Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

An excellent guide to forming policy as regards climate change. (Part 2 is the first article, scroll down to get part 1.)

 

http://www.climatepolicy.org/

 

(I'm Optimist/Pessimist, tending towards true pessimist the longer we continue to do nothing)

[Njugle]

Do nothing? Surely the price of oil, the statistics of millions or transport miles that have been reduced since prices went up, the substantial number of wind turbines popping up all over the world, the oil producer profits that they claim are being re-invested in new energy technologies and more must constitute even the teeny tiny end of a wedge of "doing something"?

 

Humans are intelligent cockroaches. Pretty indestructable.

 

 

[ArabiaTerra]

Do nothing? Surely the price of oil, the statistics of millions or transport miles that have been reduced since prices went up, the substantial number of wind turbines popping up all over the world, the oil producer profits that they claim are being re-invested in new energy technologies and more must constitute even the teeny tiny end of a wedge of "doing something"?

 

Humans are intelligent cockroaches. Pretty indestructable.

 

 

As compared to what needs doing? Nothing!

[ArabiaTerra]

More evidence (as if we need it).

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825210415.htm

[ArabiaTerra]

An excellent program exploring the background to the Global warming debate:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dhlgl/

[Guest Anonymous]

I must agree with you there arab T. , I saw the first programme & found the history of it fascinating & was also particularily amazed by the experiment they did with the Infra red heat sensor and the candle , you cant argue with the the fact that greenhouse gas acts as an insulator .

But if so why does it not stop sun heat getting in ? different types of radiation i expect ......

The recent huge rises in the price of oil & gas has been the best thing that could happen in changing the way in which we use fossil fuels / energy ,

However the large price rise and economic slowdown has led to demand destruction and the price has dropped again which I dont think is a good thing , also sad is the fact that lots of countries / governments see the melting of the north ice as an opportunity to exploit & develop the oil and gas underneath there .

Also another side effect of this massive rise in fossil fuel prices is that they are starting up old British coal fields again and bragging about it .

All the while the greatest scientific minds are busy spending billions of pounds building the Hadron collider to try and find out what happened in space after the big bang !?......

The area where we differ is you like to believe we can change our ways and save the planet , I am of the opinion that we cant change our way of life without burning practically all of whats left down there , the climate is going to change we are powerless to stop it , its going to be a case of adapt or go the same way as the dinosaurs I think.

But then again we could easily have another krakatoa or other major geological event that turns all this on it's head again ?,....

Ultimately there's no point getting to excited or losing any sleep over it , but just except that things are always sure to change , we just have to try and make da best o it .

[Njugle]

Did i hear a report correctly today that 18% of greenhouse gases come from the rearing of livestock for food? Vegetarianism anyone? More effective than ditching the car.

[ArabiaTerra]

Did i hear a report correctly today that 18% of greenhouse gases come from the rearing of livestock for food? Vegetarianism anyone? More effective than ditching the car.

At the most basic level this is true, a large amount of greenhouse gases do come from the rearing of livestock. But the thing is, there has always been livestock of one form or another. Look at the plains of Africa, all those millions of wildebeest, zebra and antelope of various kinds, then consider the millions of bison which used to roam the plain of North America. Then there are the steppes of Asia which must have supported similar massive herds of herbivores before man came along and wiped them out.

 

All we have done is replace the wild herds with herds of domesticated animals. The amount of meat "on the hoof" is probably similar now to what it was in the epochs before man domesticated animals and began rearing them for food. Or to put it another way, there have always been cows (of one form or another), and they have always been farting.

[Fjool]

^ This is a very good point.

 

Problem is that there are many more of us now so, to keep the balance, there must be fewer of them. As a set of species (cows, sheep, humans, etc), we're basically competing for food; the energy that animals spend by simply existing is energy that humans cannot consume.

 

Of course, the benefits of having animals around are enormous: foods, textiles, labour, produce, companionship, and so forth. Problem is that, we're probably competing too hard with the numbers required for large-scale meat consumption. Some meat is fine, but I think we just have to accept that it's not possible for everyone to eat as much meat as they would like to.

 

Or something...

 

(Edit: grammar (>_

[Njugle]

I don't know if that is strictly true either AT, is it not a commonly upheld idea that lots of forestation has been chopped down for human livestock? (As one example)

[Njugle]

Ah, here we go; More grist than i could add to the mill:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html

 

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

[crofter]

Ah, here we go; More grist than i could add to the mill:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html

 

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

 

My cows drink less than 20litres of water (each) per day. Their calves get plenty of milk from that, probably 5-10 litres. So the 990:1 claim is just wrong.

 

 

Also, I am not going to say that cows don't produce any methane, but in all the hours I have spent in the byre I can honestly say that I have never heard one fart!

[Fjool]

I guess that that figure includes all the water necessary to grow their food, milk them, pasteurise the milk and transport it. Then there's cleaning the equipment, and so on.

[Njugle]

I wouldn't dispute that crofter, however:

Despite our wonderful summer, i fear the originators of that statistic may have been somewhere a little warmer. Mention of overgrazing around here leading to desert doesn't often crop up.

[ArabiaTerra]

Ah, here we go; More grist than i could add to the mill:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html

 

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Ok, taken in it's totality, beef farming does seem to be pretty bad but if you start looking at the breakdown it's a little different.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing

The first key point here is "Burning fuel". If we have switched to 0 carbon power generation and vehicle fuel (which we need to do anyway), this is eliminated. Secondly, "clearing vegetation", you'll get no argument from me that deforestation is bad and it has to be stopped. This is true whatever the reason for cutting down the trees whether it be for grazing, arable farming or simply to harvest the wood.

 

The problem seems to be more about intensive farming in general than beef farming in particular and here you run up against the other side of the cleft stick we are currently stuck in, overpopulation. Current projections predict that the world's population will increase by 50% over the next 40 years before it begins to fall, so that means we will need 50% more food than we currently produce. Clearly we need to radically change our farming practices as well as eliminating fossil fuels from our economy.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.

The only solution I can think of would be some kind of international agreement to limit the amount of land devoted to the raising of livestock, which would in turn drive up the price of meat across the board. To be honest though, I can't see this happening any time soon if at all.

 

Whatever happens, we've got tough times ahead so thank your deity of choice that you weren't born in the 3rd world because that's where it will get really hard.