Farming must be part of fight against climate change

MOST of us imagine farming as being very different from other industries. We see farms as pastures green and fields of corn, while we identify manufacturing with clanking production lines and belching chimneys.

[Northie]

This may be the elephant in the room. No one wants to take a shot at farmers, but...

A) If methane is 24 times more damaging to the climate than CO2 is, and...

B) N20 is far more damaging still, and...

C) farms and ranches are responsible for most of the human-caused emissions of those gases and 18% of greenhouse gases overall, then...

We can conclude that farms may be responsible for a great deal more of the global warming problem than we ever knew, and changes are in order.

Those changes would include eating less beef and pork (chicken and fish are okay), eating less rice (methane from rice paddies, you know), and slowing the destruction of forests for more farms. It also means we'll pay more for food, and the poor will turn violent if they cannot afford it; something we're already seeing worldwide. Serious stuff.

The backlash in the rich world will be no picnic either. This means that Americans, for example, will not only be forced to give up pickup trucks and SUVs, but steaks and burgers as well. In a nation that still likes to live the Marlboro Country fantasy, this won't come easy.

[Sunnydale]

Northie wrote:

No one wants to take a shot at farmers, but...

Ignorance and aggressive ad campaigns have convinced many Americans that they can't live without hamburgers. Ads like "Happy Cows" in California urging American's to eat more cheese or "Beef, It's what's for dinner" are meant to sell products, not promote a healthy lifestyle. We need to encourage healthy and sustainable diets.

According to the IPCC land use change (associated with slash and burn agriculture and deforestation) is a primary cause for GHG emissions. Eating lower on the food chain and buying "in season" fruits and vegetables will go a long way to correcting our current climate crisis. Convincing the agribusiness industry and lobby to advertise responsibility will take some doing.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Reducing meat and protein consumption seems like a winner in terms of reducing emissions. That said, recent studies show that high protein consumption is a key to the 'obesity epidemic'.

It would be better to FIX the problem rather than go vegetarian..

One method might be for farmers to start producing charcoal and tilling it into the fields. This not only sequesters the carbon of the charcoal, but retains fertilizer by absorbtion for 'slow release' over the year, improving plant growth and reducing NOX from fertilizer, as well as retaining more moisture, improving soil, and reducing runoff.

It even has a precedent that shows it works (especially for third world nations with poor soils, no money for fertilizers, and frequent droughts) See 'terra prieta' soils.

[JRS]

Northie wrote:

This may be the elephant in the room. No one wants to take a shot at farmers, but...
A) If methane is 24 times more damaging to the climate than CO2 is, and...
B) N20 is far more damaging still, and...
C) farms and ranches are responsible for most of the human-caused emissions of those gases and 18% of greenhouse gases overall, then...
We can conclude that farms may be responsible for a great deal more of the global warming problem than we ever knew, and changes are in order.
Those changes would include eating less beef and pork (chicken and fish are okay), eating less rice (methane from rice paddies, you know), and slowing the destruction of forests for more farms. It also means we'll pay more for food, and the poor will turn violent if they cannot afford it; something we're already seeing worldwide. Serious stuff.
The backlash in the rich world will be no picnic either. This means that Americans, for example, will not only be forced to give up pickup trucks and SUVs, but steaks and burgers as well. In a nation that still likes to live the Marlboro Country fantasy, this won't come easy.

“Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,”

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.”“Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.(Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

[JRS]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Reducing meat and protein consumption seems like a winner in terms of reducing emissions. That said, recent studies show that high protein consumption is a key to the 'obesity epidemic'.
It would be better to FIX the problem rather than go vegetarian..
One method might be for farmers to start producing charcoal and tilling it into the fields. This not only sequesters the carbon of the charcoal, but retains fertilizer by absorbtion for 'slow release' over the year, improving plant growth and reducing NOX from fertilizer, as well as retaining more moisture, improving soil, and reducing runoff.
It even has a precedent that shows it works (especially for third world nations with poor soils, no money for fertilizers, and frequent droughts) See 'terra prieta' soils.

One of the stupidest thing you have ever said. An AGW crisis peddler suggesting that farmers burn stuff releasing CO2 to make charcoal. Then the Charcoal can be buried to sequester carbon. Duh!

This is why AGW crisis peddlers should never be allowed to make decisions for others. They should never be in charge of anything.

[Sunnydale]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Reducing meat and protein consumption seems like a winner in terms of reducing emissions. That said, recent studies show that high protein consumption is a key to the 'obesity epidemic'.
It would be better to FIX the problem rather than go vegetarian..
One method might be for farmers to start producing charcoal and tilling it into the fields. This not only sequesters the carbon of the charcoal, but retains fertilizer by absorbtion for 'slow release' over the year, improving plant growth and reducing NOX from fertilizer, as well as retaining more moisture, improving soil, and reducing runoff.
It even has a precedent that shows it works (especially for third world nations with poor soils, no money for fertilizers, and frequent droughts) See 'terra prieta' soils.

Very interesting... I'm going to look this up (tilling charcoal as a form of carbon sequestration). It just goes to show that we have an abundance of low tech options to help us reduce our carbon emission.

Regarding protein... eat more beans.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
One of the stupidest thing you have ever said. An AGW crisis peddler suggesting that farmers burn stuff releasing CO2 to make charcoal. Then the Charcoal can be buried to sequester carbon. Duh!
This is why AGW crisis peddlers should never be allowed to make decisions for others. They should never be in charge of anything.

In producing charcoal, the hydrogen is mostly burned with a large percentage of the carbon retained in the charcoal.

It would give motivation for carbon sequestration, cut river pollutiuon from runoff, reduce irrigation needs, improve nutrient retention, cut NOx for fertilizers, etc. But you piss on it because it doesn't sequester 100% of the carbon??

[tina anne]

Northie wrote:

This may be the elephant in the room. No one wants to take a shot at farmers, but...
A) If methane is 24 times more damaging to the climate than CO2 is, and...
B) N20 is far more damaging still, and...
C) farms and ranches are responsible for most of the human-caused emissions of those gases and 18% of greenhouse gases overall, then...
We can conclude that farms may be responsible for a great deal more of the global warming problem than we ever knew, and changes are in order.
Those changes would include eating less beef and pork (chicken and fish are okay), eating less rice (methane from rice paddies, you know), and slowing the destruction of forests for more farms. It also means we'll pay more for food, and the poor will turn violent if they cannot afford it; something we're already seeing worldwide. Serious stuff.
The backlash in the rich world will be no picnic either. This means that Americans, for example, will not only be forced to give up pickup trucks and SUVs, but steaks and burgers as well. In a nation that still likes to live the Marlboro Country fantasy, this won't come easy.

The funny thing is that any engine running will burn the methane out of the air and replace it with plant friendly CO2. So driving a SUV all over the country side could be considered a good thing in that case.

[Northie]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Reducing meat and protein consumption seems like a winner in terms of reducing emissions. That said, recent studies show that high protein consumption is a key to the 'obesity epidemic'.
It would be better to FIX the problem rather than go vegetarian..
One method might be for farmers to start producing charcoal and tilling it into the fields. This not only sequesters the carbon of the charcoal, but retains fertilizer by absorbtion for 'slow release' over the year, improving plant growth and reducing NOX from fertilizer, as well as retaining more moisture, improving soil, and reducing runoff.
It even has a precedent that shows it works (especially for third world nations with poor soils, no money for fertilizers, and frequent droughts) See 'terra prieta' soils.

Interesting idea, but it doesn't cut the methane from ruminants like cattle, and fertilizer N20 remains a problem, no?

[canadaguy]

recent increase of wheat prices has a diminishing result on animal numbers. Wheat was just to high priced to feed to cows and hogs. Want to keep animal numbers down then raise wheat prices to 30 dollars a bushel. 66 loafs of bread can be made with 1 bushel of wheat. this would result in 45 cents to a loaf of bread and animal numbers would fall to record low numbers.