Climate change

Discussion in 'Agricultural Matters' started by jjm, May 7, 2019.

  1. Bogweevil

    Bogweevil Member

    spin cycle likes this.
  2. Bogweevil

    Bogweevil Member

    Not so fast, Brisel, maybe not CO2, but Ag is a rich producer of other greenhouse gases and sits in the table just below residential in total CO2 equivalents - this surprises me give the huge energy costs of nitrogen fertiliser.


    LULUCF = Land use, land-use change, and forestry
  3. andy_tee87

    andy_tee87 Member

    I'm more than likely wrong with this, but if AD and Biomass get to declare themselves carbon neutral, as the sum of emissions is equal either to that produced by the same waste in landfill, or with biomass the co2 the crop absorbed from the atmosphere while growing, then why can't livestock agriculture as well?

    I'm sure I'm missing something here for the additional emissions.
    C.J, marco, DaveGrohl and 1 other person like this.
  4. Brisel

    Brisel Member

    I don’t see how AD can be carbon neutral. The CO2 is vented off and comes out of the generator engine exhaust too. Add losses of heat and friction and you’re already at a loss. That’s before thinking about how you grow, harvest and handle the feedstock. Creative accounting?
  5. NZDan

    NZDan Member

    We need to be all doing those calculations, but properly, and publishing them over and over again.
    Tha Ulsterscot and spin cycle like this.
  6. NZDan

    NZDan Member

    A good read.

    Attached Files:

    Kiwi Pete, br jones, fredf and 2 others like this.
  7. Dave645

    Dave645 Member

    While I agree on some of its points, I don’t on all of them, it’s views on climate change on the use of coal etc, it’s views on immigration while I am not native to that country, it does have a relatively low population based on its size so saying immigration is bad because it will make CO2 targets harder to reach, not least that if you don’t take immigrants you don’t need to change policies on the use of coal and other changes, if you cap the population, it seems a rather narrow minded we are alright jack type of statement. While in the next breath it predicts large world population growths in areas that are badly over populated now.

    Now it’s agricultural content it’s dressed in, is likely on the money, to some extent attacking a meat industry based mostly on pasture which has the lowest Co2 problems for land, that can maybe only produce livestock crops well, seems silly. As for tree planting I would agree you don’t want larg swaths of good argricultural land getting covered in trees, we may yet need it, plant them on deserts or virtually unproductive land if possible. You dont want you eye on commercial logging of these new Forrest’s either. . .
    bumkin likes this.
  8. ajd132

    ajd132 Member

    This is absolutely possible using lots of cover crops and no till.
    360farmsupport likes this.
  9. NZDan

    NZDan Member

    They are talking about two different things with regards to population, Our country which has decided to be a world leader on climate change has not set any population targets for this country and has no policy on what is the correct population for us, yet population increase is the single biggest cause of GHG emissions. They have ignored the two biggest GHG problems, population growth and air travel. As for the the predicted large population increases, yes that is correct they are expected in those areas and they are our main markets, the two things are mentioned for different reasons.
    The best thing any country can do for GHG emissions is limit population size and air travel and the best thing any country can that we trade with, for our trade, is increase it's population so there is more demand :)
  10. betweenthelines

    Don't know how true this is but someone who used to work on oil supertankers told me that the 15 largest freight ships in the world (which run on virtually unrefined crude oil) produce more pollution than all the cars in the UK.

    There was also a news item recently about how "frequent flyers" can pay a small tax on airticket prices to get trees planted to offset their carbon footprint. So, again the rich can do what they like.
  11. br jones

    br jones Member

    35 of the largest ships cause as much pollution as all the cars in the world
  12. LincsLongwool

    LincsLongwool Member

    What I struggle to understand is that they have all these luxury first class seats, when you're getting to the same place at the exact same time, just in a comfy seat which the poor ones in the back don't get. Why not introduce a system where all the seats are just normal economy seats, that way there'll be more room and the money they waste on first class seats can be put towards planting trees to offset their carbon footprint. :scratchhead::banghead:

    £17,000 just to get a special seat?
  13. Forage Trader

    Forage Trader Member

    Queuing to save our planet 20190520_165952.jpg

Share This Page