So what can we expect and when?

[Surgery]

best we all get a Ford Falcon v8 intercepter put in the back of the shed now before prices inflate , after all mad max seems to have survived the apocalypse with one now for quite a while

 

[Secret Agronomist]

In the mean time huge marketing budgets are being spent by big corporations to persuade the masses to buy shite they don’t need with money they don’t have to impress people they don’t particularly like.

The above made me snort, how true.

None of the so called world leaders are prepared to admit that reducing the birth rate across the world is the only real answer.

"But how do we get economic growth and sell houses" they bleat

 

[Secret Agronomist]

Why would they need to pay you?

Stop paying the calf payments and the cattle will disappear faster than Scotch Whisky at a Blackface tup sale

Carbon emissions reduced.

Stop paying the LFASS/SUSS and the 85%of Scotland that is classified as LFA will be abandoned.

Rewilding.

All at no cost.

The thing that worries me most about the future is losing land held on short term tenancies to environmental schemes having already lost good land to trees, not any reduced demand for the product I produce.

I'm not worried about land owners as they will get £ to plant trees etc, its the tenanted sector thats going to feel it.

 

[Spuddler]

It's a paradox.

If you have a problem with vermin destroying things, you destroy the vermin, or cull to a level that is acceptable.

The logic is not to find an environmentally friendly way of making the vermin's environment more sustainable long-term, as eventually it will be destroyed anyway, you are only buying time.

The population of the planet will explode over the next 30 years, all adding to consumption and driving demand to even greater heights, the problem and cure is staring us all in the face.

So, which politician will be bold, and suggest a moratorium on child birth for the next five years ?

Never forgot David Attenborough’s quote “This planet could do quite well without us”

 

[C.J]

You can expect an apology from your gov't for not questioning the science that led them to believe ruminants eating grass "producing" methane are the big chunk of the problem

not saying you'll get one, but now they've [IPCC] decided that methane from fossil sources has higher warming potential than methane that was CO² last month, you could expect one

View attachment 979077

Not the only U-turn - for decades the IPCC has told us Total Solar Irradiance ( the energy we receive from the sun) doesn't vary and that man made CO2 is 100% to blame.

However last month Gavin Schmidt , of the Goddard Institute NASA , has admitted that the computer climate models , are running hotter than current observed temperatures . The models are also very wrong when compared to the proxy data of the last 15,000 years.

His conclusion is that the models over estimate the role of CO2 and underestimate natural variation.

NASA have also confirmed that this current solar cycle will be the weakest in over a hundred years and NOAA are already predicting the next solar cycle to be even weaker.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Not the only U-turn - for decades the IPCC has told us Total Solar Irradiance ( the energy we receive from the sun) doesn't vary and that man made CO2 is 100% to blame.

However last month Gavin Schmidt , of the Goddard Institute NASA , has admitted that the computer climate models , are running hotter than current observed temperatures . The models are also very wrong when compared to the proxy data of the last 15,000 years.

His conclusion is that the models over estimate the role of CO2 and underestimate natural variation.

NASA have also confirmed that this current solar cycle will be the weakest in over a hundred years and NOAA are already predicting the next solar cycle to be even weaker.

View attachment 979089

I do hope that's correct - to be honest, anything we can find that buys us a bit more time has to be a good thing!

I also find it odd how much the role of water vapour is downplayed, in favour of doing CO² to death

 

[hoff135]

We require food to live. Food grown on your doorstep is the most environmentally friendly. Is anything more relevant?

sorry made a hash of posting that but it reports the world food production could be greatly impacted by global warming. Policy to reduce our own out put would surely be counter productive.

Really not sure I've enough faith in our politicians to be intelligent enough to see that to be the case. Only a few months ago the Scottish civil service apparently said culling 300,000 cows from the beef heard would be an easy way to reduce emissions. We are dealing with a bunch of lawyers, often failed ones.

 

[Jimdog1]

Really not sure I've enough faith in our politicians to be intelligent enough to see that to be the case. Only a few months ago the Scottish civil service apparently said culling 300,000 cows from the beef heard would be an easy way to reduce emissions. We are dealing with a bunch of lawyers, often failed ones.

It seems unbelievable that apparently "educated " people cannot make the link between grazing livestock and feeding the population. Remove that stock and grow what? Or is there an agenda being pushed for factory grown food. I still cannot see why new homes do not have solar panels fitted by law or have some form of community renewable heating.

 

[hoff135]

It seems unbelievable that apparently "educated " people cannot make the link between grazing livestock and feeding the population. Remove that stock and grow what? Or is there an agenda being pushed for factory grown food. I still cannot see why new homes do not have solar panels fitted by law or have some form of community renewable heating.

Problem these days is a lot of people are highly educated but lack complete common sense.

Common sense would say that this small highly populate island must keep its capacity to grow food as high as possible in case of failed harvest abroad threatens our food supplies.

However they are already more than happy to see good arable land go into trees, houses and roads so we can only assume they don't care.

I very much doubt they will see the problem until it punches them right in the face.

 

[farmerm]

What is needed comes at a cost nobody is either able or willing to afford including a significant cut to human population! We are just going to have to live to learn with the consequences.

 

[Raider112]

It's a paradox.

If you have a problem with vermin destroying things, you destroy the vermin, or cull to a level that is acceptable.

The logic is not to find an environmentally friendly way of making the vermin's environment more sustainable long-term, as eventually it will be destroyed anyway, you are only buying time.

The population of the planet will explode over the next 30 years, all adding to consumption and driving demand to even greater heights, the problem and cure is staring us all in the face.

So, which politician will be bold, and suggest a moratorium on child birth for the next five years ?

Won't be Boris anyway

 

[SilliamWhale]

I’m sure the ruminants being a problem is a red herring, they’ve been on this planet as long as we have, releasing carbon from fossil fuels on the other hand is a relatively new phenomenon

Nitrogen is the issue from a fossil fuel usage issue. Its how we use nitrogen either to feed animals or people that is the GHG issue. I've yet to say anyone bold enough to suggest we limit nitrogen or even talk about it because prices really will go through the roof then.

Its the same molecules whichever way you cut it, animals and plants are just rearranging molecules that are already there. They are not magically producing different ones that would otherwise be unharmful. I find the methane one particularly perplexing - CH4. Carbon and Hydrogen - of course animals produce it when eating grass! This is not a problem.

Greenhouses gases are overall a good thing, without them we'd be freezing!

 

[C.J]

I do hope that's correct - to be honest, anything we can find that buys us a bit more time has to be a good thing!

I also find it odd how much the role of water vapour is downplayed, in favour of doing CO² to death

 

[More to life]

As an industry we need to stop arguing the case that climate science is wrong that ship has sailed whatever your views. Our focus should be on not exporting our pollution and dealing with matters in-house. To not feed our own population is totally unexpectable in my view.

 

[warksfarmer]

Now that the climate scientists have proved beyond any doubt the farmers are responsible for destroying the planet and spoiling the good time everyone was having. And now that the media have made sure everyone has been made fully aware of this outrage. And now that our leaders have seen the light and basically left themselves no option but to act to stop this. What form of action will they take?

Pay us to do nice things with our land to make nice places for nice people to enjoy nice wildlife and nice smelling flowers?

Continue and ramp up the campaign to turn people against red meat and make it socially unacceptable?

Tax red meat?

Tell us to cut or get rid of our animals and send us to jail if we refuse for endangering the future of humanity?

They’ll farm us out of the job with more regulations.

Pesticide tax
Fertiliser tax
No red derv
More emissions regs pushing prices of tractors further
Further bans on spreading manure
Tax meat tax

It’s already happening. The future of U.K. ag plc is organic and ELMS. 50% of every farm out of production within 10 years.

 

[Jimdog1]

They’ll farm us out of the job with more regulations.

Pesticide tax
Fertiliser tax
No red derv
More emissions regs pushing prices of tractors further
Further bans on spreading manure
Tax meat tax

It’s already happening. The future of U.K. ag plc is organic and ELMS. 50% of every farm out of production within 10 years.

I don't think it is that bleak. Climate change may well be the saviour of UK agriculture.

 

[ARW]

Exactly, we need an ice age to massively reduce the population.

No we need a global pandemic to thin us out…

 

[delilah]

I don't think it is that bleak. Climate change may well be the saviour of UK agriculture.

More immediately, the fear of climate change can be a huge boon to UK ag. All the industry needs to do is explain to the environmental movement that UK ag is their greatest ally, in reducing food miles and cutting emissions, and the jobs a good'un.
Problem is, so many within ag remain utterly determined to see the environmental movement as the enemy rather than an ally. That attitude has to change.

 

[tepapa]

No we need a global pandemic to thin us out…

Tried that, it didn't work.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Nitrogen is the issue from a fossil fuel usage issue. Its how we use nitrogen either to feed animals or people that is the GHG issue. I've yet to say anyone bold enough to suggest we limit nitrogen or even talk about it because prices really will go through the roof then.

Its the same molecules whichever way you cut it, animals and plants are just rearranging molecules that are already there. They are not magically producing different ones that would otherwise be unharmful. I find the methane one particularly perplexing - CH4. Carbon and Hydrogen - of course animals produce it when eating grass! This is not a problem.

Greenhouses gases are overall a good thing, without them we'd be freezing!

Do you mean by Nitrogen the fact CH4 is used to make Ammonia ?

Surely the real problem is a lack of recycling with human waste ? We as farmers buy NPK, the consumer buys food, eats some of it and then flushes waste down the loo.

And that is the end of most of those resources, just sent on their way to the sea.

Surely IF the problem is CO2 then why aren't the NPK captured and recycled ? Something is deeply flawed in the propaganda coming out of HMG.

TBH I think CO2 is a smoke screen. This is all about money and power - and that is why that waste isn't recycled, because the wrong people would have to spend money they want to spend on flash cars.