It's like you know them
Methane
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
So where are you at with it ? Have you tried bringing some form of legal case to make your Gov use GWP* ? Or other form of legal action ? Anything we can learn from your experience would be most welcome
So much there, it would probably need several threads but broadly I would say that the single most critical issue for farming are the metrics. It's not even just the methane or GWP* either, it's estimation issues, double counting CO2 and methane, the structure of the inventories etc - and then how they are being used in proposed carbon taxes, restriction of legal services, investment, finance and insurance to livestock farmers, as well as interference in livelihoods and property.So where are you at with it ? Have you tried bringing some form of legal case to make your Gov use GWP* ? Or other form of legal action ? Anything we can learn from your experience would be most welcome
From a prospective cases angle then, there is definitely a case to be made when they attempt to introduce carbon taxes either on food or directly on ag emissions because I cannot see a court enforcing taxes on emissions that can't, do not and will never exist. At that point the wheels will come off the bus because the general public will realise that they have been lied to about ag emissions all this time.
There is a potential case also in terms of ownership of removals here in Ireland but they have until the end of 2024 to introduce a framework and we will have to see what that consists of before deciding whether to proceed there.
Another case very potentially exists in relation to damage to farmers good name and reputation but that is going to need proof that a) the numbers broadcast are wrong (which they are and hence the book as a 'bringing together of the issues and proposed penalties') b) that the government knew they were wrong and c) were malicious/reckless in broadcasting those numbers and introducing policies based on numbers they knew were wrong.
Most of what is happening for the moment is 'voluntary' (even if you are being coerced into by the back door) or linked to something other than climate change (such as nitrates) and that is quite deliberate in my personal opinion. It's utilising 'administrative fiats' instead of legislative basis because legislation could be successfully challenged. For example, Irish government clearly want a significant cull of cattle so why haven't they just introduced a mandatory cull and be done with it? I think it is because they can't. A mandatory cull would absolutely provoke legal action on the basis of interference with private property rights that cannot be justified with the real emissions figures and calls legality of the whole inventory into question. You can't sue until it interferes with a right so they're avoiding directly interfering with rights as long as possible - again just my personal opinion.
However, the rubber is starting to meet the road now and sooner or later, they are going to introduce carbon taxes directly on ag emissions or on 'high-emitting foods' in the supermarket and that's when legally things will get suddenly very exciting. Politically we need to bring huge international pressure to bear on COP to fix the metrics issues because even if you get your country or some bodies to switch to GWP*, internationally you will still be judged and restricted by IPCC Guidelines. We need farm reps orgs to understand the inventory issues and the incoming penalties and get off their a****.
After years involved now there is definitely no legal case that is a magic bullet (there never is) but carbon taxes is going to come close. Introducing taxes on farmers that turn out to be unenforceable because the figures are wrong will be a political and public relations disaster.
Sorry, this is a topic that I go on about a bit....shutting up now!
- Location
- Essex
There are huge areas of land in the world which could be made productive again and store up more carbon.
- Location
- Essex
Welcome to the forum indeed.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
From today's "Nature Briefing" -newsletter:
I expect better from the editor at Nature than to call methane the "most powerful greenhouse gas"
If they mean the GHG with the highest CO2e then it's N2O, if they mean the most voluminous or highest current total warming impact it's CO2.
Sloppy journalism from a "leading science journal".
I expect better from the editor at Nature than to call methane the "most powerful greenhouse gas"
If they mean the GHG with the highest CO2e then it's N2O, if they mean the most voluminous or highest current total warming impact it's CO2.
Sloppy journalism from a "leading science journal".
- Location
- South Devon
BBC Breakfast reporting on this today.From today's "Nature Briefing" -newsletter:
View attachment 1168034
I expect better from the editor at Nature than to call methane the "most powerful greenhouse gas"
If they mean the GHG with the highest CO2e then it's N2O, if they mean the most voluminous or highest current total warming impact it's CO2.
Sloppy journalism from a "leading science journal".
Oh look, you can leave them some feedback,
, I may of done that…Oh look, you can leave them some feedback,
I didn't read that far. I'm sure you kept it measured.
I was..um..succinct.
Another week, another enemy within:
A spokesman for the AHDB said: “We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all message to cut meat and dairy consumption as it could lead to nutritional inadequacy among vulnerable groups, including those who already have poor diets.
“We acknowledge that if people who are classed as high consumers of red and red processed meat reduced their intake to 70g or less per day, significant progress could be made towards the Climate Change Committee targets.
“We advocate for a considered approach that promotes greater adherence to the Eatwell Guide recommendations, which can include 70g red meat per day for a balanced and healthy diet.”
A spokesman for the AHDB said: “We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all message to cut meat and dairy consumption as it could lead to nutritional inadequacy among vulnerable groups, including those who already have poor diets.
“We acknowledge that if people who are classed as high consumers of red and red processed meat reduced their intake to 70g or less per day, significant progress could be made towards the Climate Change Committee targets.
“We advocate for a considered approach that promotes greater adherence to the Eatwell Guide recommendations, which can include 70g red meat per day for a balanced and healthy diet.”
- Location
- Derbyshire
http://bidstats.uk/tenders/2024/W10/818151476
Just stumbled across this^^
looks like we've got a real battle on our hands now. 2025-2030 tender to supply feed supplements.
mmm
Just stumbled across this^^
looks like we've got a real battle on our hands now. 2025-2030 tender to supply feed supplements.
mmm
FFS......http://bidstats.uk/tenders/2024/W10/818151476
Just stumbled across this^^
looks like we've got a real battle on our hands now. 2025-2030 tender to supply feed supplements.
mmm
- Location
- Essex
Is methane depressant another name for antibiotic?http://bidstats.uk/tenders/2024/W10/818151476
Just stumbled across this^^
looks like we've got a real battle on our hands now. 2025-2030 tender to supply feed supplements.
mmm
- Location
- North Norfolk
If it is 3NOP (Bovaer) it suppresses a particular enzyme pathway to methane
- Location
- Devon
So messing up a natural cycle.
What happens to what is suppressed?
- Location
- Derbyshire
https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/3369/?slug=methane
Take some time out to let them know the truth about cows!
No use relying on industry representatives, they need to hear it from the livestock farmers.
Take some time out to let them know the truth about cows!
No use relying on industry representatives, they need to hear it from the livestock farmers.