Carbon neutral UK? Not practical or possible before 2050...

[Cowabunga]

According to this BBC News article. Then only with prompt Government action to encourage energy crops, carbon capture, hydrogen supply and small modular nuclear reactors.
That's the good news.


Now the bad new...
"It warns that livestock production for dairy and meat may need to be cut by 50% rather than the 20% currently envisaged by the Committee on Climate Change**. And people will need to eat less meat and dairy by the same amount."

** This is the first time I have become aware that reducing meat and dairy consumption by 20% was indeed recommended by the Committee on Climate Change, as opposed to a non specific figure.
I believe that real meat consumption will probably fall further than this much sooner, due to the increasing investment being made in artificial meat. There are also already inroads being made by alternatives to dairy products and increasing regulation plus incentives to divert land to alternative uses such as forestry.

 

[vantage]

Yada, yada, yada!

 

[tje]

And you the believe the BBC ?? They have form for lying about eating meat !

According to this BBC News article. Then only with prompt Government action to encourage energy crops, carbon capture, hydrogen supply and small modular nuclear reactors.
That's the good news.


Now the bad new...
"It warns that livestock production for dairy and meat may need to be cut by 50% rather than the 20% currently envisaged by the Committee on Climate Change**. And people will need to eat less meat and dairy by the same amount."

** This is the first time I have become aware that reducing meat and dairy consumption by 20% was indeed recommended by the Committee on Climate Change, as opposed to a non specific figure.
I believe that real meat consumption will probably fall further than this much sooner, due to the increasing investment being made in artificial meat. There are also already inroads being made by alternatives to dairy products and increasing regulation plus incentives to divert land to alternative uses such as forestry.

 

[Still Farming]

Think it will all be on "the back burner", for a Long time now Public Lives are at risk with this Virus?

 

[Cowabunga]

The BBC are only quoting the Committee for Climate Change which is an independent non-departmental public body, formed under the Climate Change Act to advise the United Kingdom and devolved Governments and Parliaments on tackling and preparing for climate change.

Their advice that 'carbon neutral' is not practical as an aim until 2050 [or later] is very sensible in my opinion and much delayed compared to some alarmist demands.

 

[Cowabunga]

Think it will all be on "the back burner", for a Long time now Public Lives are at risk with this Virus?

It will certainly not be a priority this year, also the timespan envisaged is 30 years. Depending on your age, that may be a relatively short, or indeed a long time.
Besides which, one inevitable consequence of this emergency situation is that carbon emissions worldwide will naturally and inevitably fall significantly this year.

 

[Still Farming]

It will certainly not be a priority this year, also the timespan envisaged is 30 years. Depending on your age, that may be a relatively short, or indeed a long time.
Besides which, one inevitable consequence of this emergency situation is that carbon emissions worldwide will naturally and inevitably fall significantly this year.

Well this is also the time to monitor, check,sample , the envoirnment ,air quality, etc etc with the effects of less travel ,be it ,roads or air or by sea and how better if any the results will be?
Obviously lot less travel will be done?

 

[Right-arm fast]

According to this BBC News article. Then only with prompt Government action to encourage energy crops, carbon capture, hydrogen supply and small modular nuclear reactors.
That's the good news.


Now the bad new...
"It warns that livestock production for dairy and meat may need to be cut by 50% rather than the 20% currently envisaged by the Committee on Climate Change**. And people will need to eat less meat and dairy by the same amount."

** This is the first time I have become aware that reducing meat and dairy consumption by 20% was indeed recommended by the Committee on Climate Change, as opposed to a non specific figure.
I believe that real meat consumption will probably fall further than this much sooner, due to the increasing investment being made in artificial meat. There are also already inroads being made by alternatives to dairy products and increasing regulation plus incentives to divert land to alternative uses such as forestry.

I wouldn’t mind what the so called experts think, as long as every other country which produces a surplus to export does exactly what we do and I mean exactly. So for example, if the land area of the country in question is 10 times that of the whole of the uk then if we have to plant 30,000 Ha of trees then they have to plant 300,000,If we have to reduce livestock numbers by 50%, all livestock that is, then so should every other country that has an agricultural industry that produces a surplus to export. That means not subsistence farming/agriculture. We are such an insignificant little land mass here what we do will be only a gesture if the other major producers and causes of carbon emissions including agriculture abroad cut their emissions To go carbon neutral by 2050. Now we are out of Europe and Boris is calling the shots having lied to get the vote for brexit and now been voted into power by former Labour supporters be prepared to be hung out to dry As the french and Germans are not here to fight for what we need and will probably relish the thought of us struggling.

 

[Cowabunga]

I wouldn’t mind what the so called experts think, as long as every other country which produces a surplus to export does exactly what we do and I mean exactly. So for example, if the land area of the country in question is 10 times that of the whole of the uk then if we have to plant 30,000 Ha of trees then they have to plant 300,000,If we have to reduce livestock numbers by 50%, all livestock that is, then so should every other country that has an agricultural industry that produces a surplus to export. That means not subsistence farming/agriculture. We are such an insignificant little land mass what we do will be only a gesture if the other major producers and causes of carbon emissions including agriculture abroad cut their emissions To go carbon neutral by 2050.

Ah, but we have our 'freedom' now to go it alone.

 

[Right-arm fast]

Ah, but we have our 'freedom' now to go it alone.

Dream on!
i added a bit to my post.

 

[deleted user 837354]

Hydrogen power FFS. Every time I hear that it makes me shake my head.

 

[DaveGrohl]

I was under the impression that the original report mentioned a 10% reduction in livestock but haven't read it myself so could quite easily be completely wrong? The comments were that the BBC love to overegg any glimpse of giving livestock farming a kicking, this sounds like business as usual for them. Fortunately there are a lot more people in the country outaide the media echo chamber than inside it.

The current restrictions on trade and supply difficulties will show up the problems with eating vegan nicely imo.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Hydrogen power FFS. Every time I hear that it makes me shake my head.

Same here with effing tree planting. It doesn't mean anything until they tell us what they're gonna do with them after they're grown. I've yet to hear anyone anywhere actually finish the logic circle.

 

[tje]

According to this BBC News article. Then only with prompt Government action to encourage energy crops, carbon capture, hydrogen supply and small modular nuclear reactors.
That's the good news.


Now the bad new...
"It warns that livestock production for dairy and meat may need to be cut by 50% rather than the 20% currently envisaged by the Committee on Climate Change**. And people will need to eat less meat and dairy by the same amount."

** This is the first time I have become aware that reducing meat and dairy consumption by 20% was indeed recommended by the Committee on Climate Change, as opposed to a non specific figure.
I believe that real meat consumption will probably fall further than this much sooner, due to the increasing investment being made in artificial meat. There are also already inroads being made by alternatives to dairy products and increasing regulation plus incentives to divert land to alternative uses such as forestry.

Ok I found the report ...

https://es.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ESC-Living-Carbon-Free-report-for-CCC.pdf

There is very little about agriculture actually ...just a bit of computer modelling really most of it is about other industries ....

The article really is BBC /vegan propaganda ,very very different from the actually report

Ps looks like you will be riding a bike in the future ...

 

[Cowabunga]

Dream on!
i added a bit to my post.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Cowabunga]

Same here with effing tree planting. It doesn't mean anything until they tell us what they're gonna do with them after they're grown. I've yet to hear anyone anywhere actually finish the logic circle.

Well now, they have to be managed for many years as they grow and mature, then they will have to be cut and put to long term use, like building or something. If the forest is mismanaged or the wood is allowed to rot or indeed be burnt for fuel, there is no long term carbon capture. It is released back into the atmosphere again.
Even so, trees exhale CO2 periodically and don't capture as much carbon as many people assume. It sounds to me like a method of salving people's consciences. It is much favoured by airlines and airline passengers for instance where the passengers are led to believe that, for a fee, they can offset their flying carbon. Its a load of bunkum. A con that people just want to believe.

 

[Cowabunga]

Ok I found the report ...

https://es.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ESC-Living-Carbon-Free-report-for-CCC.pdf

There is very little about agriculture actually ...just a bit of computer modelling really most of it is about other industries ....

The article really is BBC /vegan propaganda ,very very different from the actually report

Ps looks like you will be riding a bike in the future ...

Yes most is about other industries and households, nevertheless...
From the report....

"Diet change can help reduce emissions from agriculture, in addition to ‘upstream’ changes like improved farming practices. Reducing our meat and dairy consumption can have a particularly large impact due to the high global warming effect of the methane emissions involved."

"The majority of agriculture emissions are in the form of methane and nitrous oxide. Both of these gases are relatively single source with 90% of nitrous oxide emissions produced directly from nitrogen fertiliser application and 90% of methane emissions from livestock"

"Reduced meat and dairy consumption can make a significant impact in reducing emissions from our diet. Particularly large reductions could be made through reducing the number of ruminant animals, such as cows and sheep, which release large volumes of methane when they digest food (methane has a global warming potential 28 times greater than CO2). Meat and dairy production also require a large area of land to graze the animals and to produce crops for the animals to eat, relative to growing plant-based foods directly for human consumption. Reducing meat and dairy consumption can therefore free up land for increased afforestation, peatland restoration, and the growing of energy crops (see Carbon offsetting). Reduced meat and dairy would not only reduce UK emissions and free up land, but it would also make us healthier. Compared to the average diet today, the government’s nutritional guidelines20 for healthy eating implies an 89% reduction in beef consumption, a 63% reduction in lamb consumption and a 20% reduction in dairy consumption in the UK. It has been suggested that by transitioning from a high meat diet to a low meat diet it is possible for a single person to reduce their dietary emissions by 35%"

 

[DaveGrohl]

Well now, they have to be managed for many years as they grow and mature, then they will have to be cut and put to long term use, like building or something. If the forest is mismanaged or the wood is allowed to rot or indeed be burnt for fuel, there is no long term carbon capture. It is released back into the atmosphere again.
Even so, trees exhale CO2 periodically and don't capture as much carbon as many people assume. It sounds to me like a method of salving people's consciences. It is much favoured by airlines and airline passengers for instance where the passengers are led to believe that, for a fee, they can offset their flying carbon. Its a load of bunkum. A con that people just want to believe.

Yup. Totally.

 

[vantage]

Yes most is about other industries and households, nevertheless...
From the report....

"Diet change can help reduce emissions from agriculture, in addition to ‘upstream’ changes like improved farming practices. Reducing our meat and dairy consumption can have a particularly large impact due to the high global warming effect of the methane emissions involved."

"The majority of agriculture emissions are in the form of methane and nitrous oxide. Both of these gases are relatively single source with 90% of nitrous oxide emissions produced directly from nitrogen fertiliser application and 90% of methane emissions from livestock"

"Reduced meat and dairy consumption can make a significant impact in reducing emissions from our diet. Particularly large reductions could be made through reducing the number of ruminant animals, such as cows and sheep, which release large volumes of methane when they digest food (methane has a global warming potential 28 times greater than CO2). Meat and dairy production also require a large area of land to graze the animals and to produce crops for the animals to eat, relative to growing plant-based foods directly for human consumption. Reducing meat and dairy consumption can therefore free up land for increased afforestation, peatland restoration, and the growing of energy crops (see Carbon offsetting). Reduced meat and dairy would not only reduce UK emissions and free up land, but it would also make us healthier. Compared to the average diet today, the government’s nutritional guidelines20 for healthy eating implies an 89% reduction in beef consumption, a 63% reduction in lamb consumption and a 20% reduction in dairy consumption in the UK. It has been suggested that by transitioning from a high meat diet to a low meat diet it is possible for a single person to reduce their dietary emissions by 35%"

So where does the food to replace the meat and dairy come from? Does it just magically appear from the ether?

 

[primmiemoo]

So the quote in post no. 17 shows the compilers of the report have not factored in that domesticated ruminants are part of the natural methane cycle (and therefore not contributors to GHGs), and have not factored in management of grazed pastures as sequesters of carbon in GB.

Weasel words about health.

Weasel words about the area of land required to grow vegetables for human consumption.

The compilers also seem biased towards tree planting, presumably as a consequence of not having used up to date research.

The report isn' zac'ly right, is'n, 'specially when it is written for the CCC, and not by the CCC., going by the URL reference.