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
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Robert Forster: Climate change, an agricultural perspective
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="Dave645" data-source="post: 6602880" data-attributes="member: 55822"><p>Skipping that mistake, while I see no evidence to support, that the current round of climate change is anything other than man made, I do agree with animals raised on grass and grass fodder are low impact and should not be tarred with the same brush as intensive heavily grain fed livestock, or those grazing on clear rain Forrest’s.</p><p></p><p>While I see no harm in the different types of diet people wish to follow vegetarian, vegan, I do note the near improbability of vegan as a diet for the majority to follow, I just note that your excluding 7/10’s of the planet, the oceans, for a start, then all the ruff grazing land that animal graze and turn into meat for us especially sheep on moorland. Which other than possibly growing new trees it has no food use.</p><p></p><p>The planet has natural ways to balance Co2 animals and our breathing and farting are small fry in the big scheme of things, but we are overwhelming those systems with fossil fuels that is why we are seeing a big spike in the planets Co2 levels.</p><p></p><p>While it maybe sensible to cut the intensive side of livestock production, and plant more trees, especially in desert areas in the world, as they are non productive, our fossil fuel uses are so vast that the grazing part of the livestock industry is got to get a semi free pass because we are going to need that production, if climate change progresses.</p><p>And it continues to put pressure of arable lands production ability.</p><p></p><p>The get real solutions to climate pressures, even if they were 100% natural and unstoppable would be reductions in world population growth rates and if possible reductions in the worlds population.</p><p>That is because the get real message on climate change is its 99% likely it’s man made, everything we do alters the climate cities create weather, as do roads and buildings, fossil fuels increase Co2 and the heat in the air, especaly around built up areas. (They mention it in weather forecasts (ground frost in rural areas)why only in rural areas ask your self?) as Co2 is an effective green house gas, then we have livestock which we intensively manage in artificial ways that produce others, we have tipping points where our interactions start other processes.</p><p></p><p>Nature will win out as will the planet it’s just if we are still 7 billion plus strong when the dust settles.</p><p>While I don’t agree with some of the climate protesters thinking that includes livestock production because I think we will need all the food production we can get to get use over the next 50 years. , I would sleep easier if we did more to stop the ever increasing Co2 levels faster. The year we see a fall in C02 will be a good year, as I don’t think we need to hit zero C02 the planet can cope with a lot of our stupidity. But until we do see a consistent fall we cannot rest on our laurels.</p><p></p><p>I will note climate change has been linked to roman times, and historic events around that time, while I don’t know what triggered them, so have no clue if they were natural or man had an influence ie clearing by burning vast areas of Forrest. The results even on the relatively small world population of 100 million people are telling mass migration, wars, starvation, don’t paint a good picture of things where temperature get to roman levels.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2205025-ancient-roman-air-pollution-caused-climate-change-in-europe/" target="_blank">https://www.newscientist.com/article/2205025-ancient-roman-air-pollution-caused-climate-change-in-europe/</a></p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-climate-change-and-disease-helped-fall-rome-180967591/" target="_blank">https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-climate-change-and-disease-helped-fall-rome-180967591/</a></p><p></p><p>So don’t be so sure we can afford to let things slip to roman temperature levels. And still be ok. </p><p>It will only take one major food shortage to kick things off, followed by population displacements. And people blocking people from doing so because of food shortages. . .</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave645, post: 6602880, member: 55822"] Skipping that mistake, while I see no evidence to support, that the current round of climate change is anything other than man made, I do agree with animals raised on grass and grass fodder are low impact and should not be tarred with the same brush as intensive heavily grain fed livestock, or those grazing on clear rain Forrest’s. While I see no harm in the different types of diet people wish to follow vegetarian, vegan, I do note the near improbability of vegan as a diet for the majority to follow, I just note that your excluding 7/10’s of the planet, the oceans, for a start, then all the ruff grazing land that animal graze and turn into meat for us especially sheep on moorland. Which other than possibly growing new trees it has no food use. The planet has natural ways to balance Co2 animals and our breathing and farting are small fry in the big scheme of things, but we are overwhelming those systems with fossil fuels that is why we are seeing a big spike in the planets Co2 levels. While it maybe sensible to cut the intensive side of livestock production, and plant more trees, especially in desert areas in the world, as they are non productive, our fossil fuel uses are so vast that the grazing part of the livestock industry is got to get a semi free pass because we are going to need that production, if climate change progresses. And it continues to put pressure of arable lands production ability. The get real solutions to climate pressures, even if they were 100% natural and unstoppable would be reductions in world population growth rates and if possible reductions in the worlds population. That is because the get real message on climate change is its 99% likely it’s man made, everything we do alters the climate cities create weather, as do roads and buildings, fossil fuels increase Co2 and the heat in the air, especaly around built up areas. (They mention it in weather forecasts (ground frost in rural areas)why only in rural areas ask your self?) as Co2 is an effective green house gas, then we have livestock which we intensively manage in artificial ways that produce others, we have tipping points where our interactions start other processes. Nature will win out as will the planet it’s just if we are still 7 billion plus strong when the dust settles. While I don’t agree with some of the climate protesters thinking that includes livestock production because I think we will need all the food production we can get to get use over the next 50 years. , I would sleep easier if we did more to stop the ever increasing Co2 levels faster. The year we see a fall in C02 will be a good year, as I don’t think we need to hit zero C02 the planet can cope with a lot of our stupidity. But until we do see a consistent fall we cannot rest on our laurels. I will note climate change has been linked to roman times, and historic events around that time, while I don’t know what triggered them, so have no clue if they were natural or man had an influence ie clearing by burning vast areas of Forrest. The results even on the relatively small world population of 100 million people are telling mass migration, wars, starvation, don’t paint a good picture of things where temperature get to roman levels. [URL]https://www.newscientist.com/article/2205025-ancient-roman-air-pollution-caused-climate-change-in-europe/[/URL] [URL]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-climate-change-and-disease-helped-fall-rome-180967591/[/URL] So don’t be so sure we can afford to let things slip to roman temperature levels. And still be ok. It will only take one major food shortage to kick things off, followed by population displacements. And people blocking people from doing so because of food shortages. . . [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Robert Forster: Climate change, an agricultural perspective
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