Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Man Made Climate Change is NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT. It is an ECONOMIC movement designed to transfer the INCOME of the middle income earner and working person to the elite. It is a wealth and power consolidation movement.
Basing an economy on finite and destructive fuels is a movement to destroy everyone’s wealth.
Basing an economy on finite and destructive fuels is a movement to destroy everyone’s wealth.
We have centuries of fossil fuel supply and finding more. They are NOT destructive. Fossil fuel is abundant and inexpensive and have allowed developing nations to raise their standard of living.
not going to wait for the government, muni, county, state, fed as they will probably want to plant non native species, especially municipalities.
government mistakes aplenty with non native species.
Consumers must take responsibility and not rely on the government to get it right every once in a generation.
If anyone cared about CO2 levels they would mandate all lawnmowers cease using internal combustion engines. The output from a lawn tractor rivals an older SUV.
Climate scientist I spoke with said the CO2 model is all wrong. what do I know.
From a practical perspective, if the government has made no measurable progress, to an as yet un-established measurable threshold for reversing GLOBAL climate change, what chance do you think it will reverse GLOBAL climate change in 10 years time?
If the US went dark, it would not reverse GLOBAL climate change, let alone do it in 10 years. GLOBAL entails the rest of the world doing their part. Paris accord let's the biggest offenders have decades to meet their goals...and we are told we only have 10 years. Meanwhile under trump, we lead the world in reduced emissions.
How many trees have been cut down to install solar panels?
How many tree have been cut down for forced low income housing. Feds and state make no distinction between urban and suburban when forcing housing units. Less tree loss in urban areas, devastating to suburban and rural areas trying to hang onto a vestige of undeveloped land.
Some towns require a permit to cut down a single tree on your property, yet they allow developers to bulldoze swaths of woodlands to pave with impervious surfaces and create runoff to pollute the rivers and streams....which flow to the ocean.
When someone says the science is settled, run Bambi, run!
The largest CO2 producer is China, so even if the US went completely carbon neutral, at best, we would hardly put a dent the CO2 levels. So why not advocate for more trees instead, which consume CO2? Instead, all we hear is that we need to ban cars, burgers, transatlantic flight, and collect trillions more in taxes. It sounds more like a giant scam to me.
Because limiting CO2 isn't a goal of liberals. Destroying industries, punishing businesses they find...offensive and having control over the population is. They want the power to shut down what are often seen as "conservative" businesses, to destroy jobs and make people dependant on government and to dictate how we live. Simply "planting trees" and perhaps doing something productive doesn't provide that degree of satisfaction.
Besides-it's not necessary. With a rise in CO2, trees and plant life expand naturally-people don't need to plant them. Besides, by themselves a mature forest has no net effect on CO2. As trees die, they either decay or burn, both of which emit CO2 and other carbon-based gasses that have a global warming effect. Unless they are harvested and used in such a way that the absorbed CO2 is sequestered.
It takes a commitment of time, but there are a multitude of videos on YouTube, and journal articles on the internet that anyone can access that provide education on carbon sequestration in grassland through regenerative grazing practices.
A summary of the video:
1. Ruminants (like cows) have microorganisms in their stomachs that allow them to eat difficult-to-digest materials such as grasses. As a result of this, they also produce large amounts of methane (especially cows) which is a greenhouse gas. Note that pigs and chickens are not ruminants. The more fibrous the diet, the more methane is produced. Ruminants are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from all livestock...and (according to the video at least) 11.6% of all human greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not sure what that last part really means though because methane works differently than C02...breaking down faster but trapping more heat before it goes. Cattle, being the most numerous ruminants, account for most of these ruminant-based emissions.
2. Demand for meat is expected to grow, and a as a result, livestock methane emissions from ruminants are expected to grow too.
3. While most agree that we need to address the issue of methane-producing livestock, people often disagree about how to do so. Some people, for example, argue that research on their emissions ignores a crucial part of the picture: the potential for grass fed ruminant to help remove C02 from the atmosphere. They argue that by carefully managing the way animals graze the land, plant can be stimulated to grow more vigorously, taking more C02 out of the atmosphere, leading to more C02 being stored within them and in and around their roots rather than in the atmosphere. Some of this carbon may just kind of stick around in the soil rather than re-entering the atmosphere anytime soon. This process of carbon being trapped in the soil over the long run is called soil carbon sequestration.
4. It is argued by some people that the above process of removing C02 from the atmosphere may partially, or even entirely counteract the affect of methane produced by that livestock, rendering cattle no longer global warmers. Some people even argue it could counteract the affect of all livestock and perhaps even end the problem of global warming. This debate has left many policy makers confused. They think: are the cows good cows or bad cows? I used to think we should nuke the cows, but now people are telling me to genetically engineer hyper-breeding mutant cows so that we have quadrillions of cows that graze in a manner that encourage plant growth and ends global warming...but what's even worse is that nobody can even make up their mind. Some of them are still insisting that we have to launch hydrogen bombs at the cows, but other people are insisting: "LIES! DO NOT HARM THE COWS! WE MUST BUILD ENORMOUS COW CLONING CENTERS! BUILD THEM NOW! ONLY THE COWS CAN SAVE US!!!! WE SHOULD PROBABLY GENETICALLY ENGINEER COWS TO PROCREATE THROUGH MITOSIS SO THEY CAN PROCREATE EVEN FASTER! I WANT COWS THAT JUST EAT ENOUGH THEN AUTOMATICALLY SPLIT IN HALF TO FORM TWO NEW COWS! I'M CONFUSED
5. To answer the above questions about whether cows are good cows or bad cows, an international group of researchers came together. Their abbreviated titles, at least, are shown at around 3:10 or so in the video. Their research focused on the net balance of the greenhouse gas emissions of grass fed livestock - so the amount of greenhouse gasses produced minus any greenhouse gasses likely removed from the atmosphere due to livestock grazing encouraging plant growth, and the resulting entrapment of C02 in the oil through sequestration. It's worth noting that the study did not compare "grass fed livestock with any other production system or species of livestock," although I'm not sure what a "production system" would be.
6. In the above people's study, first they reviewed all sources of emissions from grass fed livestock, including those from clearing natural land, producing animal feed, animal digestion (and the resulting methane via cow farts) and animal manure. Next, using what the video describes as "optimistic assumptions" they reviewed how much C02 might be removed from the atmosphere through improved worldwide grazing methods that would encourage plant growth and increase C02 sequestration in soils, removing more C02 from the atmosphere.
7.the research found that even if carbon sequestration were maximized on the global level grazing livestock would still be a net contributor to the climate change problem and that the reduction in emissions would be small compared to the methane emissions from livestock. Only rarely, with extreme care, can carbon sequestration outweigh the additional methane from livestock. That part is around the 4:30 mark or something in the video.
8. Even when increased carbon sequestration in the ground due to animal grazing encouraging increased plant growth outweighs the affect of methane pumped out of cow farts, within decades the soil will be saturated with C02 and the rate of sequestration will fall back to close to zero because the ground can only hold so much C02, making it so that even in the most ideal of scenarios, increased livestock grazing method only will reduce greenhouse gas emissions for a finite amount of time. Meanwhile, livestock would still continue to produce methane emissions. Furthermore, any sequestration gains may also be negated later on through poor land management, etc.
9. The conclusion drawn in the video is that better grazing management for livestock would certainly be desirable, but it won't outweigh the affect of methane produced by that livestock that increases global warming. Also, because C02 trapped in the soil can be freed back into the atmosphere much more easily than it can be trapped in the soil, practices that degrade grasslands should be discouraged. The soil is already a major repository of carbon, and ideally most of that wouldn't escape.
10: So...your video is all about how methane produced by livestock is an important issue that is causing harm, and that livestock grazing potentially causing more plant life to grow, and therefore more carbon sequestration, will never make up for the increased greenhouse gas output by that livestock. Because of that, your comment about democrats blaming the wrong end of cows confuses me greatly. Generally speaking, the more left-leaning the person is, the more concerned about methane output from cows the person will be. Your video describes methane production via livestock as a major problem...and that makes me suspect that you did not actually watch your own video past the first couple minutes, while complaining about democrats not doing enough research
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
