Methane

[holwellcourtfarm]

I've mentioned this before, I think there would be a small gain (less than 2%) because of the consequences of doing away with farmed ruminants that aren't obvious to the numpties who advocate it. And that is against a background of these idiots thinking agriculture is responsible for somewhere betwee 25-50% of emissions. A US study took all of this into account, sadly I didn't take note of the study when I was listening to it being used as a reference on a podcast. And of course that tiny reduction was very temporary and would then lead to a whole host of unintended problems. Mankind is in a weird stupour right now.

That's partly why I found the info in my earlier post (#173 above) so interesting. They are advocating the destruction of the UK ruminant livestock industry for a small short-term gain while ignoring the energy hemorrhage from every UK property in heat loss.....

The very opposite of joined up thinking!

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I've just come across this gem of a report. It deals with hire realistic CCS is so, while not directly methane related (and so relevant to this thread) it blows a large hole in any plan for carbon capture to address climate issues.

Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need - Biophysical Economics and Sustainability

From typhoons to wildfires, as the visible impacts of climate change mount, calls for mitigation through carbon drawdown are escalating. Environmentalists and many climatologists are urging steps to enhance biological methods of carbon drawdown and sequestration. Market actors seeing avenues for...

link.springer.com

It includes the following paragraph as well:

Biological systems remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in soil and biomass. Such systems include forests (reforestation, afforestation, and averting deforestation); farming techniques (soil and biomass carbon sequestration through regenerative farming and other improved agricultural methods); grasslands and wetlands restoration. Our preliminary research suggests that biological methods are not only more effective at atmospheric CO2 reduction, they may also be more effective and efficient in resource usage not only in terms of energy but also in terms of land. In addition, they provide co-benefits such as soil-nutrient restoration, air and water filtration, fire management, and flood control. (See, e.g., Moomaw et al. 2019; Moomaw 2017; Bastin et al. 2019; Griscom et al. 2017; Fargione et al. 2018; Dooley et al. 2018; Lal 2018; Bai et al. 2019; Kane 2015; Rumpel et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2019; Wright 2017; Nature Conservancy 2016; Zomer et al. 2016; Zomer et al. 2017; Johnson (undated); Houghton and Nassikas 2018; Smith 2016). However, biological methods of carbon drawdown/sequestration are not the subject of this paper because it is mechanical–chemical methods that have gained the most legislative traction and public financial support. Further work is needed to compare mechanical–chemical and biological methods on a standardized basis—as discussed in the Conclusion.

 

[kfpben]

Just off a zoom call with the local council COP land use committee (mostly made up of climate activists of various hues)

I incorporated many of the points from informed posters on here. As the conversation went on we scrapped an initial position of the group chairman recommending a 20% in meat and dairy consumption to…the group recommending support for local mixed farming, encouraging the council to source local food and encourage regenerative farming practices wherever possible.

I think it is important to recognise that Ag does have emissions, but it needs to be emphasised that the important emissions are from burning diesel, applying artificial fertiliser and cultivations not from the ruminants themselves!

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Just off a zoom call with the local council COP land use committee (mostly made up of climate activists of various hues)

I incorporated many of the points from informed posters on here. As the conversation went on we scrapped an initial position of the group chairman recommending a 20% in meat and dairy consumption to…the group recommending support for local mixed farming, encouraging the council to source local food and encourage regenerative farming practices wherever possible.

I think it is important to recognise that Ag does have emissions, but it needs to be emphasised that the important emissions are from burning diesel, applying artificial fertiliser and cultivations not from the ruminants themselves!

I would add, making the fertliser too, better to reduce fertliser use, and use more muck from cattle where possible.

 

[delilah]

MBL squirming somewhat on farming today, noticeable that the 'cut meat and dairy by x%' is being replaced by 'a little reduction' , 'less of' and suchlike. Good questioning by Caz Graham. We should be admitting to nothing, we have nothing to admit to. Attack attack attack.

encouraging the council to source local food

Found this Parliamentary report recently. '

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmenvfru/469/46905.htm

Makes the hugely important point that councils, NHS etc can do it now. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing standing in the way of local procurement. It isn't happening because no-one can be arsed to make it happen.
This is where the industry should be putting its efforts, stimulating demand, rather than the utterly pointless 'produced to our standards' attempts to control supply.

 

[Henarar]

Just off a zoom call with the local council COP land use committee (mostly made up of climate activists of various hues)

I incorporated many of the points from informed posters on here. As the conversation went on we scrapped an initial position of the group chairman recommending a 20% in meat and dairy consumption to…the group recommending support for local mixed farming, encouraging the council to source local food and encourage regenerative farming practices wherever possible.

I think it is important to recognise that Ag does have emissions, but it needs to be emphasised that the important emissions are from burning diesel, applying artificial fertiliser and cultivations not from the ruminants themselves!

Probably one of the best things you could do for the environment is eat MORE meat that has come from a true dog and stick farm

 

[Jonp]

Approximately 1 billion cows in the world. UK about 10 million. India over 300 million, Brazil 250 million and we should be cutting our climate destroying cow herd.
What do they do with their cows in India? Do they eat them or do they just wander around dropping dung for people to burn?

 

[primmiemoo]

From a very quick gloogle:

India: Dairy sector remains strong and steady - Dairy Global

India is one of the major producers of milk in the world and while its population accounts for most of the consumption of the nation’s produce, there is no doubt that production is standing strong with a steady growth in the volume over the years.

www.dairyglobal.net

India: beef and veal consumption 2024 | Statista

India domestically consumed over three million metric tons CWE of beef and veal in 2023.

www.statista.com

 

[jondear]

Farming Today are very time limited with the programme but it drives me mad that they don't challenge statements their guests make.

On again today with professor so en so .All one sided no counter argument!

 

[delilah]

On again today with professor so en so .All one sided no counter argument!

It is the Prof's brother Tim we have to thank/blame for the internet, their parents have much to apologise for one way and another .

edit: Anyway, once again the point has to be made, there is no counter argument coming from our side. The Prof said that we need to cut cow numbers. The NFU say that we need to cut cow numbers. The AHDB say that we need to cut cow numbers. Half the folks on here say that we need to cut cow numbers. Muppets the lot of you.

 

[Tarw Coch]

It is the Prof's brother Tim we have to thank/blame for the internet, their parents have much to apologise for one way and another .

edit: Anyway, once again the point has to be made, there is no counter argument coming from our side. The Prof said that we need to cut cow numbers. The NFU say that we need to cut cow numbers. The AHDB say that we need to cut cow numbers. Half the folks on here say that we need to cut cow numbers. Muppets the lot of you.

Shouldn’t that be muppets the half of you

 

[delilah]

Shouldn’t that be muppets the half of you

yeah, apologies, don't mean to offend anyone just get frustrated by our acquiescence, is all.

 

[Tarw Coch]

yeah, apologies, don't mean to offend anyone just get frustrated by our acquiescence, is all.

No apology necessary, I perfectly understood the point you were making, sometimes a little humour is necessary to protect the sanity otherwise you really would end up banging your head against a wall

 

[Jonp]

From a very quick gloogle:

India: Dairy sector remains strong and steady - Dairy Global

India is one of the major producers of milk in the world and while its population accounts for most of the consumption of the nation’s produce, there is no doubt that production is standing strong with a steady growth in the volume over the years.

www.dairyglobal.net

India: beef and veal consumption 2024 | Statista

India domestically consumed over three million metric tons CWE of beef and veal in 2023.

www.statista.com

India has 5 - 6 million cattle roaming around, especially in predominantly Hindu states, as it is against the law to kill them.
Appreciate that India is a major dairy and beef producer but millions of free range cows puts the handwringers in this country in perspective...that's all.

 

[marco]

That's the world we are living in

 

[delilah]

No apology necessary, I perfectly understood the point you were making, sometimes a little humour is necessary to protect the sanity otherwise you really would end up banging your head against a wall

Promise not to upset anyone on here for the next week, off on my jollies .

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Promise not to upset anyone on here for the next week, off on my jollies .

Have fun.

 

[white_stuffed]

Furthermore, life cycle analyses approaches which are sensitive to choice of emission metric benefit from careful communication of the reasons for the sensitivity (Levasseur et al., 2016).

This is an extract from the Levasseur et al report. I can use the logic here to push for sensitivity analysis in the Poore and Nemecek report.

594 we believe that this increased transparency about the hidden value judgements in LCA is critical to
595 ensure that an LCA actually serves the intended purpose.

600.... if they simply continue to rely on a ‘preferred’ metric, independently of its meaning and end user goals, this could lead to perverse outcomes.


601 For example, imagine a consumer keen to support the rapid reduction of CO2 emissions, consistent
602 with the finding by the IPCC that CO2 emissions have to drop to zero before 2100 to limit
603 warming to 2°C.

Faced with the choice of whether to purchase product A or product B, the
604 consumer will rely on the reported carbon footprint. But product A might have a very large CH4
605 component while product B may release almost exclusively CO2.

Product A may have a larger
606 carbon footprint in the metric that practitioners have decided to use, and the consumer would
607 therefore purchase product B, even though this results in greater CO2 emissions that lead to long term climate change.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

This is an extract from the Levasseur et al report. I can use the logic here to push for sensitivity analysis in the Poore and Nemecek report.

594 we believe that this increased transparency about the hidden value judgements in LCA is critical to
595 ensure that an LCA actually serves the intended purpose.

600.... if they simply continue to rely on a ‘preferred’ metric, independently of its meaning and end user goals, this could lead to perverse outcomes.


601 For example, imagine a consumer keen to support the rapid reduction of CO2 emissions, consistent
602 with the finding by the IPCC that CO2 emissions have to drop to zero before 2100 to limit
603 warming to 2°C.

Faced with the choice of whether to purchase product A or product B, the
604 consumer will rely on the reported carbon footprint. But product A might have a very large CH4
605 component while product B may release almost exclusively CO2.

Product A may have a larger
606 carbon footprint in the metric that practitioners have decided to use, and the consumer would
607 therefore purchase product B, even though this results in greater CO2 emissions that lead to long term climate change.

I suspect he'll shut away from the repercussions of that gem. It would undermine his whole study.

It does point to the absurdity of using a single "rating" for the impact of each food regardless where and how it is produced.....

His study did give impact ranges for each food (which were subject to the error above) but these were largely missing in the tables so widely quoted from the report by the BBC and so many others.

It also means MBL needs to rewrite his book.

 

[delilah]

It also means MBL needs to rewrite his book.

As does the lady who was on R4 last week plugging her book on how changing your diet- ie avoiding red meat - can save the planet. She was clearly an acolyte of MBL, was introduced as being from a Uni, they are all at the same game, using academic research time to write books for their own financial benefit.