Science denial

roscoe erf

Member
Livestock Farmer
7532CC06-8E59-40FC-833C-DFF4A27E7B8A.jpeg
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
From the dear old BBC:

Climate change: Fossil fuels must stay underground, scientists say​

Almost 60% of oil and gas reserves and 90% of coal must remain in the ground to keep global warming below 1.5C, scientists say.
The forecast is based on close analysis of global energy supply and demand.
It is a "bleak" but realistic assessment of "what the science tells us is needed", the researchers say.
And they have "painted a scenario of the future" that leaves much less room for fossil fuels to be extracted than previously estimated.

'Bouncing back'​

Globally, the researchers calculated, production of fossil fuels needed to have peaked in 2020 and be on a steady decline of 3% every year until 2050.
"Through the Covid pandemic, we have seen a large decline in production - but that is bouncing back," UCL associate professor of energy systems Dr Steve Pye told BBC

The study, in the journal Nature, also found the decline in oil and gas production required globally by 2050 - to stick to that tight carbon budget - means many regions face peak production now or during the next decade.
Many fossil-fuel extraction projects already planned or in operation are likely to hurt the world's chances of meeting internationally agreed target limits on global warming set out by the 2015 Paris Agreement.
And this "bleak picture", the scientists say, "is very probably an underestimate of what is required".
The carbon budget determined by the modelling would give the world a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5C.
But the study says: "That does not consider uncertainties around, for example, climate-system feedbacks
"So to ensure more certainty of stabilising at this temperature, [even] more carbon needs to stay in the ground."

'Stark numbers'​

The researchers highlight bold national policies to entirely phase out fossil-fuel extraction, including an alliance devised by Costa Rica and Denmark, set to be launched at the crucial United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Glasgow, this year, asking states to stop issuing fossil-fuel exploration permits.
And the scientists say they hope the "stark numbers" will inspire the political will to make swift and urgent change to move away from a reliance on fossil fuels.
"The physics doesn't care about the political will," Dr Price said.
"We know technically how to do this, it is just about actually doing it."
 

delilah

Member
Not a problem
View attachment 984586


A problem
View attachment 984587


But by far and away the biggest problem
View attachment 984588

The calf in the top photo, is also in the middle photo.

I know, of course where you're coming from, and for individual producers promoting their own particular system it's a valid argument. But for an industry, it has to be that both photos are 'not a problem', because otherwise you need to line up all beef producers in the UK and divide them into two camps. Can't be done.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Jut out of curiosity, has anyone worked out how much carbon is generated by raising a child from birth to 18?
Try this paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

"We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of (tCO2e) emission reductions per 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year)."
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
The calf in the top photo, is also in the middle photo.

I know, of course where you're coming from, and for individual producers promoting their own particular system it's a valid argument. But for an industry, it has to be that both photos are 'not a problem', because otherwise you need to line up all beef producers in the UK and divide them into two camps. Can't be done.
well learn something everyday, I didnt know calves from extensive and sustainable grazing suckler herds in England get shipped to be fattened in massive feedlots in the US.....
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
well learn something everyday, I didnt know calves from extensive and sustainable grazing suckler herds in England get shipped to be fattened in massive feedlots in the US.....
It's a reference to the fact that almost all US feedlot cattle spend most of their lives as what we'd call suckler calves on extensive rangeland. They are only 'finished' in a feedlot because there isn't sufficient nutrition in the rangeland pastures to reach finish quickly.

It's not actually that bad from a purely climate impact.

The real climate impact from cattle is those areas (mainly Asia and South America) where numbers are increasing significantly.
 

sjt01

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
North Norfolk
Try this paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

"We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of (tCO2e) emission reductions per 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year)."
Also see "How bad are bananas" by Tim Berners Lee https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/How_Bad_Are_Bananas/Pym9DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
 
It's a reference to the fact that almost all US feedlot cattle spend most of their lives as what we'd call suckler calves on extensive rangeland. They are only 'finished' in a feedlot because there isn't sufficient nutrition in the rangeland pastures to reach finish quickly.

It's not actually that bad from a purely climate impact.

The real climate impact from cattle is those areas (mainly Asia and South America) where numbers are increasing significantly.

How much of the impact is from indirect land usage change / deforestation and how much from the meatier diet and additional livestock? Is is even possible to separate the two factors?
 
Try this paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

"We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of (tCO2e) emission reductions per 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year)."

I was so happy to share that with one of my friends, a few years back he was desperate to buy a tesla to save the planet but has since had two kids.
 

delilah

Member

Attachments

  • cows and the environment .pdf
    168.3 KB · Views: 0
  • Ruminations.pdf
    109.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Sacred-cow-flyer.pdf
    6.2 MB · Views: 0
  • TFF flyer.pdf
    321.6 KB · Views: 0
  • star trek.pdf
    53.8 KB · Views: 0

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 81 42.2%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 68 35.4%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.6%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

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

    Votes: 7 3.6%

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

  • 1,294
  • 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