Ignoring the elephants in the room on climate change

PhilOssophy

While the farmers and meat eating are being slaughtered (no pun intended) at the moment for their contribution to climate change, there is no doubt in my mind that we are ignoring the elephants in the room.

Why is there so little focus on air travel? An individual can eat meat for 5 years for the equivalent of 1 flight to New York. There is little/no tax on aviation fuel (as far as I know), travel taxes have all but been abolished -why? I know tourism is important but I don't for 1 second believe a tourist won't come here if we charge them a fiver for landing or taking off their tubby in the airport. Is it really right that you can fly half-way across Europe for 20 quid? I don't think it is, given the damage it is doing.

Cruise ships emissions are the equivalent of 1m cars on the road. Why is there no focus there? Again, tourism is probably the driver, but surely we can't just pick the low-hanging fruit and ignore such enormous contributors to our emissions?

I am sure there are many more such issues, e.g purchasing stuff on Amazon or wherever which needs to be shipped from China is another.....

Macha

We need to decarbonise all of the things. No sector can be left out. I agree with you that air travel also has to be addressed.

Agriculture makes up 1/3 of Ireland's emissions and the IPCC just published a report about land use and climate change. That's why it's in the news.

lawred2

I'm sure I read that agriculture accounted for 7 times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions than air travel does globally..

I'll be honest and say that I didn't dig any deeper into what I was reading or did I check the source.. could have been airplanes weekly for all I know.

So take with a pinch of scepticism

dubrov

The elephant in the room is that there are too many humans on this planet to sustain long term.

Harry Palmr

I'd expect aviation to come under the microscope, while the planes are more efficient than ever the actual number keeps rising. Taxing kerosene will happen at some point but it'll take the EU being willing to take lead in the face of Michael O'Leary exploding.

amacca

Macha wrote: »

Agriculture makes up 1/3 of Ireland's emissions and the IPCC just published a report about land use and climate change. That's why it's in the news.

I'll admit to being biased here but wouldn't there be a case for saying the low input pasture based system ireland had used in the past (and still does in a lot of cases) is much less environmentally damaging than say massive areas of Amazon rainforest being clearfelled, burned and then used for growing palm oil and grazing with large quantities of maize/grain pumped into them + feedlot style systems in US.

Perhaps I'm wrong bit I think there could be a bit more nuance to the debate on farming and I'll admit it would suit me but I've read a bit about regenerative grazing style systems and they don't seem that environmentally destructive + we already have land In grass for hundreds of years here etc

Amirani

Air Travel does need to be taxed, particularly in the area of fuel. Needs to be done at EU level.

That said, air travel accounts for about 2% of emissions. Agriculture is far far more than this. So air travel isn't the "elephant in the room", it's more the mouse in the room. Same can't be said for agriculture, which continues to receive significant subsidies regardless of climate impact.

lawred2

Amirani wrote: »

Air Travel does need to be taxed, particularly in the area of fuel. Needs to be done at EU level.

That said, air travel accounts for about 2% of emissions. Agriculture is far far more than this. So air travel isn't the "elephant in the room", it's more the mouse in the room. Same can't be said for agriculture, which continues to receive significant subsidies regardless of climate impact.

what will taxing kerosene do other than tax the consumer again?

Amirani

lawred2 wrote: »

what will taxing kerosene do other than tax the consumer again?

Reduce demand for air travel at consumer level. Encourage fuel efficiency at carrier level. Raise tax funding to be used in environmental offsets.

Igotadose

dubrov wrote: »

The elephant in the room is that there are too many humans on this planet to sustain long term.

And nothing done about aviation or farming will fix that. Nothing. Zip.

We're in a feedback cycle already due to changed climate causing bigger natural disasters and long-term damage. One example, recently a USDA government scientist resigned due to political (Trump) suppression of a report he'd done along with several international organizations on the loss of nutrition in rice due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically, rice grows faster (due to more CO2 which is very well known to spike plant growth), without converting as much soil nutrients into the proteins in the rice.

This is one of the many side effects of increased CO2, which is all being driven by more and more people. Farming and airplanes are the symptoms, not the cause. Increased demand due to more people, is the cause, and there's already too much CO2 in the atmosphere to reverse things. Better to adopt policies that disincentivize population growth so that fewer people are stuck living in this hotter, more violent weather world, have a chance to suffer less than they're going to.

poisonated

I’ve had my fun and that’s all that matters.

IAMAMORON

If we are experiencing global warming now, how come the warmest ever temperature in Ireland was recorded in 1887 ?

That was 132 years ago. Could they even pasteurise milk then ?

is_that_so

What is not helpful about all of this debate is the way that all manner of activity is demonised. Dare I say it, we've now got climate change (doom) porn! Not that warnings are not needed but we are very, very short on practical and realistic ways to even start. Far too much attention is given to the most strident of declarations, regardless of who they are. The risk is we will become inured to this woe-churning without credible solutions that can be implemented.

Harry Palmr

IAMAMORON wrote: »

If we are experiencing global warming now, how come the warmest ever temperature in Ireland was recorded in 1887 ?

Probably down to a wicked combination of high and low pressure zones which steered up Saharan air, that's why isolated weather events should not be confused with broader climate trends.

IAMAMORON

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Probably down to a wicked combination of high and low pressure zones which steered up Saharan air, that's why isolated weather events should not be confused with broader climate trends.

At how many millibars do we refer to our weather as

" wicked"

Or should i have said isobars?

Can you go to prison for being a climate change denier?

Is is related to the density of nylon? Does the production of nylon lead to global warming ?

Macha

Dear aptly-named IAMAMORON,

Climate science denialism isn't accepted in this forum any more than someone challenging the theory of gravity. Stop or enjoy a holiday.

As for demonising behaviours, sorry but the fastest way to personally increase your emissions is fly and eat a lot of meat & dairy. In the context of a climate emergency where people are already dying from heatwaves, drought, stronger storms etc yes I'll happily demonise someone taking the piss with those activities.

On the other hand, it is the government who has the big levers thar can make big changes like shifting agricultural practices (paying farmers to look after the land eg), investing in public transport and decarbonising our energy system.

dubrov

In fairness Macha, all those things you mention may buy a small bit of time but will not solve the underlying problem.

The planet just does not have enough resources to support the current population let alone the future one. We are burning through millions of years of resources in a few hundred years and it is not sustainable.

Fourier

Igotadose wrote: »

Better to adopt policies that disincentivize population growth so that fewer people are stuck living in this hotter, more violent weather world, have a chance to suffer less than they're going to.

Most scientific reports emphasise replacement of power production systems, enhancement of carbon removal technology, decreased use of refrigeration, change in diet and a lifestyle with less of a carbon footprint in general.

Population growth is already predicted to level off and may do so even faster depending on how quickly sex education, education of girls and contraceptives are brought into the third world and some second world countries. Population reduction policies don't feature as they won't act fast enough and will essentially occur anyway.

IAMAMORON

Macha wrote: »

Dear aptly-named IAMAMORON,

Climate science denialism isn't accepted in this forum any more than someone challenging the theory of gravity. Stop or enjoy a holiday.

As for demonising behaviours, sorry but the fastest way to personally increase your emissions is fly and eat a lot of meat & dairy. In the context of a climate emergency where people are already dying from heatwaves, drought, stronger storms etc yes I'll happily demonise someone taking the piss with those activities.

On the other hand, it is the government who has the big levers thar can make big changes like shifting agricultural practices (paying farmers to look after the land eg), investing in public transport and decarbonising our energy system.

I dont deny climate at all. How could I ? Unless you are a scientist it is nearly impossible to understand the concept.

That is the problem.

Time will tell, but I find it difficult to not compare climate change armageddonists with the religious bigotry of the dark ages. You could be burned at the stake for being a non believer.

Bullying contributors to a thread for daring to offer an adverse opinion is not my idea of debate. Putting up the hand to non believers involves the same intellectual conceit the church gave to atheists in the 12th century. Merely being aware of the connotations of carbon emmissions should not give you the right to disable people from the right to dicuss how dangerous they are to the future of mankind.

gozunda

Macha wrote: »

We need to decarbonise all of the things. No sector can be left out. I agree with you that air travel also has to be addressed.
Agriculture makes up 1/3 of Ireland's emissions and the IPCC just published a report about land use and climate change. That's why it's in the news.

The OP makes a good point Imo.

Strangrly over 10% of that figure is forestry which has fek all to do with agriculture. It also ignores the fact that a large proportion of what we produce is exported to our trading partners in Europe where it is consumed - yet the emissions are accounted on Irelands tab.

The reason I believe agriculture tends to end up in a lot of tabloid style reporting on climate change is that there is a definitive attempt to tar all types animal agriculture. The newspaper reports on the recent UN report on climate change were a case in point, with the Irish Times screaming headlines about the world having to stop all animal agriculture being on inspection (of the actual report) complete feking hogwash.

The fact is that gloally the use of fossil fuels in the transport and energy sectors are the biggest contributors and responsible for some 74-76% of all greenhouse emissions.

Unfortunately none of that will stop the usual screamers jumping up and down about agriculture whilst ignoring the various elephants in the room.

This duplicity is as much about virtue signalling as it is about a lot of deliberate misinformation.
The electricity produced at present in Ireland depends heavily on fossil fuels - so buying an electric vehicle still means huge contributions to greenhouse emissions. And as for renewables we are current importing biomas all the way from Australia so we dont have to burn turf. That this means that millions of gallons of fossil fuel are used to ship it here seems to get conveniently forgotten about ...

Fourier

gozunda wrote: »

The reason I believe agriculture tends to end up in a lot of tabloid style reporting on climate change is that there is a definitive attempt to tar all types animal agriculture. The newspaper reports on the recent UN report on climate change were a case in point, with the Irish Times screaming headlines about the world having to stop all animal agriculture being on inspection complete feking hogwash.

The fact is that gloally the use of fossil fuels in the transport and energy sectors are the biggest contributors and responsible for some 74-76% of all greenhouse emissions.

Unfortunately none of that will stop the usual screamers jumping up and down about agriculture whilst ignoring the various elephant in the room.

This duplicity is as much about virtue signalling as it is about a lot of deliberate misinformation.

Well one only needs to look at the recent study on animal populations by the WWF where newspapers reported we had wiped out 60% of animal populations. Almost every single news outlet reported this inaccurately. Where as what the study actually showed was that population groups of a small subset of vertebrates had an average population reduction of 60%.

However this reduction might not even mean their numbers dropped much or at all. As one might have a species with three population groups. Group A has 10,000 members, Group B has 100 and Group C has 50. If this goes to A = 10,200 B = 20 and C = 5, then we have a net average population reduction of 56% even though the species total numbers had gone up.

None of this appeared in most newspapers. Only that we had destroyed 60% of life, often followed by comments filled with calling humanity a "virus". The cynical part of me thinks this is often selling gloom and misanthropy to people who love reveling in both.

Macha

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I dont deny climate at all. How could I ?

You can ponder that while taking a break from this forum. See you in a few days.

Macha

I don't really understand your point, gozunda.

We are going to have to decarbonise EVERYTHING if we are to hit 1.5°C. That means it is entirely impossible to ignore the land use sector, which accounts for a quarter of emissions. And yes, livestock farming is by far the most resource intensive way to produce food. That isn't hogwash, that is a scientific fact.

As for accounting by consumption vs production by that logic most of China's emissions would be accredited to Europe. The point is the world chose an accounting system and we are not going to waste time trying to change it now. No one is interested in this discussion, even in Europe.

Who is ignoring the energy sector? Ireland has clear efficiency and renewables targets plus participates on the EU ETS. There is also a whole host of underlying regulations aimed at shifting energy market rules to support higher shares of renewables.

Is it for enough? No. Do we burn too much fossil fuels? Yes, absolutely. On the imported biomass point, An Bord Pleanala just turned down planning for an ESB peat plant to cofire imported biomass and the lack of traceability of the biomass was one of the reasons for turning it down. Fantastic decision that will hopefully set a precedent.

But CAP is actually fueling carbon emissions in the agricultural sector.

Yes aviation and shipping are neglected but so is agriculture.

gozunda

Macha wrote: »

I don't really understand your point, gozunda.

We are going to have to decarbonise EVERYTHING if we are to hit 1.5°C. That means it is entirely impossible to ignore the land use sector, which accounts for a quarter of emissions. And yes, livestock farming is by far the most resource intensive way to produce food. That isn't hogwash, that is a scientific fact.

As for accounting by consumption vs production by that logic most of China's emissions would be accredited to Europe. The point is the world chose an accounting system and we are not going to waste time trying to change it now. No one is interested in this discussion, even in Europe.

Who is ignoring the energy sector? Ireland has clear efficiency and renewables targets plus participates on the EU ETS. There is also a whole host of underlying regulations aimed at shifting energy market rules to support higher shares of renewables.

Is it for enough? No. Do we burn too much fossil fuels? Yes, absolutely. On the imported biomass point, An Bord Pleanala just turned down planning for an ESB peat plant to cofire imported biomass and the lack of traceability of the biomass was one of the reasons for turning it down. Fantastic decision that will hopefully set a precedent.

But CAP is actually fueling carbon emissions in the agricultural sector.

Yes aviation and shipping are neglected but so is agriculture.

I would argue that decarbonising absolutely "everything" is impossible. Take house building for example. The construction sector produces huge amounts of carbon whether concrete or wood is used in construction. Certainly carbon emissions can be offset. However there are basic items such as food, shelter and energy which will continue to produce large amounts of carbon emissions by virtue of their necessity in providing basic resources to 7 billion people. Tbh I have yet to see a genuine discussion ir description of this issue or how it is to be properly handled.

Taking the OPs point - from reading a lot of what is in the media - much of what is being pushed regarding animal farming is frequently predicated on mainly intensive systems which require high inputs such as feed lots in the US etc. It also ignores much of the third world and needs of some of the poorest peoples who are often dependant on small scale animal agriculture for survival. An example is a country like Ethiopia with 53 Million cattle or India which has 75 million dairy farms - many of them just having a couple of animals each.

Importantly agriculture produces food and low carbon emission animal agriculture is completely feasible and is detailed as so in the latest UN climate change report. Much of the popular media stories ignore the fact that well managed and grazed grassland is one of the most important carbon sinks we have. And this is not me saying that. The European Environment Agency has called for a reduction in ploughing / intensive cultivation which actually results in increased carbon emissions and the destruction of valuable carbon sinks. It has identified Irelands grasslands as one of those important carbon sinks on a European level. What I detailed as 'hogwash' btw are the multiple tabloid media headlines that seem to suggest ditching animal agriculture is somehow is the main cure to the worlds problems. Imo this type of sensationalism is not born out by the recent UN report or the EEA detailed above.

The point is that Ireland currently produces various agricultural produce for export and yes those emissions are accounted for here - hence the higher than average EU figures - even where that produce is consumed elsewhere in Europe. Other countries directly benefit with regard to their carbon emissions totals from the current system. Of note the figures used to detail Irelands carbon emissions include forestry and other land use changes.
The point is even if Ireland were to stop production tomorrow - the shortfall will be taken up elsewhere (whether that be Brazil or Poland etc) and will make little if any difference to total global emissions. And that what's we need to be paying attention to.

With regard to those sectors responsible for the biggest emissions of greenhouse gases - at present it remains that Ireland is locked into significant dependency with regard to fossil fuels - switching to electric vehicles which use energy produced from fossil fuels does nothing expect set the appearance of using low emissions fuel systems. Targets are great but until they are on stream and fully accountable they are worth little or nothing to the current emission figures for the energy and transport sectors.

On the biomas imported from Australia - it is being transported to the Midlands from Foynes this week for energy production - by lorry after being shipped thousands of miles and using millions of gallons of fossil fuels. Do we want to do something similar with agricultural foodstuffs - which do well here or will we ship food in from elsewhere so it is on someone else's tab?

I don't believe I mentioned CAP - however the discussion of its use to subsidise food production is in itself a whole other discussion. Interestingly agriculture is not the only sector which receives these types of subsidies. Whether these continue for all types of agriculture is certainly currently up for debate.

I would strongly disagree that agriculture is being ignored. It is being being severely dragged over the coals as we speak. Certainly there are important changes to be made back towards more extensive and lower input methods of production. And I see that change happening in the near future. That said I see little popular outrage directed at the main sectors responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Yet fossil fuel use in the transport and energy sectors remain the single biggest emitters of greenhouse gases on the planet - there is a need to start including a hell of a lot more about that in ongoing discussions regarding current global problems and how they are to be overcome.

Upstream

Macha wrote: »

I don't really understand your point, gozunda.

We are going to have to decarbonise EVERYTHING if we are to hit 1.5°C. That means it is entirely impossible to ignore the land use sector, which accounts for a quarter of emissions. And yes, livestock farming is by far the most resource intensive way to produce food. That isn't hogwash, that is a scientific fact.

If you think animals are to blame, I think you may be looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
If high amounts of resources are needed for livestock, how could the following be true?

one of Cromwell&#8217 wrote: »

The Burren is ‘a country where there is not water enough to drown a man,
wood enough to hang one nor earth enough to bury one … yet their cattle are very fat’.

I'd shift focus slightly and say modern industrial farming, not animal agriculture, is the most resource intensive way to produce food, and mediocre food at that.

On the other hand, regenerative agriculture, including regenerative livestock production, offers the potential to greatly reduce resource usage, while increasing biodiversity and sequestering carbon.

Animals have an important role to play here, and incorporating livestock has seen some farmers build soil carbon levels at rates of between half and one percent year on year. That's enough to to put it on the map as a significant tool in the fight against climate change.

Igotadose

Upstream wrote: »

I'd shift focus slightly and say modern industrial farming, not animal agriculture, is the most resource intensive way to produce food, and mediocre food at that.

On the other hand, regenerative agriculture, including regenerative livestock production, offers the potential to greatly reduce resource usage, while increasing biodiversity and sequestering carbon.

Can it yield enough to feed the ever increasing population? Or is factory farming the only way to meet demand?

Upstream

Igotadose wrote: »

Can it yield enough to feed the ever increasing population? Or is factory farming the only way to meet demand?

I've heard this asked before and I think something like 60-70% of the worlds food is produced by small holders on farms of 5 acres or less. So yes it can, but more farmers are needed.

turbbo

What about all the needless consumption of plastic in the modern world surely that is a lot worse than the effects of farming?

gozunda

turbbo wrote: »

What about all the needless consumption of plastic in the modern world surely that is a lot worse than the effects of farming?

I would agree tbh. With regard to agriculture. The fact is farming feeds people. Overall cattle numbers in Ireland have not actually increased - the stats show that there were more cattle in Ireland in 1973 than now. Compare that to the human population which has increased by nearly 40%. What has changed is the amount of ****e processed foods of all types. Time to return to purchasing and eating foodstuffs we produce here and less reliance on cheap imported foods which come with huge food mileage and often few if any ethical or environmental standards whether that involves animals or otherwise....

Igotadose

Upstream wrote: »

I've heard this asked before and I think something like 60-70% of the worlds food is produced by small holders on farms of 5 acres or less. So yes it can, but more farmers are needed.

Not enough to have more farmers (there's always more people so there'll always be potential farmers.) Farmers need land and water. Look what happened in Chennai earlier this summer. There isn't enough water where people need it in a form they can use it.

And, if 60-70% of the world's food is indeed produced by small holders, considering the amount of people 'at food risk' or worse, 'enough' isn't the word I'd use to describe how they're doing. Now, add more people.

Upstream

Igotadose wrote: »

Not enough to have more farmers (there's always more people so there'll always be potential farmers.) Farmers need land and water. Look what happened in Chennai earlier this summer. There isn't enough water where people need it in a form they can use it.

And, if 60-70% of the world's food is indeed produced by small holders, considering the amount of people 'at food risk' or worse, 'enough' isn't the word I'd use to describe how they're doing. Now, add more people.

Water shortages are often caused be man-made problems. Too much tillage and overgrazing have caused soils to lose much of their water holding capacity.

Regenerative agriculture is focused on soil health and rebuilding soils, so it can make a significant difference. Each 1 % increase in soil organic matter helps soil hold 20,000 gallons more water per acre. Extra diversity of plants help the individual plants access water too.

So educating farmers about how to farm with nature, instead of against it, would help a lot of those who are most vulnerable.

Igotadose

Upstream wrote: »

Water shortages are often caused be man-made problems. .

This one due to global warming (melting glaciers, drought), and too many people. Definitely man-made

However, regenerative agriculture won't solve this. Chennai's urban, as that's how that country has chosen to deal with overpopulation - cram people together into barely liveable housing conditions, and drought causes horrible living conditions.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Igotadose wrote: »

However, regenerative agriculture won't solve this.

Just on that point, there isn't any other option out there. Up to the recent past, the oceans have acted as a buffer for the excess carbon dioxide produced. It may even be able to absorb some more as it heats up in conjunction with the rest of the planet.

The only proven, reliable and realisable option is to convert that excess carbon dioxide into soil organic matter.

But that can only succeed if the emissions of carbon dioxide are dramatically reduced in the short term and that's where the whole system fails because people in the first world are too wedded to a high energy lifestyle.

PCeeeee

In terms of air travel, surely if we could reduce tourism that would be a major step forward?

Wanderer78

PCeeeee wrote: »

In terms of air travel, surely if we could reduce tourism that would be a major step forward?

We ve created an extremely complex problem, which truly won't be easy to solve, reducing tourism could have major negative effects on some economies

Harry Palmr

There's a happy confluence with regards to some tourism and carbon - resident populations in quite a few short break cities are now starting to react to the sheer volume of visitors who are now creating more problems than their money might be worth.

Igotadose

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Just on that point, there isn't any other option out there. Up to the recent past, the oceans have acted as a buffer for the excess carbon dioxide produced. It may even be able to absorb some more as it heats up in conjunction with the rest of the planet.

The only proven, reliable and realisable option is to convert that excess carbon dioxide into soil organic matter.

Unless you can de-desertify huge swathes of the planet, this won't work, either, in the face of rampant population growth. There's neither enough land, nor water, to make this feasible.

Being in a feedback loop driven by human-produced excess carbon, all we can do is our best to mitigate the damage. Starting with initiatives to curb population growth so that the ensuing generations are smaller and so fewer people, suffer less.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Igotadose wrote: »

Unless you can de-desertify huge swathes of the planet, this won't work, either, in the face of rampant population growth. There's neither enough land, nor water, to make this feasible.

Being in a feedback loop driven by human-produced excess carbon, all we can do is our best to mitigate the damage. Starting with initiatives to curb population growth so that the ensuing generations are smaller and so fewer people, suffer less.

Check out the work of Allan Savory, a Zimbabwean ecologist, who has achieved remarkable results in doing just that.

I'll just include the link to his TedTalk but there's a huge volume of stuff out there on his methods of reversing desertification.

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en

Igotadose

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Check out the work of Allan Savory, a Zimbabwean ecologist, who has achieved remarkable results in doing just that.

I'll just include the link to his TedTalk but there's a huge volume of stuff out there on his methods of reversing desertification.

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" - someone.

Seems like Savory is pretty much bunkum, according to the scientists that have looked into his claims.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change

I particularly like this line, from a Professor Emeritus from U of Utah:
"If I had most of the credible range scientists getting together to write papers saying I was full of crap, I'd do some real soul-searching," he replied. "As a scientist, that's what you'd have to do. But I don't know if he is a scientist.""

Just because someone gives a catchy TED talk basically means nothing. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos infamy, gave a TED talk.

Upstream

Igotadose wrote: »

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" - someone.

Seems like Savory is pretty much bunkum, according to the scientists that have looked into his claims.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change

I particularly like this line, from a Professor Emeritus from U of Utah:
"If I had most of the credible range scientists getting together to write papers saying I was full of crap, I'd do some real soul-searching," he replied. "As a scientist, that's what you'd have to do. But I don't know if he is a scientist.""

Just because someone gives a catchy TED talk basically means nothing. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos infamy, gave a TED talk.

Some scientists looked a little harder than you did :P
Here are some peer-reviewed articles suggesting his idea that grazed ground can be a net carbon sink may have merit.
The results are impressive, between 1.2 and 3 tC/ac/yr. Apply that at scale and you have a serious tool in the fight against climate change.

Annotated Peer-Reviewed Citations for Grazing as a Means of Building Soil Carbon and Mitigating Global Warming

Texas A&M study finds 1.2 tons of carbon per acre per year (1.2 tC/ac/yr) drawdown via properly-managed grazing, and that the drawdown potential of North American pasturelands is 800 million tons (megatonnes) of carbon per year (800 MtC/yr).
Teague, W. R., Apfelbaum, S., Lal, R., Kreuter, U. P., Rowntree, J., Davies, C. A., R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, Byck, P. (2016). The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(2), 156-164. doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156
http://www.jswconline.org/content/71/2/156.full.pdf+html

University of Georgia study finds 3 tons of carbon per acre per year (3 tC/ac/yr) drawdown following a conversion from row cropping to regenerative grazing.
Machmuller, M. B., Kramer, M. G., Cyle, T. K., Hill, N., Hancock, D., & Thompson, A. (2015). Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter. Nature Communications, 6, 6995. doi:10.1038/ncomms7995
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7995

Michigan State University study finds 1.5 tons of carbon per acre per year (1.5 tC/ac/yr) drawdown via proper grazing methods, and shows in a lifecycle analysis that this more than compensates for a cow’s enteric emission of methane.
Stanley, P. L., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, M. S., & Hamm, M. W. (2018). Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agricultural Systems, 162, 249-258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003


But then you get into some different arguments, he's not just talking about carbon sequestration, he's looking at holistic management and that can be hard to replicate, and there are critics of his work.
Good article on this here
http://www.paleocorner.com/the-trouble-with-allan-savory/

Igotadose

Upstream wrote: »

Good article on this here
http://www.paleocorner.com/the-trouble-with-allan-savory/

Yes, fine, change grazing practices. How much would be needed and by when? In the meanwhile, population keeps growing and the planet gets hotter.

Don't get me wrong, better cattle raising techniques would be great, I've seen a lot of 'desert pavement' in the US Southwest in my time due to grazing where there once was chert, now there's rock, because of ranching and lack of water. Feedlots are a nightmare.

But, as the author's of the 'paleocorner' article themselves say: "The real and honest next question is: can this be scaled? There has already been offhand dismissal that this would be an ecological disaster by reintroducing so many ruminants back into the rangelands. And there’s also the matter of increasing beef demand in developing countries to consider."

And at least 1 of the papers did go into the grazing practice they measured, which included a bunch of fertilization being done, which itself is a big challenge to scale.

PhilOssophy

I would love to see a comparison of the carbon footprint of a vegan vs a meat eater diet. By the time the soya is imported from South America, the trees are deforested to make room for these plants, etc.
Also you can eat meat for 5 years for the same carbon footprint as a flight to the US - how can people think flying isn't a major issue?

Igotadose

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I would love to see a comparison of the carbon footprint of a vegan vs a meat eater diet. By the time the soya is imported from South America, the trees are deforested to make room for these plants, etc.
Also you can eat meat for 5 years for the same carbon footprint as a flight to the US - how can people think flying isn't a major issue?

Here's a handy study recommending 4 things you can do, to reduce your carbon footprint:
1. Have fewer children. Developed countries, 1 fewer child saves 58.6 tCo2 equivalent
2. Live car free: 2.4 tCO2e
3. Cut down air travel: 1.6 tCO2e saved per round trip trans-Atlantic flight
3. Eat a vegetarian diet: 0.8 tCO2e saved per year

Summary chart:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541