Just found the above chart backing up what I have been saying for years.
Global warming is a wholly natural event, if humanity disappeared tonight, global warming would still happen.
Absolutely all for more trees.
But we still need grasslands for habitat, holding water, Helping store carbon in the soil & other resources etc.
Reduce fossil fuel usage to virtually zero.
Unfortunately you obviously think you know more than you do so I will end it here whilst I am still been civil.
We are replacing them as we speak. It a very big task and my hunch is we will ultimately fail, but we have failed already if we don't try.
He probably hasn't improved biodiversity, as I said earlier, perennial ryegrass with it's shallow root system is optimized to mop up inputs, and has been favored over the years where it was quick and easy to spread more N fertilizer rather that looking at alternative solutions. It's part and parcel of industrial farming.
Land that's properly rested with Savory's Holistic Planned Grazing can be managed to naturally bring in more species (different plants get a chance to establish if the ground is grazed at different times and they can reestablish from the seed bank in the soil), but if you're going out to reseed in the morning Multispecies Swards are a much better alternative than Perennial Ryegrass. They improve biodiversity both above and below ground. They also need much less chemical N fertilizer. They can access minerals from deeper in the soil horizon and mop up excess nutrients that may otherwise be lost, thanks to the different root types of the different species in the mix, and by virtue of their deeper roots they also sequestering more carbon lower down.
Above ground, the variety of flowering species, supports a range of pollinators, and that in turn supports more birds and other wildlife that feed on these.
This is a still taken from a video by Professor Helen Sheridan from UCD, based on research carried out there. In their trials they were still spreading some artificial N, I think only about a third of what was spread on the PRG swards, but some proponents of multispecies advocate spreading none at all.
Multi-Species Swards - Science & Practice Conference - Professor Helen Sheridan, UCD
Fossil fuel usage isnt causing desertification.
Angry much, am i hitting a nerve? 😅
It is.
We are burning heaps of fossil fuels to produce that technology.
Takes an awful lot of oil and diesel to get one of those Wind turbines built from start to finish. That’s reality
Yes but unlike a gas power station that's a one off hit and then it all carbon reduction.
I knew you were just another run of the mill climate change denier when the surface was scratched
Dont think so. If you were to count up every drop of energy & resources it took to get a windmill from absolute scratch to built to end of life and then scrapped & replaced by another one you’d probably have been better off just using the fossil fuel & resources to produce it in the first place to create the energy the turbine will produce.
Its your education & belief’s that’s the problem.
Where did i say climate change doesn’t exist? Stop putting word’s in my mouth & stop being a sour grape when your theory’s & solutions are absolutely dismantled by common sense.
Shows us the calculation that supports that assertion.
That’s bullshit too tho, lifespan of a turbine is maybe at most 20 years, that’s not a “once off”
no need to personally attack posters either, he does have somewhat of a point, by personally attacking people and making up lies you drive them to extreme
Common sense and thinking about the bigger picture.
Your solution’s are only kicking the can down the road like every other solution.
Thank you again.
I dont no why the hatred for change & make the world a better place!
This thread is a perfect example of why Holistic Management hasnt taken off yet! The absolute stubbornness of change and Reductionist thinking!
Here is your answer
and you guessed it you were wrong by an order of magnitude. If you had just done a simple search before making wild claims you could have saved yourself embarrassment - but I see a pattern developing here.
Build me one without fossil fuels.
There has been no worldwide replacement, no energy subtraction only energy addition (Jevon's paradox). So while plenty of renewables (which aren't really renewable) have come online, the overall trend of fossil fuel consumption is continuing ever upwards. As an aside there is no other energy source which has the mutability or fungibility of oil. It's unique in that respect again something which no renewable has.
You have a point but only for automobile/plane and or plastics production (automobile part slowly being eaten by batteries tho now where near same energy density)
for power generation and even large scale transport nuclear fission is a superior tech with thousands of years of supply, just ask the French or the US Navy with their carriers and submarines
There are ~440 active nuclear power plants in the world. Based on their outputs, this would need to be scaled to 15,000 to power the world. The current rate of viable uranium is estimated to last 80 years. Scaling that to power 15,000 would exhaust that in about 5 years. That's before even looking at the commissioning/decommissioning aspect and the waste.
Believe me, I wanted to believe nuclear produced hydrogen was the solution to our problems but I'm afraid it's not..
Thats not what you said so no I wont follow you down that rabbit hole. You have no shame do you ?
As I understand it, Prof. Boland's reaseach (the only info on it that I can find online is the 2021 PPT) which as you say shows that animal growth on mixed swards is improved when compared to single species swards of PRG. However, to my knowledge (and I haven't seen a paper on it) is that the core environmental benefit is derived from less chemical N required which has gains from a water quality perspective. Animals also finish earlier meaning that their lifetime methane production is lower (we do need to remember that as animals are sold there will be others bred to immediately replace them so the benefit is lowered somewhat).
However, as I understand it, the biodiversity improvements are not seen through better plant growth as the field is still somewhat void of many native species of plant. Prof Boland's research also includes a number of non-native species so I'm not quite sure how this affects biodiversity. Given that they aren't species rich grasslands, it is hard to see how they offer any meaningful positive overall benefit to the ecosystem.
I'm also unaware if there has been any research which shows how these swards benefit insect life, bird life, etc. which would be an important factor in saying that mixed swards such as Prof. Boland's benefit biodiversity.
The other aspect regarding grassland that has a massive impact on biodiversity is our harvesting of that grass. Traditional harvesting methods (i.e. hay) are much rarer now compared to even thirty years ago with many farmers opting for silage or haylage. This has knock on effects for plant life cycles but also for animals and birds wishing to breed there. One common example used is the corn crake but many other birds have seen numbers decline because of modern farming practices.
Anyhow, my original point was that the field that I was looking at the other day is pretty crap as far as biodiversity goes. To boldly make the claim that planting grassland restores biodiversity (which is what I was responding to) is not a truthful claim.
Its called an energy transition for a reason.
Nah, it's reasonable to expect supporting data. Your own common sense seems to fail you at every turn tbh.
Hey man, not having a go.
Just needs to be a viable path forward and there currently is none with renewables. Was talking to my uncle-in-law recently who worked as a geophysicist for BP. He said effectively the same thing I've heard from multiple sources that life will just get simpler. Fossil fuels have allowed society to build incredible complexity due to the extremely high EROI. You remove that and the whole thing comes down.
As another poster above mentioned there is no way to create renewable without FFs and the inherent destruction of nature that goes with them means they aren't very green. Also none of them (with perhaps the exception of hydrogen which doesnt occur in any great quantity in nature) has the same mutablity so everyone of them has massive limitations.
The process involves using fossil fuels to pump prime the transition to renewables, once you hit critical mass the fossil fuel get replaced by renewables.
I wouldn't disagree that life will probably have to adapt to a different reality - but there is literally vast and limitless amounts of solar (in all its forms which includes wind and wave) to tap into. Sodium batteries are now approaching the energy density of lithium but using one of the most common elements on the planet.
It's difficult to conceptualise the path forward since the future will look entirely different to what we have now. All the essential elements are already in place and research is making every element of it both more efficient and cheaper. Do you think that a farmer driving his horse and cart a couple of centuries ago could imagine the world we live in now ? He would not have single clue that the world would be so different to the one he lived in.
That land isn’t being managed holistically under holistically policy from government.
That’s the difference in all this, is the management. Different way of thinking.
So what if the soil doesn’t sequester carbon to your desired effect.
But nobody else is telling me an alternative to the biggest problems we have.
how we stop Bio diversity loss on 60% and growing rapidly Of the planets land and destruction of its waters.
Feed an ever growing planet with healthy food
Provide habitat for all creatures
amongst others
The only thing we can do is change our management. How we make decisions and form policy!!
Preserving biodiversity is not a one size fits all set of problems. Each habitat needs its own management strategies specific to the location. In Ireland low intensity extensive farming with traditional hay making is essential to preserve the biodiversity which has co-evolved in lock step with human habitat. Then there is the need for true wilderness for a whole set of other species.
People have been studying and practicing biodiversity and habit management for over a century at this stage.
Absolutely. And under current habitat management & policy & education land degradation, waters and our health has gotten worse & worse in a lot of places.
There can’t be any argument for that!
Under Holistic Management aka the Savoury institute management, they have proven there method is working in all there research plot’s on nearly 20 million hectares in various environments around the world.
It would be a catastrophy if applied to Irish conditions. The result would be poaching, erosion and water pollution.
There are no one size fits all magic bullets - the world is complex.
WTF does this actually mean in an Irish context?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f6ec3b6ae14cc6cd4a0e3a3374e0ef7b.svg)
