Methane

Wood field

Member
Livestock Farmer
Yes. Professor Myles Allen (and his collaborator, Dr Michelle Cain) has publicly stated in very simple terms that UK ruminant livestock are COOLING the planet.
Thanks, I must admit to being a lazy reader , as I’ve got older after a life in engineering I tend to go about the farm minding my own, I think I need to read up a bit and start stirring the hornets nest beginning with my mp
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
Also David Frame in NZ and Prof Frank Mitloehner in the States. Prof Frank is prob the most active in the public view, he does a lot on Youtube. He’s very good at explaining it simply.I do rather think he’s been "got at" of late by big money as he’s quite keen to promote additives to cows to reduce emissions.
 

Hampton

Member
BASIS
Location
Shropshire
Thanks, I must admit to being a lazy reader , as I’ve got older after a life in engineering I tend to go about the farm minding my own, I think I need to read up a bit and start stirring the hornets nest beginning with my mp
Myles Allen was at the NFU conference in 2019 saying that cows aren’t the problem.
Have you heard the NFU countenance that since.
I even heard one senior Nfu office holder state “we don’t want to get into the my scientist is better than yours tittle tattle!”

he seemed to miss the point of what scientists do! They prove and disprove theories!
 
There have been many articles written in NZ farming/rural freebie newspapers of late with scientists explaining why ruminants are not the cause of increases in GHG emissions, why nature has been able to keep these emissions stable for millennia, which other activities are causing recent increases in these emissions, why red meat is more nutritious than plant based "copies" etc.

Although these articles are available for most news sources to pick up, they are rarely published in mainstream press and TV. Hence politicians are enjoying an easy job by keeping the adjustments away from the voting majority and dumping on a scapegoat.

Recently I awakened to an early morning radio news item reporting on a reputable survey that asked if people thought NZ dairy farmers were doing a good job for NZ. This occurred after a string of environmental criticism in the popular press and TV. High 60s% answered yes, low 30s% answered no.
So not everybody is stupid knowing that all biological system leak, GHG emissions are falling while export receipts hit an all time high and NZ remaining dependent upon primary produce export.
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria

Otago Daily Times opinion piece

28 June 2022

Emissions claims should have sound science explanations​

The sheep and beef sector is committed to playing its part in addressing climate change. PHOTO:...

The sheep and beef sector is committed to playing its part in addressing climate change. PHOTO: STEPHEN JAQUIERY
It is time the Government publicly acknowledged that farmers are doing their bit to meet methane reduction targets, writes Beef+Lamb New Zealand chairman Andrew Morrison.
While reading a recent edition of The Weekend Mix (ODT, 18.6.22), I spotted a cartoon that said "dairy, beef and sheep farming is responsible for around half of New Zealand’s emissions."

As a sheep and beef farmer, I know it’s important that we talk about climate change. We see and feel the effects through droughts and other extreme weather events and the sheep and beef sector is committed to playing its part, like all areas of the New Zealand economy.

The statement in the cartoon frustrated me and would get many farmers feeling frustrated.

Yes, our agricultural emissions by carbon dioxide equivalence make up 48% of New Zealand’s total annual emissions, but that doesn’t tell the whole story and our sector isn’t contributing 48% of annual warming.

That’s because the current way New Zealand’s emissions are reported, using GWP100, significantly overestimates the impact that New Zealand’s sheep, beef and dairy production is having on climate change.

Why is this?

Our agricultural emissions are predominantly methane, which acts differently to carbon dioxide emissions.

As stated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), methane only lasts in the atmosphere for 12 years, compared to 1000 years for carbon dioxide .

Because carbon dioxide stays around for 1000 years, any new emissions of carbon dioxide add to warming. For methane, if emissions are constant or declining, they do not add to warming.

The IPCC said last year that "a 0.3% reduction per year in methane is equivalent to net zero for carbon dioxide."

In New Zealand, methane emissions from agriculture have been stable or decreasing for the past two decades. We are therefore contributing way less than 48% of additional warming each year.

The same IPCC report stated that using the common GHG methodology "GWP100" overstates the warming impact of methane by a factor of three to four times when emissions are stable or decreasing.

Following this report, about 30 of the world’s leading climate scientists released a paper calling on governments to start to report on warming as well as emissions and to set separate reduction targets for methane.

That is why Beef+Lamb New Zealand, DairyNZ and Federated Farmers recently wrote to the Government asking it to start to report on warming as well as emissions.

It is vital the Government does this so that the public has a better understanding of the true impact the various gases are having each year on the climate, and therefore the reductions each sector needs to make.

The Government recognises and understands the science. It is the reason why there are different reduction targets in the Zero Carbon Bill. The target for long lived gases is to get to net zero by 2050 and methane to reduce by 10% by 2030 and by 24-47% by 2050.

Unfortunately, the Government has done little to explain the science, and there are still many people who think that agriculture was "let off the hook" by these targets.

In fact, these methane targets are more ambitious than what is being asked of CO2 emitters, from a climate perspective.

A similar target for methane to get to "net zero" by 2050 would be a reduction of only 10% (not the current 10% by 2030).

The IPCC report makes it clear that by setting targets at this level, the Government is asking New Zealand agriculture to do more than CO2 emitters.

Farmers are ready and willing to do their bit to address climate change.

The He Waka Eke Noa primary sector climate action partnership, a world-first framework for measuring, managing, and reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, recently submitted a recommended emissions pricing option to the Government to consider.

It’s a more appropriate alternative to bringing agriculture into the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS), which would simply treat methane like CO2.

It’s time the Government acknowledged the science, adjusted the methane reduction targets and let the New Zealand public know that farmers are doing their fair share.

-- Andrew Morrison is Beef+Lamb New Zealand chairman and Southern South Island Farmer Director.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
From Diana Rogers (Sustainable Dish)


Travel Update:

I’m back from a long trip with many stops in New Zealand and Australia.

Among the highlights of the trip is a “beef” I got into with New Zealand economic journalist Rod Oram.

We were sitting on a panel about the future of New Zealand livestock when he announced that the Eat Lancet diet is the model diet we should all strive for, and that we need to “eliminate all methane” from our food system.

As you might imagine, I couldn’t let this go. Oram proved to be both completely uneducated in the fields of nutrition and basic biology, yet dogmatically arrogant at the same time.

It made for a frustrating conversation where he was dismissive of my explanation of the biogenic carbon cycle, couldn't seem to care less about the burden of global nutrient deficiencies, and didn't understand how red meat is one of the best tools to solve said deficiencies.

He only cared about "emissions", and said he didn’t “believe” in the carbon tunnel vision that I talked about.

I calmly said that we need to look at data, not “feelings” when it comes to nutrition and methane’s impact on global warming.



Carbon Tunnel Vision:

Rod is the perfect example of suffering from Carbon Tunnel Vision, described in this image:


Screenshot_20220724-104553_BlueMail.png

Overall, the media has no understanding of science (Rod reports on agriculture yet his wheelhouse is economics, not science).

Politicians and the general public are overly focused on emissions yet fail to account for the BENEFITS livestock have on overall ecosystem function, rural economics, and the fact that methane is a flow gas that breaks down after 10 years. Plus well-managed cattle can sequester carbon

Who is really driving Carbon Tunnel Vision?

Well, it certainly benefits the alternative plant-based protein industry.

They can’t win on nutrition, they can’t win on water cycles, they can’t win on habitat (their inputs aren’t even derived from organic monocrops), and they can’t win on supporting rural economies. Thus, the only part of the argument they seemingly CAN win on is “emissions”.

The result: governments all over the world making short-sighted decisions to drastically cut emissions from the livestock sector.

Whether this is culling cows in Ireland (which will not reduce demand for their products, simply put Irish farmers out of business and shift the EU demand for meat and dairy products to another country), to people buying Welsh farmland for carbon credits (taking it out of food production and rewilding it), to the policy I learned about in New Zealand where farmers are encouraged to take entire sections of their producing grazing land and plant non-native mono-crop trees which will be a closed canopy, not even allowing for a silvopasture system to allow grazingAll of this is madness, and it’s only getting worse.

Yes, emissions should not be ignored, but there’s a much bigger story to tell.
It's time ranchers continue the dialogue in an unapologetic way!
This is the truth:
  • Meat is nutritious, and there’s never been any study to prove it causes cancer or heart disease.
  • It can turn food we can’t eat on land we can’t crop into the most important food for humans, addressing the most common nutrient deficiencies worldwide.
  • And when managed well, grazing animals are a benefit to ecosystem function, providing habitat for wildlife, increasing biodiversity, improving the water holding capacity of the soil, mitigating fire risk, and benefiting soil health.
Towards the end of my trip, I spoke at RCS Convergence to a friendly group of regenerative ranchers who deal with much more brittle conditions than the lush pastures I saw in New Zealand.
Foot and Mouth disease is a looming threat from Indonesia, and many farmers I spoke to are shocked that the government isn’t doing more to prevent its spread, which unfortunately seems inevitable.
I also learned about “Lumpy Skin Disease” from a vet who feels the likelihood of this painful condition infecting Australian cattle to be more likely than Food and Mouth because it’s spread by insects.
On the positive side, I did learn about the growing business of goat grazing in dry areas.
Goats prefer the woody brush that cattle won’t eat, cutting down on fire risk, and it seems there’s a strong market for goat meat in the United States, especially in ethic populations on the coasts.
I fully enjoyed my adventure down under and have already been invited back for May 2023 to speak in Sydney, so I expect another string of speaking engagements, and possibly some extra time to tour farms.
One important distinction I noticed among New Zealand and Australian livestock producers is the understanding that it can be seen as elitist to only promote grass-fed beef.
The idea that we all need to eat “less meat, better meat” is very strong in the United States, and I fear it ends up alienating producers who could be converting to better practices – plus it paints feedlot finished beef as “evil” and unhealthy.
In the US, there’s a massive polarization between grass fed producers who seem to think they're superior to typical ranchers, and that typical beef is poison.
We need to stop this.
The folks I spoke to in New Zealand and Australia understand that there are many people who can’t access regenerative beef, yet need that nutrition.
They understand that typical beef has a place in our food system.
We can advocate for better food production systems while acknowledging the nutritional benefits meat has to those who need it.
Read more on why, as a dietitian and mother, I feel it’s unethical to keep saying “less meat, better meat” here.
Saying this doesn't improve overall human health and simply fuels the anti-meat narrative.
This is why my organization, the Global Food Justice Alliance exists.

I'm spending the week catching up on email, hanging with my kids, and getting some sun.
Have a great week!
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria


From Feb 2022.
I find myself drawn to this:
“The growth of methane emissions slowed around the turn of the millennium, but began a rapid and mysterious uptick around 2007,”

Shale gas commenced in earnest around 2006. Mysterious in what way?
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria

From the article:
In 1997, for example, many of the world’s richest countries signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty aimed a cutting emissions of various greenhouse gases. The agreement centered on credits that could be traded between countries so that rich nations could essentially pay emerging markets to reduce emissions or avoid polluting activities. It was GWP that allowed those actions to be converted into comparable CO₂-based tokens. An academic tool led to billions of dollars of real-world investment and has since become the basis of government and corporate climate policies everywhere.

And we wonder about the motivations around money...
 

som farmer

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
somerset
climate change, or changing climate, whichever you believe, can only be 'controlled' by pretty well all countries making a sustained effort.
the chances of that happening are so remote, it basically wont happen. The biggest source of the pollution, is the use of fossil fuels, with the world so dedicated to its use, any curtailment, by pretty well any guv, would lead to rebellion.
the best hope we have for a united action, lies with 'machines' that run without fossil fuels, or an almighty disaster, which shocks the whole world. Personally, l would prefer the former.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
climate change, or changing climate, whichever you believe, can only be 'controlled' by pretty well all countries making a sustained effort.
the chances of that happening are so remote, it basically wont happen. The biggest source of the pollution, is the use of fossil fuels, with the world so dedicated to its use, any curtailment, by pretty well any guv, would lead to rebellion.
the best hope we have for a united action, lies with 'machines' that run without fossil fuels, or an almighty disaster, which shocks the whole world. Personally, l would prefer the former.
Then we should act like grown-ups, accept that fact and start pouring oil profits via tax into adaptation measures for the inevitable floods, wildfires, heatwaves and crop failures.

One or the other, not half-heartedly doing neither.
 

som farmer

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
somerset
Then we should act like grown-ups, accept that fact and start pouring oil profits via tax into adaptation measures for the inevitable floods, wildfires, heatwaves and crop failures.

One or the other, not half-heartedly doing neither.
that's the problem, to much methane produced, in good looking proposals, by politicians, who know they will never happen, but will get them re-elected.
but then, l just don't trust politicians.
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
Today at 7:23 AM



www.bbc.co.uk



Big Oil v the World - Series 1: 3. Delay


How the 2010s became another lost decade in the fight against climate change.

www.bbc.co.uk
www.bbc.co.uk




I watched part 3 of this last night. I haven't watched the first 2 parts, but part 3 focusses mainly on methane emissions from big oil and gas and does a good job of highlighting what a massive problem it is. Pretty clear the world's been fairly oblivious to this up to now. Refreshing that the BBC have actually taken an interest.
18.40 mins: letter about shale methane. I haven't read it yet but will.

https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.n...ge/webinar/methane_greenhouse-gas_footpri.pdf
50.30 mins: Prof Charles Harvey (MIT) - expert on carbon storage. His comments are extremely interesting given the Carbon Takeback Obligation webinar that @primmiemoo posted elsewhere. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it shows up the CTBO for exactly what it is; a way for the fossil fuel industry to continue polluting on the premise of a get-out-of-jail-free card that isn't cost-effective. CCS is being promoted by proposing to use a tax (effectively). Without that obligation tax it makes no financial sense given that renewables already stand on their own two feet economically. Good to see an expert shining a light on the whole thing.

I'm sad that Prof Allen seems so keen on CCS. Maybe it's because he knows full well that no one can take Big Oil on, and that he sees this is some sort of only-possible-option.
 
Last edited:

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
1660113846034.png




1660113879824.png




1660113926043.png



1660115404791.png




1660115432941.png



When looking at these, vague dates are
1760 Beginning on the industrial revolution
1900 The oil and gas industry really began to take off properly.
Looking at the third graph it seems pretty obvious that fossil leakage is a big problem. What is really worrying is that, although dwarfed by CO2's warming contribution, methane ppb is still rising. The more sites you open and abandon the more ongoing leakage you create from nothing...
Also, add in all of the already-leaked methane ending up as EXTRA CO2 in the atmosphere on top of the fossil carbon already converted to EXTRA CO2.....
 

primmiemoo

Member
Location
Devon
you can wean people off meat etc, but can you wean them off fossil fuels ?
It's tinkering at the edges whilst ignoring the real culprit again and again and ... . Carbon measures in farming use GWP100 to calculate methane despite it being widely known since the mid 2010s that GWP* is more sensitive to how the planet works. It's just not right to continue to embed the inate bias of the clumsy GWP100 calculation. Much of it must be a slackness, or convenience of thought ~ to be seen to be doing something, or anything, is better than nothing ~ or it's from not recognising that there is a bigger picture which involves normalisation of the huge influence afforded to the fossil fuel sector across the lifetimes of the majority of the population of the earth.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,293
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top