Worlds gone f***ing mad!

The Seeker said:

Whilst we are banking all this carbon what are we eating

Click to expand...

Kiwi Pete said:

I do think the science is understood, it's just that it's been based on very flawed thinking and that's created completely erroneous models and assumptions.

Trickle-truth, in action.

There are various reasons for this - firstly, as @Global ovine says, this was agreed upon several decades ago (the Bolger gov't, IIRC?) and in those days the global warming thing had a huge cult-like following, the warming potential of various gases and scenarios was based on this.

Therefore methane (a considerable "greenhouse gas") was singled out, and this was of course endorsed by the oil /manufacturing companies as it bought them time to ramp up the propaganda against ruminant agriculture, to hide their own impact on air pollution while technology caught up.

And, it worked.
Despite the advancement of understanding and revamping the modelling to a less incorrect state of being, the agreement still stands. Take away this basic flawed thinking that methane behaves just like CO² but worse and there really is no justification to target livestock farming.

Most countries had more sense than to sign on the dotted line, because of significant other industrial interests (eg gas, coal, oil) that would be severely impacted if they were to agree to reductions in emissions.

During this interim period, the concept of "offsetting" was conceived, to permit polluters to keep polluting, however the considerable offsetting available within the agricultural sector is denied for obvious-to-some reasons - it doesn't impact animal agriculture enough to reduce food supply to subsistence levels.
It doesn't impoverish whole nations, and it doesn't shift control away from individual producers towards conglomerates and corporations.

Private ownership of property just doesn't fit with the new agenda, and this is the tip of one of the Michelin bars under private property ownership.
You'll note many of the more socialist/communist-leaning TFFers like to howl "tax the wealthy more" without realising that they are the wealthy - you just have to laugh.

Most of a nations' true wealth lies in agriculture and primary industry, and the pitchforks look like this.

Click to expand...

JimAndy said:

talking of the world going mad

Homes sold in new right to buy will be replaced, Gove insists

Johnson to let benefit claimants buy their houses

www.thetimes.co.uk

did you ever here the like of it. using TAX payers money to buy a house for someone else, Sorry if you cant afford to buy a house, they you rent and that house stay in the ownership of the government, so that when you move on you DON'T get to sell it for a hugh profit. and some other person who need it, get to rent it

Click to expand...

Kiwi Pete said:

Spot on.
We don't know what we don't know, and for some reason it's "better" to pretend we do, than to simply accept that we don't know everything.

It's a function swimming in a sea of opinions, that we would rather not look bad - this phenomena destroys conversations and impacts people every day - this "being right", at any cost to self

That's why most of what is available is based on "modelling" rather than data, observation, critical thinking.

(Look at that whole conversation around covid/vaccine and what we might pretend that we know - it's not knowable yet but we may pretend in order to "be right" and "not look bad" - and then consider the impacts on conversations, relationships, and human health from that)

It's quite astonishing when you sit back and just look at the inauthenticity of what people speak as "fact", most of it merely stories

Click to expand...

farmerm said:

well now that depends on what emission you are most concerned by... The post specified breeding an animal that produces less methane, not the one that gave the lowest overall impact on climate. Highlights again why ruminant methane is really a very poor metric!

Click to expand...

farmerm said:

All methane is cyclical. Globally there is vastly more landfill not than 100 years ago but there are fewer ruminants on the planet than 100 years ago. The growth in landfill is a new source. But yes, ultimately it all comes down to our massive conversion of locked away fossil carbon into CO2

Click to expand...

DaveGrohl said:

All methane is cyclical if your timescale is 000s of millions of years agreed. But that isn't the timescale we're operating on is it? So all sources of methane aren't cyclical, to say they are is just a bit weird. Landfill sources are relatively cyclical given how much food waste finds it way into landfill. I'd argue that landfill methane isn't as big a problem as fossil methane every day of the week. But landfill sources can be reduced and is therefore an area that needs action all things considered.

Click to expand...

Global ovine said:

Unfortunately nations signed up to lower their GHG emissions over a specified time. They did not sign up to lower their warming contribution, that science has been developed much more recently. Therefore the NZ farming sector had to act, or would have been taxed out of existence.

Click to expand...

Global ovine said:

They could have given the middle finger to the current woke left leaning Gov't.

Click to expand...

DaveGrohl said:

Very good post as always Pete. And I have huge amount of sympathy for you guys having to operate under this sad state of affairs.

However, how can you say that the science is understood? It may be understood to a degree by certain people on the IPCC but it clearly isn't understood by your politicians and civil servants. The science is getting to a better place at long last, granted, but the politicians' understanding is clearly decades behind.

The 30% drop in methane requirement as stated by the IPCC is certainly needed but govts aren't understanding which methane needs to be reduced. This is largely due to the IPCC not being specific enough in their output, but also due to people not understanding the output. It is clear that the methane that need to be reduced is fossil methane, and 30% is a pathetic target when viewed correctly. They should be aiming for 100% reduction and ASAP. And leave ruminant methane tf alone. Have NZ declared a tax on rice paddies? What about termite mounds? Wetlands?

Why have we (well you guys, but shortly us too) to be held to account for an agreement that was arrived at decades ago by people who barely even knew what the problem was let alone kept that agreement updated to allow for new knowledge? They are fighting last decade's war. History will not be kind to your govt. It will show them to be fekking idiots before too much longer. Some of us can see they're fekking idiots right now.

Click to expand...

Ffermer Bach said:

twp

Click to expand...

DaveGrohl said:

When making an attempt to explain exactly where the methane issue lies I always find the following diagram explains what a million words can't seem to get across to people. Bear in mind that the numbers for fossil fuels are increasingly known to be quite a way out and the problem is actually bigger than shown in this graphic. But if you remove fossil fuel production and use from the atmosphere there is no problem.

So if there is no problem associated with ruminant methane how tf can any sane person justify taxing ruminants?

Click to expand...

Kiwi Pete said:

They aren't sane. They're megalomaniacs.

Click to expand...

Synthetic meat investor Bill Gates calls for rich countries to shift entirely to synthetic meat - Beef Central

Livestock industry leaders have urged Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthrophist Bill Gates to undertake more research into livestock production after he called for policies requiring people in rich countries to eat “100 percent synthetic beef”...Read More

www.beefcentral.com

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.

Click to expand...

Ffermer Bach said:

I read in one of the articles in the Telegraph, a flight from UK to USA used 1.6 tons of Carbon per person, the beef in the meal on the flight is 400grams of Carbon and that 1.6 tons is twice as much as the Carbon cost of the food for the average person for a year. Unless it is deflection from the Carbon costs of the fuel, I fail to see how 400 grams is causing the problem!

Click to expand...

Ffermer Bach said:

I read in one of the articles in the Telegraph, a flight from UK to USA used 1.6 tons of Carbon per person, the beef in the meal on the flight is 400grams of Carbon and that 1.6 tons is twice as much as the Carbon cost of the food for the average person for a year. Unless it is deflection from the Carbon costs of the fuel, I fail to see how 400 grams is causing the problem!

Click to expand...

le bon paysan said:

If this true might as well shove your head down between your legs and kiss your arse goodbye. Moonboot et Al will jump on the bandwagon, tax cows and sheep.



Best private Frazer voice, we're doomed doomed

Click to expand...