soliciting posters knowledge of carbon in relation to soil / agriculture? And only after making the bald statement that:

"Carbon is the fuel for aviation but it's the fuel for farming too. It's just the majority of farmers haven't grasped that fact yet"

This isn't about my personal knowledge btw - I questioned your pedestal perching whilst making universal claims and you've yet to explain the grounds for that.

If you genuinely dont know the answer to your own enquirey - I'd suggest you use some of those books you keep going on about or Google the topic - there's plenty of good research and information out there.

Say my name

gozunda wrote: »

Whoa there cowboy. Are you seriously only now soliciting posters knowledge of carbon in relation to soil / agriculture? And only after making the bald statement that:

Carbon is the fuel for aviation but it's the fuel for farming too. It's just the majority of farmers haven't grasped that fact yet

This isn't about my personal knowledge btw - I questioned your pedestal perching whilst making universal claims and you've yet to explain the grounds for that.

If you genuinely dont know the answer to your own enquirey - I'd suggest you use some of those books you keep going on about or Google the tooic - there's plenty of good research and information out there.

You've an awful tongue on you Gozunda.

It was a serious question btw which you never answered.

You try and want to be the voice for all farmers with your posts and then prone to getting all defensive with attacks.
Yet always I've never seen you post knowledge of your own farming system.
Stay classy G.

gozunda

Say my name wrote: »

You've an awful tongue on you Gozunda.It was a serious question btw which you never answered.
You try and want to be the voice for all farmers with your posts and then prone to getting all defensive with attacks.Yet always I've never seen you post knowledge of your own farming system.Stay classy G.

Saymyname

Seriously lol?

I pointed out the fact you were grandstanding by declaring 'majority of farmers haven't grasped that fact yet". You then tried to duck explaining that by attempting to make it personal. And yeah I dislike it when attack is used as a substitute for discussion

Why always the snark? There's another poster who does the exact same ****e and do you know what they are a waste of space discussing anything. I'll leave you at it having a go at farmers & personal crap

Say my name

gozunda wrote: »

Seriously lol?

I pointed out the fact you were grandstanding by declaring 'majority of farmers haven't grasped that fact yet". You then attempted to duck explaining that by attempting to make it personal.

Why always the snark? There's another poster who does the exact same ****e and do you know what they are a waste of space discussing anything. I'll leave you at it having a go at farmers...

That reminds me.

I must post up a few pictures of my fencing attempts tomorrow on farming & forestry, boards .ie,.. farming knowledge sharing site.

Dakota Dan

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Did i read somewhere that grasslands are a better that woodlands as a carbon sink.

Also the fact that livestock eat the grass, and its continually growing that it consumes more carbon as a result?

Or am imagining that?

It’s all ignored including trees and hedge grows on farms but if a passenger on a plane pays a voluntary contribution to plant a tree that was going to be planted anyway they have just offset their carbon footprint. Just shows what a scam it is.

Say my name

Chart compiled by NASA showing global methane emissions broken down into the sectors responsible.

Take what you will from the animal side but it shows we need to stop the fossil fuel madness.

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/methane-or-natural-gas-the-other-major-greenhouse-gas/

Dinzee Conlee

Say my name wrote: »

Chart compiled by NASA showing global methane emissions broken down into the sectors responsible.

Take what you will from the animal side but it shows we need to stop the fossil fuel madness.

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/methane-or-natural-gas-the-other-major-greenhouse-gas/

I'm surprised by that...

19% of methane comes from fossil fuels, but 16% is from animals...

If you were to go from that infograph alone, I can see why people are calling for a reduction in animals numbers...

To be Devils advocate, why is the (19%) fossil fuel madness, but the (16%) animal side not madness?

emaherx

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I'm surprised by that...


To be Devils advocate, why is the (19%) fossil fuel madness, but the (16%) animal side not madness?

When you add that to the other green house gases from fossil fuels. CO2 Nox etc.

Say my name

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I'm surprised by that...

19% of methane comes from fossil fuels, but 16% is from animals...

If you were to go from that infograph alone, I can see why people are calling for a reduction in animals numbers...

To be Devils advocate, why is the (19%) fossil fuel madness, but the (16%) animal side not madness?

It's madness because it's contributing entirely to the co2 increase in the atmosphere.
And then you've farmers on here defending it's use when there's on farm produced alternatives out there that won't depend on the whims of supermarkets or Larry.

Oh definitely animal production will have to be looked at. And the graph mentions feed supplements that will have to be fed if methane emissions are to be taken seriously.

The graph also shows rice production as an emitter which most "meat bad, veg good" might be unaware of.

In essence from the graph. Modern human activities are not good for the planet. Change is needed.