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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Ignoring the elephants in the room on climate change

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,950 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    PCeeeee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,465 ✭✭✭PCeeeee


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


  • Options
    #35
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #36
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,950 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #39
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,950 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Upstream
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭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/


  • Options
    #41
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,950 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    PhilOssophy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #43
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,950 ✭✭✭✭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: CO2savings.jpg

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


Advertisement