Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
Methane
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="holwellcourtfarm" data-source="post: 7662778" data-attributes="member: 42914"><p>Agreed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No.</p><p></p><p>The CO² that went into the plants the animals ingested to produce the methane was cycled recently out of the atmosphere. This is in no way comparable in warming impact overt human timescales to CO² emissions which derive from fossil carbon sources.</p><p></p><p>There's nothing simple about accounting for the climate effect of methane, unlike CO² or N²O. Both of those persist for long periods (100 years +) and so their effect keeps accumulating over the timescales we humans are interested in.</p><p></p><p>Methane, on the other hand, breaks down naturally in the atmosphere over an average of around 12 years but has a warming effect some 70 times as great as CO² in the year it's emitted. Overall its warming effect is considered by most climate science researchers to be around 28 times that of CO² for 12 years then drops (to nothing if it was derived from new plant growth but to the single CO² equivalent if it was derived from a long term carbon source like cthallates in permafrost or from oil and gas wells).</p><p></p><p>The most critical issue for the warming impact of methane on the atmosphere is thus whether the rate of its release is increasing or decreasing over a rolling 12 year timeframe.</p><p></p><p>Emissions from ruminant livestock ARE increasing globally, due to rising cattle numbers, but falling here in the UK as stock numbers decline. Does that mean we UK livestock producers are or are not part of the problem? If you argue it's immaterial where in the world the methane is emitted and so our ruminant numbers have to decline even more (as do most climate campaigners, the CCC and last week's National Food Strategy) then surely UK residents are just as liable for the fossil fuel emissions of every other country. You can't logically argue one without the other.</p><p></p><p>If you take the opposite view then the logical consequence would be that we only need to cut consumption of ruminant meat <em>produced</em> <em>overseas</em> in countries whose livestock numbers have increased in the last 12 years.</p><p></p><p>In any case, cutting ruminant methane emissions by whatever means only buys a short-lived reduction in warming. Unless we cut fossil fuel CO² emissions <em>dramatically</em> at the same time it is just timewasting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="holwellcourtfarm, post: 7662778, member: 42914"] Agreed. No. The CO² that went into the plants the animals ingested to produce the methane was cycled recently out of the atmosphere. This is in no way comparable in warming impact overt human timescales to CO² emissions which derive from fossil carbon sources. There's nothing simple about accounting for the climate effect of methane, unlike CO² or N²O. Both of those persist for long periods (100 years +) and so their effect keeps accumulating over the timescales we humans are interested in. Methane, on the other hand, breaks down naturally in the atmosphere over an average of around 12 years but has a warming effect some 70 times as great as CO² in the year it's emitted. Overall its warming effect is considered by most climate science researchers to be around 28 times that of CO² for 12 years then drops (to nothing if it was derived from new plant growth but to the single CO² equivalent if it was derived from a long term carbon source like cthallates in permafrost or from oil and gas wells). The most critical issue for the warming impact of methane on the atmosphere is thus whether the rate of its release is increasing or decreasing over a rolling 12 year timeframe. Emissions from ruminant livestock ARE increasing globally, due to rising cattle numbers, but falling here in the UK as stock numbers decline. Does that mean we UK livestock producers are or are not part of the problem? If you argue it's immaterial where in the world the methane is emitted and so our ruminant numbers have to decline even more (as do most climate campaigners, the CCC and last week's National Food Strategy) then surely UK residents are just as liable for the fossil fuel emissions of every other country. You can't logically argue one without the other. If you take the opposite view then the logical consequence would be that we only need to cut consumption of ruminant meat [I]produced[/I] [I]overseas[/I] in countries whose livestock numbers have increased in the last 12 years. In any case, cutting ruminant methane emissions by whatever means only buys a short-lived reduction in warming. Unless we cut fossil fuel CO² emissions [I]dramatically[/I] at the same time it is just timewasting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
Methane
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top