Worlds gone f***ing mad!

delilah · Jun 9, 2022

Global ovine said:
This plan does offer carrots, rather than a big stick.

Ah, a bit like our Red Tractor scheme then. Cushty.
GHG emissions is just another add-on to compliance schemes. It has nothing to do with saving the planet, or benefiting the consumer, or profiting the farmer. It is first and last about oiling the wheels of the control of the food chain by global corporations. Any individual farmer, and representative body, that doesn't understand that, needs to get a grip of themselves.

kiwi pom said:
As @Global ovine said, doing nothing isn’t an option much as we might like to.

Standing up for yourself, explaining the science, pointing out that all of the damage is being caused the other side of the farm gate. is not doing nothing.

Dave645 · Jun 9, 2022

delilah said:
Problem ?
We have a selection of breeds, which reach slaughter weight from 5 - 24 months. The impact on climate change is the same across the breeds. The square route of sweet fa.

All this is about - all it is about - is getting the primary producer to provide greenwash for the rest of the food chain. Sounds like farmings leaders in NZ are as complicit in this as they are in the UK. I guess your unions are controlled by the cartel too ?

Yep green washing and deflection, I could lay money on this, that it all stemmed from the oil and gas industry deflecting attention from themselves, the reality is the moment we stop using oil and gas is the moment we stop the cause of the problem, the fact we are worried about cow farts at all is, the world has dragged its feet for 30-40 years over the issue and now we are having to react more radically to slow down what is happening, by all means possible.
If we had pulled the breaks on oil and gas 30 years ago, we would not have to consider an emergency stop now that’s going to effect food production.
I personally think if there needs to be an emergency stop it’s in our use of oil and gas, the next ten years wants to cut that as hard as possible, the planet can absorb a lot of C02 it does now carbon neutral is not needed we just need to get production under what the planet can adsorb.
And I for one don’t want to starve me personally or the general population of the world, to avoid that we need animals eating grass we barely feed everyone now when we use poor land for grazing.

there are sensible solutions but, the people making money from selling oil and gas and things that use the oil and gas like cars etc are trying their hardest to slow down the push to cut oil and gas consumption.
Yes more PP and trees in deserts will help as will better husbandry of farming in general that includes arable and animal.
I would agree with another poster, don’t rush to sell carbon credits you may yet need them yourselves.
Do what you wish to make your self carbon negative so you can bank credits, and banking them is real, if you can prove they exist you can bank them, as others have said roll on 20 years they maybe worth 10 times or more the value they are today. And you will have saved up twenty years worth, and avoided paying any carbon taxes.

The Seeker · Jun 9, 2022

Whilst we are banking all this carbon what are we eating

Kiwi Pete · Jun 9, 2022

Dead Rabbits said:
I mean lt more about governmental enforcement of a tax based on a farcical system.

I’m not super well read on a lot of this ruminant emissions stuff currently but what I have gathered is this. Growing them bigger faster fatter with some fairy dust sprinkled on top will reduce emissions and save the planet. And if you are a good lad and jump through the continuously moving hoops you get to carry on being a farmer.

This is all being sold to is as “demanded by the consumer”. Total lie. It’s about picking a relatively soft target of an industry an scapegoating them.

What you said.

There's a fairly concerted "push" towards alternative protein sources and cheaply produced red meat (without large fossil fuel consumption) is a very big fly in the ointment.

Hence all the obvious truths (biogenic methane being cyclical, and rapidly being uncovered as a non-issue) are well buried, while mistruths (dairy and meat production = bad for the environment) is a lot more nuanced than the bold claims made by the puppet media, that most people watch.

I'm personally more concerned about NO² than CH⁴, but of course crops can't be bad, it's livestock must go

I don't know why they bother with it, but that's none of my business.

Back to the "NZ" government, well worth watching how they run with this, it's truly a global issue, and this has been coming since I was a schoolboy.

Back then, people still talked about "global warming" instead of climate change, so we have come a way.

Kiwi Pete · Jun 9, 2022

Global ovine said:
@delilah and @Dead Rabbits I think you are blaming the wrong people. As I wrote in post #48 above; countries signed up to lower their GHG emissions 30 years ago. Some countries can do that by switching from coal to gas, or from cars to trains and cycles. But countries such as NZ (and Ireland) have GHG profiles where half comes from farming. Such nations have no choice under the international agreement to do something, but not at the reduction of food production.

I repeat; warming is a global issue, not a national issue, but the agreement puts the onus on each country to make its agreed reductions over specified time periods, irrespective of where and how their emissions are created.

I don't like the situation NZ has found itself, but at least NZ farming leaders have had the opportunity of writing their own invoices for their emissions. Better than being beaten down and out with taxes at world carbon prices, that do not account for individual farm differences and the carbon they sequester. This plan does offer carrots, rather than a big stick.

Thanks. Well written post.

kiwi pom · Jun 9, 2022

delilah said:
Ah, a bit like our Red Tractor scheme then. Cushty.
GHG emissions is just another add-on to compliance schemes. It has nothing to do with saving the planet, or benefiting the consumer, or profiting the farmer. It is first and last about oiling the wheels of the control of the food chain by global corporations. Any individual farmer, and representative body, that doesn't understand that, needs to get a grip of themselves.

Standing up for yourself, explaining the science, pointing out that all of the damage is being caused the other side of the farm gate. is not doing nothing.

You're saying there's no emissions from farming?

delilah · Jun 9, 2022

kiwi pom said:
You're saying there's no emissions from farming?

We aren't talking about emissions. We are talking about reducing man-made warming of the planet. Yes ?

Henarar · Jun 9, 2022

Dave645 said:
is the moment we stop using oil and gas is the moment we stop the cause of the problem,

tell me, say we get rid of all ruminants, when fossil fuel runs out or becomes uneconomic to use how are we going to stop ourselves freezing ?

devonbeef · Jun 9, 2022

Henarar said:
The gasses ruminants give out do not cause global warming.
So excepting any of this and it don't matter if its self inflicted or government inflicted is just stupid, these things are always the thin end of the wedge.

this is long and short of it. we are being used as a smokescreen, don,t give them a inch ,fight to the last i say, one thing will lead on to the next

Kiwi Pete · Jun 9, 2022

Henarar said:
tell me, say we get rid of all ruminants, when fossil fuel runs out or becomes uneconomic to use how are we going to stop ourselves freezing ?

Just use "global warming"

Easy.

Consider that much of the wack weather working its way around the planet is due to the strongest la nina in 100 years, because of the coldest mid-Pacific temperatures in 170 years, and you have good reason to be concerned about the cold.

Colder air can hold less moisture (hence why Antarctica is the driest continent) so the planet is very good at self-regulating temperature, H²O obviously being 'the biggest GHG that nobody talks about'. Because how can water be taxed?

Dave645 · Jun 9, 2022

Henarar said:
tell me, say we get rid of all ruminants, when fossil fuel runs out or becomes uneconomic to use how are we going to stop ourselves freezing ?

I would agree that’s why I said we don’t need to be carbon negative in every respect, just produce less than the world absorbs.
While freezing is a long way off it will be an issue, and ruminants and other forms of methane will be key.
No one is calling for population control, and anyone that says they don’t fart is a liar.

because we have dragged our feet for so long the measure we need to take to stop us hitting tipping points and effect weather and other factors like max temp, are getting harder to avoid, in reality there is zero wrong with the animal indusrty or the farming industry that a few changes to how we make nitrogen and what powers our tractors could not fix, animals have existed in large numbers for millions of years, and a lot of them eat grass.

bottom line is we still have lots of coal if it looked like we were going to freeze we would just burn coal or go back to making fert form natural gas.

Henarar · Jun 9, 2022

Kiwi Pete said:
Just use "global warming"

Easy.

Consider that much of the wack weather working its way around the planet is due to the strongest la nina in 100 years, because of the coldest mid-Pacific temperatures in 170 years, and you have good reason to be concerned about the cold.

Colder air can hold less moisture (hence why Antarctica is the driest continent) so the planet is very good at self-regulating temperature, H²O obviously being 'the biggest GHG that nobody talks about'. Because how can water be taxed?

we won't be able to just use global warming because we will have killed it

roscoe erf · Jun 9, 2022

glasshouse said:
Thatcher ruined britain
She would never have got re elected in 83 if shehadnt caused the falklands war and won it

rubbish

Henarar · Jun 9, 2022

Dave645 said:
I would agree that’s why I said we don’t need to be carbon negative in every respect, just produce less than the world absorbs.
While freezing is a long way off it will be an issue, and ruminants and other forms of methane will be key.
No one is calling for population control, and anyone that says they don’t fart is a liar.

because we have dragged our feet for so long the measure we need to take to stop us hitting tipping points and effect weather and other factors like max temp, are getting harder to avoid, in reality there is zero wrong with the animal indusrty or the farming industry that a few changes to how we make nitrogen and what powers our tractors could not fix, animals have existed in large numbers for millions of years, and a lot of them eat grass.

bottom line is we still have lots of coal if it looked like we were going to freeze we would just burn coal or go back to making fert form natural gas.

freezing would have happened a long time ago if it were not for ruminants, stands to reason well it stands to some peoples reason

DaveGrohl · Jun 9, 2022

Global ovine said:
@delilah and @Dead Rabbits I think you are blaming the wrong people. As I wrote in post #48 above; countries signed up to lower their GHG emissions 30 years ago. Some countries can do that by switching from coal to gas, or from cars to trains and cycles. But countries such as NZ (and Ireland) have GHG profiles where half comes from farming. Such nations have no choice under the international agreement to do something, but not at the reduction of food production.

I repeat; warming is a global issue, not a national issue, but the agreement puts the onus on each country to make its agreed reductions over specified time periods, irrespective of where and how their emissions are created.

I don't like the situation NZ has found itself, but at least NZ farming leaders have had the opportunity of writing their own invoices for their emissions. Better than being beaten down and out with taxes at world carbon prices, that do not account for individual farm differences and the carbon they sequester. This plan does offer carrots, rather than a big stick.

I absolutely realise that you find yourselves in a seemingly impossible situation and I do sympathise massively. However, the signing up to these agreements by govts simply cannot be an excuse for a total failure to understand the science. GWP* didn‘t even exist when these agreements were drawn up. They will make no difference to warming.

Wrongly calculated emissions metrics do not equal warming impact. Warming impact is the metric that is all important here. Emissions is like working out the weight of something using a tape measure. And because your govt is thick as mince and leading the way in this area it’s going to be seen by every other govt in the world as politically acceptable to force through policies based on stupidity.

Using things like feed additives merely alters the location of certin aspects of the carbon cycle. They will not alter warming impacts because the same carbon atoms are still going round and round. All this hand-wringing over breed choice and months to slaughter is reducing sequestration alongside methane output, nature is a zero sum balance above the Earth’s crust. increasing wetlands? Wetlands that emit methane? Or have you guys got a big-industry-altered type of new wetland down there?

Warming is all about fossil carbon being released into the atmosphere. You shouldn’t be having to deal with this on the same basis as say Saudi Arabia. The 30% methane reduction targets are all about fossil methane. Your govt seems to be too thick to understand this. How the hell is Russia going to tax its permafrost methane emissions? Who are they going to tax? That’s how batsh1t mental this is.

Your govt is looking for an answer to a question that has no scientific reason to be asked.

kiwi pom · Jun 9, 2022

delilah said:
We aren't talking about emissions. We are talking about reducing man-made warming of the planet. Yes ?

We are talking about Emissions, NZ has said it is going to reduce its emissions, that's the point of the thread.
So are you saying Ag doesn't produce any, we can just cut back everything else?
Job done, glad it was so easy.

Henarar · Jun 9, 2022

DaveGrohl said:
Using things like feed additives

odd how one of the hardest pushed "solutions" to this so called problem is more inputs for the farmer to buy, not less inputs which may actually help but more,
why not keep another band of parasites in a job

delilah · Jun 9, 2022

kiwi pom said:
We are talking about Emissions, NZ has said it is going to reduce its emissions, that's the point of the thread.

No. The point of the thread is to establish whether there is any rational basis to the NZ policy. Or whether, in the words of the OP, the World has gone f***ing mad.

There is no rational basis to the policy, as you can fanny about with livestock burps till the cows come home and it wont make a blind bit of difference to mankinds impact on the climate. Yes ?

DaveGrohl · Jun 9, 2022

Dave645 said:
Yep green washing and deflection, I could lay money on this, that it all stemmed from the oil and gas industry deflecting attention from themselves, the reality is the moment we stop using oil and gas is the moment we stop the cause of the problem, the fact we are worried about cow farts at all is, the world has dragged its feet for 30-40 years over the issue and now we are having to react more radically to slow down what is happening, by all means possible.
If we had pulled the breaks on oil and gas 30 years ago, we would not have to consider an emergency stop now that’s going to effect food production.
I personally think if there needs to be an emergency stop it’s in our use of oil and gas, the next ten years wants to cut that as hard as possible, the planet can absorb a lot of C02 it does now carbon neutral is not needed we just need to get production under what the planet can adsorb.
And I for one don’t want to starve me personally or the general population of the world, to avoid that we need animals eating grass we barely feed everyone now when we use poor land for grazing.

there are sensible solutions but, the people making money from selling oil and gas and things that use the oil and gas like cars etc are trying their hardest to slow down the push to cut oil and gas consumption.
Yes more PP and trees in deserts will help as will better husbandry of farming in general that includes arable and animal.
I would agree with another poster, don’t rush to sell carbon credits you may yet need them yourselves.
Do what you wish to make your self carbon negative so you can bank credits, and banking them is real, if you can prove they exist you can bank them, as others have said roll on 20 years they maybe worth 10 times or more the value they are today. And you will have saved up twenty years worth, and avoided paying any carbon taxes.

Just on the having to slam on the brakes by whatever means possible bit; this is all about a completely arbitary target of + 1.5C in 2050. Met Office recently said we’ve less than 50% chance of hitting it. So that means we won’t hit it anyway even allowing for the (ahem) accuracy of the Met Office. And what is so magical about + 1.5? Why not 1.4 or 1.6? There is no reason. We don’t have a hope in Hell of meeting it anyway as it fundamentally requires the world to grow tf up and start dealing. We haven’t even started, we’re even opening new coal plants and reopening old ones. Putin is a brilliant get out of jail free card for the hard of thinking.

So what we have is a mahoosive deflection onto farming, the very industry that takes carbon out of the atmosphere at every level. What the Hell has farming got to do with any of this warming? You’re absolutely right, sweet fa. But we’re a fantastically easy target for politicians who know fine well picking on any other industry would unleash holy Hell. Picking on farming will not shift warming one iota. Everyone with a brain knows this, including large numbers of the general public when you start looking at comments from people on social media. Resistance is not futile, your govt is not the Borg. As a member of the human race I will do everything I can to point out the actual science to the thickos in charge, it’s my planet too.

matthew · Jun 9, 2022

I see this greenwashing and 'carbon credit' scheme as a successor to the infamous Credit Default Swops, initiated by the banks and finance houses to create £££s but which eventually led to the crash of 2008.

How can planting trees across swathes of food producing land, alter emissions from a polluting industry which then gains mythical 'credits' and allegedly offsets its dirty habits, which it has no intention of changing?

Unicorn s**t, imho of course.

Worlds gone f***ing mad!

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page