A feast to save the planet bbc 2
- Thread starter tr250
- Start date
Guest post: A new way to assess ‘global warming potential’ of short-lived pollutants
The Paris Agreement on climate change envisages a periodic “stocktake” for countries to assess whether their emissions reduction targets, and progress towards them, are on track to meet the long-term temperature goal. Or if they fall short and need adjusting.
www.carbonbrief.org
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I often consider this small farm here and wonder what would work with fewest synthetic chemicals, no manufactured nitrogen, fewest tractors or machinery and sheds, lowest soil erosion and most building of humus and organic matter, most storage of carbon, and the answer is (sadly) low intensity sheep.
Everything else relies on considerable quantities of diesel, and a lot of mashing things around, bulk haulage etc.
It’s known as a hierarchy food chain thing for want of a better description. And things have evolved so herbivores eat low grade stuff, turn it into high grade meat and fat which the high level predators such as ourselves benefit from.
Trying to cut out the herbivores makes a right mess of the well honed natural system and creates damage in so many other ways.
Go to harshest parts of the world with the lowest grade resources and you will find systems that really do need to be efficient and don’t rely on fossil fuels. The arctic circle or to farming in Siberia. People are eating meat because it’s tried and tested and it’s the only system robust enough and efficient enough to make use of limited resources in a hostile climate. To me that’s proof enough that meat and animal products work well as part of an ecosystem. I’d think twice before tinkering with it.
Everything else relies on considerable quantities of diesel, and a lot of mashing things around, bulk haulage etc.
It’s known as a hierarchy food chain thing for want of a better description. And things have evolved so herbivores eat low grade stuff, turn it into high grade meat and fat which the high level predators such as ourselves benefit from.
Trying to cut out the herbivores makes a right mess of the well honed natural system and creates damage in so many other ways.
Go to harshest parts of the world with the lowest grade resources and you will find systems that really do need to be efficient and don’t rely on fossil fuels. The arctic circle or to farming in Siberia. People are eating meat because it’s tried and tested and it’s the only system robust enough and efficient enough to make use of limited resources in a hostile climate. To me that’s proof enough that meat and animal products work well as part of an ecosystem. I’d think twice before tinkering with it.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
The program was badly flawed, full of senseless tricks such as the woman not drinking alcohol, asparagus from South America and the bottled beer from Spain. These screwed the results unfairly.
However the biggest error was using the KG’s of CO2 produced / KG of Food.
Had they have used a Gram of CO2 / CALORIE of Food, the results would have been entirely different!
Doctor H suddenly went down in my opinion on this! Especially as she is a member of The Royal Institute.
Greg Wallace is by trade a Grocer, not a Butcher.
The food journalist did say something very sensible, insofar as he pointed out that much of our land can only grow grass, Not arable crops and especially not vegetables. Only to be immediately countered by Amol pointing out that some farmers will be hard done by if we stop eating meat, which to many wouldn’t give a sh!t.
IIRC Dr H incorrectly stated that the vast majority of soya is fed to livestock, rather than the fact that it is the soya meal byproduct, after the oil has been extracted.
What I wonder would happen to all the grass, if it wasn’t eaten by ruminants. It will rot and release methane as it does so and the ground will choke and turn to scrub. Would it then capture CO2 as well as if it were grass?
Unless all the parameters are put into the equation, this exercise and its results are pointless!
PS. And another thing:
How much Spring wheat do we normally grow in this country?
F All!
Isn’t this is yet another thing that we know something about, that the Beeb have got totally wrong, which strongly discredits everything else they say?
However the biggest error was using the KG’s of CO2 produced / KG of Food.
Had they have used a Gram of CO2 / CALORIE of Food, the results would have been entirely different!
Doctor H suddenly went down in my opinion on this! Especially as she is a member of The Royal Institute.
Greg Wallace is by trade a Grocer, not a Butcher.
The food journalist did say something very sensible, insofar as he pointed out that much of our land can only grow grass, Not arable crops and especially not vegetables. Only to be immediately countered by Amol pointing out that some farmers will be hard done by if we stop eating meat, which to many wouldn’t give a sh!t.
IIRC Dr H incorrectly stated that the vast majority of soya is fed to livestock, rather than the fact that it is the soya meal byproduct, after the oil has been extracted.
What I wonder would happen to all the grass, if it wasn’t eaten by ruminants. It will rot and release methane as it does so and the ground will choke and turn to scrub. Would it then capture CO2 as well as if it were grass?
Unless all the parameters are put into the equation, this exercise and its results are pointless!
PS. And another thing:
How much Spring wheat do we normally grow in this country?
F All!
Isn’t this is yet another thing that we know something about, that the Beeb have got totally wrong, which strongly discredits everything else they say?
Last edited:
- Location
- Hampshire
Presumably, the NFU and AHDB are busy today challenging the BBC on the twisted figures, hopefully, they can get repeats banned as they did on another livestock bashing program.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
No, they are busy adding more rules to the RT scheme.
PercyBlakeney
Member
I've followed Frank Mitloehner and the development of GWP* for a while, it is interesting but I have a few queries..
" Thus, as Dr. Frank Mitloehner and the Clear Center explain in the 4:57 video, if scientists are successful in further reducing the amount of methane our livestock produce, they can actual produce a temporary cooling effect and slow climate change. "
Based on that from the article you shared, what is the difference between reducing methane from cows, or getting rid of the cows altogether. (I'm coming from the point of view of countering anti-meatist that would make that assumption if that's the statement that is going to go out alongside GWP*).
It seems to me, that's what the climate scientists that advocate for a reduction in meat are actually getting at. That a reduction in cows, which would effect temporary cooling, would thus slow the rate of temperature increase (very temporarily in the grand scheme of things), whilst they work out how to square the circle that is big oil and fossil fuels etc. Their argument isn't that the cows are actively causing warming at the moment - this is just often misconstrued in the media.
I understand the theory in that 1 molecule of methane absorbs more energy than 1 equivalent molecule of carbon over its 10ish year life span, and so if we remove the methane (cows) from that natural carbon cycle and just left the CO2 there, it would create short term cooling.
But that is exactly the problem in my eyes - it is wholly short-sighted as, as others have said until we stop emitting carbon/methane that's been in the ground for 350 million years, were just making things worse, but partially delaying by 15-20 years. A short term solution for the global warming accountants to look good in their lifetimes?
So what is the best argument, as we can't just say 'there isn't anything wrong with the cows' as unfortunately that just doesn't cut the mustard, because although they aren't actively contributing to warming, even GWP* would dictate that a reduction in cows would equate to temporary cooling. We need to make the case to the politicians and scientists to look beyond the short-term impact that reducing livestock populations would have, in favour of the host of other dietary and environmental benefits that ruminant meat production provide, esp in a temperate grass-based climates like the UK.
I'd say you actually have a very good grip of the facts from your post. You make very good points, quite a few of us already have the same thoughts. But I think you are overestimating the intelligence of the people calling for reduction in livestock. I have never ever seen anyone advocate reduction in livestock as a temporary measure to "buy time" as you are suggesting, even though you are in fact correct in that assertion as a mitigation measure. These people seem to genuinely believe that reducing livestock would provide a permanent answer. This is plainly wrong as all that uneaten vegetation sits and rots, still releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Yes, eventually all that rotting matter will in fact form new fossil fuels (thereby locking carbon up) in time. But we don't have a few hundred thousand years from where I'm standing.
A few have pointed out that the UK and USA have seen falling cattle numbers over a number of years and that this is actively providing a cooling effect right now, but as you allude to revealing this to the unintelligent just gets misunderstood. What therefore is the best argument? I'm not sure. I see it as hammering away with the fact that methane from ruminants isn't in any way warming in the correct context of time, it's the above ground carbon cycle that has always existed on Planet Earth. But also the conversation needs to be expanded from simply emissions, emissions, emissions. We need to trumpet the fact the we ABSORB carbon as an industry as the absolute basis of that industry. It's only when humans eat what we produce that the next part of the carbon cycle plays out, as unavoidable as that is.
Of course the real elephant in the room is that while we in the prosperous developed world are fighting over how much meat we eat, the developing world is going to keep increasing meat consumption as they become more prosperous. We have two oppposing forces playing out here. This is where our railing against the methane debate gets a bit sticky. Difficult.
Can I just say you've put two cracking posts on this thread Doc.
I know I am wasting my breath every time I say this on here, but just for my own amusement:
What did the BBC do wrong ? They decided to make a programme comparing the environmental impacts of different diets. Great. It's an important subject. Entirely within their remit as a public service broadcaster.
Why did they make it ? Most likely because Sara Pascoe put them up to it. Fair play to her. Doing her job as a Vegan Society ambassador. Can someone on here from the AHDB or NFU provide us with evidence of one of your ambassadors having approached the BBC to appear in such a programme and having been declined ? Thought not.
If it wasn't because Sara Pascoe put them up to it, then it was because a programme developer came up with it. Well done them. Who does the UK livestock industry have in the BBC database as a go to person for appearing in such programmes ? Anyone ? Why would they, when all we do as an industry is take them to court and wail "Boo hoo It's not fair" every time we get a kicking.
It's not the BBC's fault. It's not the Vegan Societies fault. It's not Animal Rebellions fault. It's our fault for being so completely and utterly useless.
What did the BBC do wrong ? They decided to make a programme comparing the environmental impacts of different diets. Great. It's an important subject. Entirely within their remit as a public service broadcaster.
Why did they make it ? Most likely because Sara Pascoe put them up to it. Fair play to her. Doing her job as a Vegan Society ambassador. Can someone on here from the AHDB or NFU provide us with evidence of one of your ambassadors having approached the BBC to appear in such a programme and having been declined ? Thought not.
If it wasn't because Sara Pascoe put them up to it, then it was because a programme developer came up with it. Well done them. Who does the UK livestock industry have in the BBC database as a go to person for appearing in such programmes ? Anyone ? Why would they, when all we do as an industry is take them to court and wail "Boo hoo It's not fair" every time we get a kicking.
It's not the BBC's fault. It's not the Vegan Societies fault. It's not Animal Rebellions fault. It's our fault for being so completely and utterly useless.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Where did you get that figure from?
The leading climate scientists (Myles Allan from Oxford Martin Climate School for example) usually quote 28 times, a very big difference.
They then point out that it is only any net INCREASE in methane emissions over a rolling 10 or so year average that leads to any warming at all.
Then NASA and others point out that almost all of the increase in methane emissions since 2000 has been from (under-reported) leaks from Oil and Gas wells, global wetlands, cthallate thawing, landfill leakage and rice paddy expansion.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Correct. It would buy a bit of time but, unless we ASLO STOP EMMITTING ALL FOSSIL CO2 that time bought would be totally wasted.
Try this, a very good listen (Dave Frame is another of the planet's leading climate research scientists alongside Myles Allen):
Are our lobby groups always notified about forthcoming productions? Are they always offered a place in them, on camera or advisory? Are our offers of representation on productions always accepted?
18 months ago we discussed this very issue, as a part of the need to challenge the sh!tstorm coming our way.
https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/a-red-meat-champion.294966/
What have we done ? Sweet FA, that's what.
https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/a-red-meat-champion.294966/
What have we done ? Sweet FA, that's what.
There have been a few (many) threads on this issue and we always moan about lack of representation. I think it’s well beyond time to recognise that the AHDB and NFU are not going to wade in to the debate in any effective or meaningful way.
I believe it’s time to control the narrative and perhaps this platform is a good one to launch an association or group to provide factual resource to journalists and the general public. There are clearly some well informed and passionate people on here. Why don’t we just start such a group?
Call it the ‘National Graziers association’ or some such and actively engage in the debate, monitor press coverage and provide robust, succinct response to such programs and articles. It would need large scale sign up and endorsement from the industry for credibility but surely this can be achieved with the amount of comment traffic on here.
I would be happy to help start such a thing and give time to it.
Let’s do something!
I believe it’s time to control the narrative and perhaps this platform is a good one to launch an association or group to provide factual resource to journalists and the general public. There are clearly some well informed and passionate people on here. Why don’t we just start such a group?
Call it the ‘National Graziers association’ or some such and actively engage in the debate, monitor press coverage and provide robust, succinct response to such programs and articles. It would need large scale sign up and endorsement from the industry for credibility but surely this can be achieved with the amount of comment traffic on here.
I would be happy to help start such a thing and give time to it.
Let’s do something!
PercyBlakeney
Member
Figure varies depending on what GWP metric is used, for GWP100 methane figure is between 28-36 times more potent. For GWP20 its 84-87 times more potent. For GWP* as developed by Myles et al, its 4 times more than the figure for GWP 100, so circa 112 times more potent. However, the argument is that only new methane should be counted. My point is that works in reverse, if your only counting new methane added to the natural cycle cycle, the antis will argue you can also deduct the methane taken away (reduction in cow numbers) and at 112 times more potent than CO2 in the GWP* metric - it looks quite pretty in the accountants short term books.
Completely agree.
Thanks, will listen later this eve.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Dave Frame had done the maths. From memory I think he said killing all ruminants would buy us about 10 years. By then we'r would have to have utterly stopped burning fossil fuel or it would be pointless. Is that feasible?