Overpopulation

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118480731#Comment_118480731

I'll try find it I have posted the paper before on boards but trying to find anything in old posts is now impossible.

The gist of it was the volume of biomass production was greater as the volume of growth is much greater in grass and grazing turns it into a high nutrient and quickly accessible to the biome material.

The real volume of carbon in soil is not from dead material but from the dead creatures, bacteria and fungus etc.

It sounds a dramatic claim but it isn't really, growth in woods is small and slow, the volume of fresh matter each year is not that big.

It's making a virtue out of beating a very slow natural process at carbon capture.

My land isn't the mixes, lot of clay underneath in places it is however very rich in minerals etc and cattle seem to pile weight on.

gozunda

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118480731#Comment_118480731

Not just farming organisations afaik. The European Environmental Agency were one of many who highlighted the issues a few years back.

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

"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...

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.."

That said forests also have a roll to play - but so does grassland. 

magicbastarder

i can highly recommend 'the forgiveness of nature' by graham harvey, which is about grass - i suspect it's been out of print for years though.

he does go into the detail about grasslands storing carbon below ground, where woodlands store them above ground - but what i was getting at with the above is that while pastureland may capture carbon, there's also the methane question where methane has X times the GHG effect of carbon (based on the timeframe you pick), so pastureland supporting cattle grazing may capture carbon in one sense, but the benefit is outweighed by methane production.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118480690#Comment_118480690

Lot of that has to do with Haber Bosch.

Nitrogen fertilizer changed land use for good, in India, when one crop is harvested, the following one is planted a week or two later. Hot climate and fertilizer application rates that are jaw dropping to tillage here. That goes for rice as well, govt subsidized fertilizer and by God they shovel it on, had the pleasure of seeing it done in Indonesia, if I put that much on to grass I'd be broke and the grass yellow and ground dead for a year.

Where once they had one poor main crop they Now have 2.

That 80% of calories is largely grain, wheat, rice, barley and corn. That means handing global food supply to Europe, North America, India and China, the regions blessed with a very high capacity to grow such crops. Pretty much the only places that are

As it is most of the world's stored wheat is now in China. That's going to cause problems.

Food production globally is very complex and drilling down can expose big problems.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118481556#Comment_118481556

Food, energy, biodiversity it's a very complex pie and every one will have to accept bits that they do not like.

joseywhales

It's hard to know what people mean by a forest. There's a large difference between a mono culture managed woodland and old growth forest with a hundred feet of biomass under the ground and a diversity of trees that are hundreds of years old. It would be nice to get some of that back, it might take a thousand years but I still think it's worth it. I only really noticed the difference when I did a bit of hiking in the pacific northwest, the diversity of insects alone was fascinating and even there old growth forest is rare, we really have f**ked nature.

gozunda

Thanks I'll take a look at that.

Some recent research on methane shows that soils can also absorb CH4 - but the key as to whether a soil acts as a sink or source of methane tends to be water. Woodlands are good at capturing methane, and well drained grasslands can be as well. Conversely soils found in natural wetlands and mamade wetlands such as rice paddies are now known to be major sources of methane emissions. With Rice cultivation now being recognised as a much larger contributer to atmospheric methane than previous.

Globally the main sources of methane release in order (not including natural sources) are emissions arising from the production, distribution and combustion of fossil fuels, animal agriculture, rice cultivation, landfills, waste treatment and biomass burning. The thinking there is to bring down methane emissions overall through technology and better livestock and land management.

Interestingly on trees and carbon storage - it is estimated that the trunk accounts for 50% of the carbon - with roots, leaves and branches each accounting for 22%, 16% and 12% of the remaining carbon. So when the average tree is is cut down and the trunk is used for wood - the 50% of the remaining sequestered carbon included in the bark, leaves, branches etc will get released back into the soil or atmosphere through decay or burning.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118481756#Comment_118481756

in british english it actually originally meant an area set aside for hunting; and AFAIK didn't actually explicitly imply a closed tree canopy in the way it is usually taken to mean now.

gozunda

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118482407#Comment_118482407

I think the poster may have been referring to forests / woodland more in terms of biodiversity.

Thing is whilst ancient woodlands may tend to be more biodiverse - younger woodlands habitats have high levels of biodiversity giving the right conditions. I know of areas of scrub oak / holly woodland which is quite sparse as far as canopy cover goes - but is possibly the closest to levels of biodiversity of any ancient high forests I've seen. The same with a local area of seasonally wet carr woodland which is more like an jungle in terms of vegetation, bryophytes, insects, birds and other wildlife. Neither would be particularly accessible and I think this is why their biodiversity is good. Open up woodlands and forest to recreation and outdoor sports and they often get thrashed, used as dumping grounds etc.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118483466#Comment_118483466

They get thrashed because of too many people, behaving badly. Overpopulation doesn't let up.

Methane emissions spiking now. Have more kydz that'll solve it. https://www.thejournal.ie/rise-in-methane-5651249-Jan2022/

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118467923#Comment_118467923

And our species dies..

one of the most fundamental reasons for our existence is the urge to procreate.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118483529#Comment_118483529

Have just one

Latest official Chinese government figures have just been published.

Official fertility rate at 1.1

In 2021, 10.62 million births and 10.14 million deaths. Next year may see the first official decline in Chinese population numbers. Unofficially this may have already occurred.

Kermit.de.frog

Far from over population the world is facing a demographic crisis. Not enough children are being born and this means ultimately standards of living will fall and old age will become a very nasty period in life.

There just will not be the working age population to prop up young and old.

China shot themselves in the foot and have blown a gaping hole in their population pyramid.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118489996#Comment_118489996

Worldwide, population is growing. China did the right thing - imagine another half billion or so Chinese (if the one child policy hadn't been instituted a generation ago.) How would they be fed? Instead, China revved up their economy, to the 2d largest in the world. China will be fine.

What you're actually complaining about, is a perceived lack of population in Western European countries. Well, if you don't have enough people, make it enticing for them to emigrate to your country. There're more than enough people to go around.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118490091#Comment_118490091

The Chinese government actions say the opposite. They are bringing in a whole raft of changes both cultural and economic in order to reverse the situation.

Personally, I don't think those changes will work anyway, but we wait and see.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118490902#Comment_118490902

I don't think they're trying to reverse the situation. I think they may have some concern about drop in troop levels in their military, but otherwise, the fact that they went a generation without mass starvation (and ensuing unrest) went a great deal towards the success of the 'great leap forward.' I think they're just balancing where they are and where they think they want to be right now. And let me be clear, their control of their population led to their increased prosperity. They lifted an enormous number of people out of abject, less than 2 euro/day poverty. Over the same time, India, who tried voluntary population reduction, had its population grow and didn't reduce poverty by nearly as much.

tinytobe

The thing is overpopulation is the biggest problem for humanity. Ever since childhood we've heard all these stories about "poor children in Africa" or in other 3rd wold countries. Especially in religious education this was always mentioned.

Now countries like Nigeria stand at over 200 Million, Egypt pas passed the 100 million mark, cities like Cairo are bursting out of their seems so that the upper class is building an entirely new city just on the outskirts of Cairo, rainforest gets cut to make land for grazing animals for the growing population in Africa, - Kabul in Afghanistan hat around 500.000 before the war, now the city is at around 4 Million.

Europe and the western world can't save them from hunger or any other disease and their corrupt dictatorships, either Muslim religious extremists or military dictators.... Also the catholic church should stop any fund raising for "poor and hungry children in Africa" as we simply can't help them.

India is growing and growing in population as well and building one coal power plant after the next contributing to climate change, - while we in Europe should consider electric vehicles to save the world?

I truly think it's time not to help and save the people of the 3rd world. They created the problem by overpopulation and are also responsible for themselves and their misery.

Fallout2022

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118489996#Comment_118489996

This might be a problem for the older people who won't be funded by young workers. And will certainly cause major problems for them in terms of government services, pensions and lifestyle. But it won't be a problem for the planet and it's inhabitants in the long term. The longer view will see the planet and its dwindling resources survive due to a lower population and lower draw on its resources. Less people, less consumption and less damage to the ecosystem.

Interesting article on Africa, expected to be 25% of the world's population within 30 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jan/20/by-2050-a-quarter-of-the-worlds-people-will-be-african-this-will-shape-our-future