Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Better cows here than on cleared rainforest

Options
  • 27-07-2022 1:34pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭


    !

    Is it not better for beef to belch away in Ireland to feed demand, rather than to belch on cleared rainforest or in air-conditioned warehouses?


    Think globally , act locally - why reduce the national herd when it will mean an overall worse impact on climate change?



«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,669 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    That's not very progressive of you.


    Let them burn the rainforest in Brazil, rewild Ireland. Walk in the Woods on Saturdays and protest loike about Brazil in Sunday.


    Win win. Unless you are a poor yokel

    Doesn't matter that Europe is shutting down lots of production in one of the few really fertile regions in the world. From Nigeria to China growth is largely only achieved by piling on fertilizer and sprays. The ground is very poor.


    The rich activists imagine it will come from somewhere else magically and sustainabily.


    People value cheap food above all else, and that is just the Green voters.


    Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, India, America, China.


    Places where food production will increase to meet the short fall being built in European production.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I would like to see the workings on the carbon impact of livestock. My feeling is that the numbers assume grain fed, housed livestock, like a large portion of the global herd, while the Irish Herd is Grass fed, largely outdoor for most of the year. The Carbon Cycle their would be air to grass to cow to air / food. Would imagine the carbon inputs outside of that would be significantly less than grain fed



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,011 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    I dont believe that carbon sequestered by grass which is then eaten, is counted against beef emissions. It should be, but isn't.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,585 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    It is not the Brazil forest fires you need to worry about too much. It is the wild fires in Killiney, Portugal, France, Spain, Greece, California, Sydney, and many other places. These fires are a new aspect of climate change. Coupled with widespread drought, this is climate change in action - now, not in 50 years time, or even a decade.

    The once in a century occurrences that now are once a decade. Flash floods in Derry this last week are another example. This is global which includes Ireland.

    Reducing the number of bovines need not affect many farmers if correct mitigation is taken in time. The least profitable parts of the beef system could stop and little effect to the income of those farmers (particularly if they are compensated) but a large effect on emissions. Taking beef animals to the factory earlier would also mitigate the situation. CAP payments are the profit for these farms with a few sucklers - and in fact even the CAP payments are to help cover the losses.

    It all needs to thought out - not just seen as an attack on rural Ireland - wherever that is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,669 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Most carbon sequestration happens underground, the root, the biome, ie the bacteria, invertebrates, worms etc


    Permanent pasture is really good at locking away carbon. A 100 yr old native woodland, not so much.


    I've spent thousands over the years planting trees, mind you, any spoilt activist I've ever met largely only ever planted single digits and lived on the snugness for years after.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,011 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Have you anything scientific on which to criticise this?



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The entire ethos around science is that an assertion can be questioned. @ancapailldorcha is correct to question the claim that reducing the national herd will be worse for climate change!



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,483 ✭✭✭touts


    Eamonn Ryan won't get claps on the back and be called a great fella altogether at the next International Green Party Conference thingy if all the work is done by Brazil.

    Of course what he doesn't realise is when he leaves the room they all laugh and say thank god their countries weren't the ones who decided to lead the way towards a new stone age.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,011 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The OP presented a hypothesis, if you have any understanding of the scientific method you'll know that hypothesis comes before the published papers and theory. The poster in question has a reputation for snide one line comments designed to detract from the debate - there is no requirement for a poster here to back up every statement with a published journal, so if acd has a problem with some of the suppositions on the OP maybe they could formulate an actual argument as opposed to lazy claims of "source?"

    As for this line from yourself:

    the claim that reducing the national herd will be worse for climate change!

    Incredibly dishonest representation of the OP. The OPs point is that reducing our national herd will result in our cutbacks being made up elsewhere (e.g. Brazil), in countries with less eco-friendly growing practices.

    So the claim in full is that reducing the national herd will cause Brazilian herd to grow which will be worse for climate change.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭Esho


    I've voted Green all my life , but I can't help feeling this is true



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I didn't make the claim. The OP did so it's on them to back it up.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,943 ✭✭✭WesternZulu


    Intensively raised livestock actually have a lower carbon footprint than those that are outdoors.

    It's more efficient, they get to slaughter weight quicker and therefore produce less methane. Your typical American feedlot system more than likely has a lower carbon footprint per kg of produce than your extensive Irish grassland equivalent. But of course there is the animal welfare issues with that too and other pollution type hotspots generated by intensive systems.

    With respect to the OP and the damage of the Brazilian rainforest. It doesn't matter where the meat/milk is produced - if it consumes feed in the form of soya from Brazil then it's contributing indirectly to Amazon deforestation.

    While permanent grasslands do store carbon they are not an infinite carbon sink - rather it stops storing carbon after a certain period of time.

    The whole issue with climate change and livestock production isn't black and white. The food system is complex and all aspects of it need to be evaluated before policy decisions are made. Globally demand for meat is increasing this should be taken into account too.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The OP posted the following: "why reduce the national herd when it will mean an overall worse impact on climate change?"



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,669 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    In a period of soaring global demand for beef and reduced ability to produce in large areas like the American West, taking the 6th largest beef exporter out of the equation is going to be a fantastic boost for places like Brazil.


    Brazil have a large forest, no one gives a hoot in reality, which is tragic.


    Was looking at a Green party senior member talk about climate change and food sources, they didn't even know about the importance of natural gas for heating glass houses, even in Southern Spain.


    The knowledge gap is pretty fuckin wild.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    They didn't. They made an unsubstantiated claim which other people are apparently supposed to research for them. We know that meat farming is partly driving climate change so the idea that more cows is better for the climate is patently ridiculous.

    I am of course more than happy to change my mind once I see evidence.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,011 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Correction, the OP posted the following:

    Is it not better for beef to belch away in Ireland to feed demand, rather than to belch on cleared rainforest or in air-conditioned warehouses?

    Think globally , act locally - why reduce the national herd when it will mean an overall worse impact on climate change?

    Its right in front of you yet you insist in selective quoting. Again, very disingenuous of you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,011 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Do you think that growing more beef in Brazil and less in Ireland, for a near net-zero change in global herd numbers, will be better or worse for the environment?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,669 ✭✭✭✭Danzy




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,011 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    I asked you a question.

    Do you think that growing more beef in Brazil and less in Ireland, for a near net-zero change in global herd numbers, will be better or worse for the environment?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    No, you made a snide dig when I asked for evidence. My instincts were that this would be standard denialist claptrap and so far, they're on the money.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,011 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Why so defensive? Do you disagree with the statement that growing more beef in brazil to make up for less beef in Ireland, would be worse for the climate?



  • Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭Esho


    No, my post is not denialist. I watch the news

    The rainforests are the lungs of the world - they are bring raised to grow beef.

    This beef will be consumed in Europe.

    I'm assuming cows in Brazil and cows in Ireland will produce the same amount of methane.

    But a rainforest is not burned down to produce the same beef.

    The greens look like they sticking to the rules but missing the bigger picture.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Why the snide comment?

    I've no idea. Depends on what the evidence says.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I copied and pasted the question directly from the OP. How is that disingenuous?

    The OP is making that assumption that if Irish beef is removed that it will be completely filled with imports from Brazil but there is no evidence to support this - just a big assumption. I could make an equal assumption that there could be massive levies for imports of unsustainably sourced beef.

    The OP is free to make claims but we can equally ask them to back up their claim or somehow question it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,011 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    So in the absence of evidence you have no opinion on the matter.

    But earlier you said it was all denialist claptrap to you. How could it be denialist if you have no evidence to the contrary?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    The premise is absurd. More cows does not benefit the climate.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,669 ✭✭✭✭Danzy




Advertisement