EPA Climate Report.

_Brian

Thought I’d mention this as I presume it will gain traction across news outlets.

https://www.thejournal.ie/climate-change-epa-state-of-the-environment-report-5277733-Nov2020/

It doesn’t say but I’m presuming these are gross figures.

I wonder if net figures are used how would it change the numbers. Absolutely no recognition for the sequestered co2 of forestry, hedgerows and permanent grasslands.

Jjameson

https://www.thejournal.ie/climate-change-epa-state-of-the-environment-report-5277733-Nov2020/?amp=1

Until the genius environmentalists equate everything back to fossil fuels it’s the same perpetual nonsense going nowhere.

_Brian

Jjameson wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/climate-change-epa-state-of-the-environment-report-5277733-Nov2020/?amp=1

Until the genius environmentalists equate everything back to fossil fuels it’s the same perpetual nonsense going nowhere.

We need comprehensive report showing the circular nature of the emissions so we can finally know exactly what our net emissions are.

To me it’s staggering that continuously we see papers published showing gross figures only. To the extent that that one wonders about any underlying agenda.

_Brian

If the data on water contamination is correct we have a serious issue that needs addressing.

When this comes up here people always go the whataboutery route and mention sewage, but this data shows waste water contamination considerably down the scale of waterways contamination.

Panch18

_Brian wrote: »

We need comprehensive report showing the circular nature of the emissions so we can finally know exactly what our net emissions are.

To me it’s staggering that continuously we see papers published showing gross figures only. To the extent that that one wonders about any underlying agenda.

Is this going to change as some point in the future?

I thought i read somewhere that EU is changing how it is accounting by sector and that all land use with be taken into account. In the FJ maybe - or else i was dreaming!!

Jjameson

_Brian wrote: »

If the data on water contamination is correct we have a serious issue that needs addressing.

When this comes up here people always go the whataboutery route and mention sewage, but this data shows waste water contamination considerably down the scale of waterways contamination.

But is it correct? Grass lay with descant soil structure has been proven to leech very little nutrients compared to tilled ground.

Say my name

Jjameson wrote: »

But is it correct? Grass lay with descant soil structure has been proven to leech very little nutrients compared to tilled ground.

One has been decided as acceptable and the other had been deemed as unacceptable.

If one were further inclined one could say it's part of "The Great Reset".
herdquitter is to blame..:p

_Brian

Jjameson wrote: »

But is it correct? Grass lay with descant soil structure has been proven to leech very little nutrients compared to tilled ground.

I’d have to look through the report to see how the data is gathered. Bit of correct it seems agriculture’s impact on waterways is significant.

This isn’t like emissions where there’s an obvious balancing effect that’s not being counted. If agriculture is damaging waterways to this extent then it will need addressing and the current trajectory can’t be sustained.

As ever the devil is in the data.

Capercaillie

_Brian wrote: »

Thought I’d mention this as I presume it will gain traction across news outlets.

https://www.thejournal.ie/climate-change-epa-state-of-the-environment-report-5277733-Nov2020/

It doesn’t say but I’m presuming these are gross figures.

I wonder if net figures are used how would it change the numbers. Absolutely no recognition for the sequestered co2 of forestry, hedgerows and permanent grasslands.

Need recognition of CO2 sequestration in wetlands, bogs, ponds, scrub.

_Brian

Capercaillie wrote: »

Need recognition of CO2 sequestration in wetlands, bogs, ponds, scrub.

I agree. I think we’re in a decent place as regards net emissions, and it’s well within our reach to be net sequeateian of the will and support was there.

Water quality issues need further explanation on the mechanics of what they are irepresenting. It’s a 400+ page report, I haven’t read it.

Capercaillie

_Brian wrote: »

I agree. I think we’re in a decent place as regards net emissions, and it’s well within our reach to be net sequeateian of the will and support was there.

Water quality issues need further explanation on the mechanics of what they are irepresenting. It’s a 400+ page report, I haven’t read it.

A lot of C sequestered would be intact bogs (raised/blanket), however many are degraded so would be C emitters. Huge work needs to be done in this area in restoring functioning bogs, new initiative €108 million euros in "just transition" will be a massive help. Turfcutting needs to end as well if we are serious.

gozunda

Afaik forestry operations and ghgs emissions including logging, felling, etc has traditionally been lobbed in with agriculture.

Anyone know if this this still the case?

endainoz

Any sign of a farming lobby group questioning these figures? Like I mean genuinely questioning them based on the scientific points brought up here regarding sequestering etc..

_Brian

gozunda wrote: »

Afaik forestry operations and ghgs emissions including logging, felling, etc has traditionally been lobbed in with agriculture.

Anyone know if this this still the case?

I didn’t see a separate forestry figure for the emissions and European figures seem to always cover “all agriculture together

The water contamination portion of the epa report definitely has forestry as a separate section

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

I didn’t see a separate forestry figure for the emissions and European figures seem to always cover “all agriculture together

The water contamination portion of the epa report definitely has forestry as a separate section

Forestry has moved to being a net emitter as of this year with things only likely to get worse over the coming years

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

herdquitter is to blame..:p

Take a number, get in line

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Forestry has moved to being a net emitter as of this year with things only likely to get worse over the coming years

There was a big disservice done to the forest industry by what I'd nearly call propaganda instead of science.
Their figures were based on the timber used in short carbon cycles?
However if that carbon was shifted to long carbon cycles i.e. biochar, there'd be no excuse not to say it's a net carbon sequestration sink.
I'm aware they looked at peat soil where commercial timber is grown and included that in their calculations.

You'd get the feeling in this country a problem in some people's eyes is looked upon and then the science graduates are told get out there and get the figures to prove me right.

Farmers would want to be careful looking for ditches to be called a carbon sink when ye've seen what science can do to forestry calling it a net emitter.

I've probably said it before but the only true sink for biomass is char. Archaeologists date human settlements by the char left from thousands of years ago. Anything not charred is part of the natural carbon cycle and goes back to the atmosphere in a short time when biology does it's thing.

Jjameson

Capercaillie wrote: »

A lot of C sequestered would be intact bogs (raised/blanket), however many are degraded so would be C emitters. Huge work needs to be done in this area in restoring functioning bogs, new initiative €108 million euros in "just transition" will be a massive help. Turfcutting needs to end as well if we are serious.

If domestic turf cutting is swopped for imported coal the difference would be fairly small.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

There was a big disservice done to the forest industry by what I'd nearly call propaganda instead of science.
Their figures were based on the timber used in short carbon cycles?
However if that carbon was shifted to long carbon cycles i.e. biochar, there'd be no excuse not to say it's a net carbon sequestration sink.
I'm aware they looked at peat soil where commercial timber is grown and included that in their calculations.

You'd get the feeling in this country a problem in some people's eyes is looked upon and then the science graduates are told get out there and get the figures to prove me right.

Farmers would want to be careful looking for ditches to be called a carbon sink when ye've seen what science can do to forestry calling it a net emitter.

I've probably said it before but the only true sink for biomass is char. Archaeologists date human settlements by the char left from thousands of years ago. Anything not charred is part of the natural carbon cycle and goes back to the atmosphere in a short time when biology does it's thing.

The problem with forestry is they give a credit for 100% of the biomass while it grows which more than covers emissions while it continues to grow.
But less than 30% I think actually makes it to sawn log and as a result you get massive emissions on harvesting. Biochar would cost a lot of money, timber is worth about €30-40m³ plus haulage and other costs. Raw materials for 1t of biochar would be €100-130+ haulage and all your other costs. But for all those costs, all you end up doing is remove low carbon building material from the market to be replaced with other materials of a higher carbon footprint

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The problem with forestry is they give a credit for 100% of the biomass while it grows which more than covers emissions while it continues to grow.
But less than 30% I think actually makes it to sawn log and as a result you get massive emissions on harvesting. Biochar would cost a lot of money, timber is worth about €30-40m³ plus haulage and other costs. Raw materials for 1t of biochar would be €100-130+ haulage and all your other costs. But for all those costs, all you end up doing is remove low carbon building material from the market to be replaced with other materials of a higher carbon footprint

I'm not 100% on this but I think an Irish company is using the brash to make char.
I don't know if it's on site or what they're very cagey with their info..
All the pushers of char are singing about the need to use the waste streams first. If it was me I'd be using the whole tree. :pac:
This deal of char being up in the €400's/t puts lots off it's use.

Edit: scrap the €400/t they're going for the €1750/t. I never knew I was so wealthy.

Capercaillie

Jjameson wrote: »

If domestic turf cutting is swopped for imported coal the difference would be fairly small.

Turf is far more polluting than coal.

Capercaillie

Jjameson wrote: »

If domestic turf cutting is swopped for imported coal the difference would be fairly small.

Turf is far more polluting than coal.

NcdJd

Say my name wrote: »

I'm not 100% on this but I think an Irish company is using the brash to make char.
I don't know if it's on site or what they're very cagey with their info..
All the pushers of char are singing about the need to use the waste streams first. If it was me I'd be using the whole tree. :pac:
This deal of char being up in the €400's/t puts lots off it's use.

Edit: scrap the €400/t they're going for the €1750/t. I never knew I was so wealthy.

Got this in my inbox a few weeks ago... forgot to post it to ya... every time I see the word Biochar your name comes into my head ha..

https://www.growtrade.ie/biochar-the-future-of-horticulture/

Birdnuts

_Brian wrote: »

I didn’t see a separate forestry figure for the emissions and European figures seem to always cover “all agriculture together

The water contamination portion of the epa report definitely has forestry as a separate section

Forestry policies in this country are still very primitive and destructive - only in the last year or so has DAFM bothered to employ ecologists to assess planting applications etc. Hence the current backlog.

PS: The report also highlights the poor condition of EU designated sites - again the main problem here is the failure of relevant government departments to implement the required management plans and direct Pillar 2 CAP money in that direction

Birdnuts

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: The report also highlights the poor condition of EU designated sites - again the main problem here is the failure of relevant government departments to implement the required management plans and direct Pillar 2 CAP money in that direction

The main problem there is it's a dictated land grab that devalues one's property and curtails even the most basic of actions such as fencing. 30 magic beans from P2 that can be cut off at any time is worth sfa.