someone writing in the Farmers Weekly has FINALLY got it

[DaveGrohl]

This is about GHG emissions NOT just methane !!!!!!

As I have said on countless occasions, methane is most likely targeted as it's the one that offers a short term fix and Agriculture is the low hanging fruit.

However, that does not change the fact that ALL emissions surrounding our industry should be considered.

Fugitive leaks from the fossil fuel industry are well documented and possibly grossly under estimated, I read somewhere by up to 60%.

The documents clearly show that emissions from agriculture are static(ish) but so what ??

We are part of the food chain, we cannot abdicate, as we are intrinsically linked.

Ok, you've entirely missed the point, we'll leave it there. One can only do so much.

 

[Cowabunga]

Farmers are a lost cause when it comes to speaking with one voice, telling a single simple soundbite that is impactful and understandable by everyone. There's always the nit-picking contrarians that totally muddle the salient point.

 

[delilah]

Which totally misses the point.

If you had bothered to read any of the information you would have seen the biggest contributor to the fall in emissions of the food chain is the decarbonising of the energy supply.

Nope.

Supermarket giants Tesco alone consumed more than 6 million mega-watt hours of non-renewable energy in 2018/19 – an amount equivalent to powering eight cities the size of Cambridge.

Campaigners turn heat on stores that have wasteful open fridges

In total it is estimated that supermarkets use up almost three per cent of the nation's energy. Tesco alone consumed more than 6 million mega-watt hours of non-renewable energy in 2018/19.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yep.

 

[egbert]

Ok, you've entirely missed the point, we'll leave it there. One can only do so much.

Wow Dave, I went out in the truck for a few hours, did the yard work, and stacked some (sustainable) boards in't mill.....and we're off again!
Well I understood, and agree with your original post.
(And if this is a sample of where the author might go, given more rein...let's encourage him, albeit make sure he's up to speed on some nuances.....he's a whole lot nearer the mark -miles nearer- that her presidentialship)

 

[JP1]

 

[delilah]

Fact: If the chap in the OP is in training for a place at the top table, then he needs to choose his words such that they promote equally all UK beef producers, not just those whose cows wander about on a hillside all of their lives.

 

[Top Tip.]

You can't drain wetlands, that's why they are wetlands.

I’ve seen plenty of wetlands drained and brought back to agriculture production.

 

[thesilentone]

Nope.



Yep.

If the energy is from a sustainable source, is renewable and at least carbon neutral or even better carbon negative why does it matter how much they consume ?

In fact, it could be argued, the more they consume, the better everyone in the food chain supply will look.

The only leaking hole is if the energy that is wasted is coming from a renewable a source, the taxpayer is picking up some of the cost at the point of generation.

 

[thesilentone]

I’ve seen plenty of wetlands drained and brought back to agriculture production.

I agree, however it's temporary.

 

[delilah]

If the energy is from a sustainable source, is renewable and at least carbon neutral or even better carbon negative why does it matter how much they consume ?

In fact, it could be argued, the more they consume, the better everyone in the food chain supply will look.

The only leaking hole is if the energy that is wasted is coming from a renewable a source, the taxpayer is picking up some of the cost at the point of generation.

In a competitive field that has to be the daftest post on this thread.

 

[Macsky]

I agree, however it's temporary.

Define temporary. A system of ditches and buried twinwall drain designed to suit the location will work away for hundreds of years with minimal maintenance.

It has never in history been easier to drain land with modern diggers and tracked dumpers and artics hauling pipe and stone, in comparison to the old hand dug trenches back filled with rubble, it’s just never been more expensive either unfortunately.

 

[delilah]

( I said the below in a discussion group, but am putting it on here because I think this is an important point vis a vis the OP and how the industry should get its message across ) .


I am taking it that there is a consensus that methane as belched by cows does not contribute to 'man made climate change'.

The question then, is how to convey that. I see two options:

1) Stick with the line that cows and sheep release 5% of UK GHG, and add a qualifier that they are responsible for 0% of the warming, because their gas is cyclical.

2) Change the message to one that says cows and sheep release 0% of UK GHG.

I vote for 2), on the grounds that:

a) It has to be a simple message, for politicians, the press and the public.

b) It is scientifically correct. The common understanding is that when we say 'Greenhouse gasses', we are referring to gasses that are causing climate change, ie warming. If the methane belched by cows isn't doing that, then it isn't a GHG.

 

[Henarar]

( I said the below in a discussion group, but am putting it on here because I think this is an important point vis a vis the OP and how the industry should get its message across ) .


I am taking it that there is a consensus that methane as belched by cows does not contribute to 'man made climate change'.

The question then, is how to convey that. I see two options:

1) Stick with the line that cows and sheep release 5% of UK GHG, and add a qualifier that they are responsible for 0% of the warming, because their gas is cyclical.

2) Change the message to one that says cows and sheep release 0% of UK GHG.

I vote for 2), on the grounds that:

a) It has to be a simple message, for politicians, the press and the public.

b) It is scientifically correct. The common understanding is that when we say 'Greenhouse gasses', we are referring to gasses that are causing climate change, ie warming. If the methane belched by cows isn't doing that, then it isn't a GHG.

How about, cows and sheep take in 5% of GHG's and are bloody marvellous so everyone eat beef and lamb and drink milk.
Sound good

 

[DaveGrohl]

( I said the below in a discussion group, but am putting it on here because I think this is an important point vis a vis the OP and how the industry should get its message across ) .


I am taking it that there is a consensus that methane as belched by cows does not contribute to 'man made climate change'.

The question then, is how to convey that. I see two options:

1) Stick with the line that cows and sheep release 5% of UK GHG, and add a qualifier that they are responsible for 0% of the warming, because their gas is cyclical.

2) Change the message to one that says cows and sheep release 0% of UK GHG.

I vote for 2), on the grounds that:

a) It has to be a simple message, for politicians, the press and the public.

b) It is scientifically correct. The common understanding is that when we say 'Greenhouse gasses', we are referring to gasses that are causing climate change, ie warming. If the methane belched by cows isn't doing that, then it isn't a GHG.

You see no one can support that because what you have said there is NOT scientifically correct. You're trying to make something that is reasonably understandable into something simple when it isn't that simple. You can't take on the likes of the CCC with that, they will simply not take you seriously.

 

[Top Tip.]

You see no one can support that because what you have said there is NOT scientifically correct. You're trying to make something that is resonably understandable into something simple when it isn't that simple. You can't take on the likes of the CCC with that, they will simply not take you seriously.

I feel that the CCC is becoming discredited partly because of there anti meat, pro trees rhetoric .

 

[thesilentone]

I feel that the CCC is becoming discredited partly because of there anti meat, pro trees rhetoric .

The Government blocked their advice on meat and dairy consumption, so a different choice of where to point the guns is required.

Meat and dairy intake escapes stricter UK climate goals - Farmers Weekly

Stricter government targets on climate change will not include forcing people to eat less meat or dairy. The new government target is to cut greenhouse

www.fwi.co.uk

 

[texelburger]

So what is the correct figure then?

I've always assumed they were figures for what we actually produced before it left the farm gate.
But, to be perfectly honest, it seems to me anybody involved in this 'climate change discussion' (on whatever side they may be on) just use any random figure that they may have heard banded about or anything they may have once seen in some random internet article that suits their arguement at that particukar moment

Exactly, they use figures to suit their agenda.There are so many different ways to come to a figure,ie include this and that but we'll leave leave that bit out,and as a result there is a multitude of figures.Ive seen Agri figures from around 5 to 50 odd % !!

 

[white_stuffed]

Exactly, they use figures to suit their agenda.There are so many different ways to come to a figure,ie include this and that but we'll leave leave that bit out,and as a result there is a multitude of figures.Ive seen Agri figures from around 5 to 50 odd % !!

Some studies draw really wide system boundaries, from deforestation through to sitting on a retail shelf, see image. They are the ones that say food systems as a whole, including processing, transport, land use etc. are as high as 25- 28%. AHDB use the BEIS figures which nations are required to use when reporting emissions. Emissions are calculated by sector, so agriculture shows as 10%, livestock approx half of that. And transport/processing etc. emissions sit within their own sectors.

 

[Bald Rick]

The one thing you have to say about Joe is that he’s very intelligent and writes very eloquently.
In fairness he is wasted in the FW as his column would easily pass for the quality of some very erudite journalists in the broadsheets.
The other thing I would say about the NFU presidency is that Minette (like or loathe) has raised the profile in the media almost entirely because she is female. She is the public face of farming and I fear if another middle aged white male is selected (no matter how impressive) then farming will disappear into the doldrums again.

I would keep an eye open for Abi Reader as a potential female NFU President.

Seems ambitious but she’s Welsh and a comparatively small farmer … rather like the amiable Tim Bennett

 

[delilah]

You see no one can support that because what you have said there is NOT scientifically correct. You're trying to make something that is reasonably understandable into something simple when it isn't that simple. You can't take on the likes of the CCC with that, they will simply not take you seriously.

Why isn't it scientifically correct ? I've just looked up a definition of greenhouse gas: a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation.
Aren't we decided that methane as belched by cows doesn't do that ?

Anyway, re the CCC taking us seriously, if Gummer is coming out and saying that veganism is a threat to the planet, aren't we in danger here - yet again - of farmers being the ones who do the most to run our farming systems down ?