carbon farming pitfalls

[C_T_Russell]

Article explains well the science behind methane and agriculture.
More animals require more plants to feed them which in turn absorb more co2.
https://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/rural-n...dis-credit

[harm_less]

Article explains well the science behind methane and agriculture.
More animals require more plants to feed them which in turn absorb more co2.
https://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/rural-n...dis-credit

Leo Cooney in that article is essentially stating that methane is synonymous with carbon dioxide which is totally false. Methane is a hydrocarbon (CH4) is the simplest fossil fuel chain molecule that is primary component of natural gas. It is in the order of 32x more damaging as a greenhouse gas which Leo seems happy to ignore.

Also his idea that CO2 can be absorbed by the sea ignores the fact that this process acidifies the oceans and together with rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures is largely responsible for coral death which is hugely damaging to the oceanic food chains. The magnitude of CO2 and methane emissions is well beyond the volumes that can be absorbed by natural factors in the same way that livestock urine levels combined with nitrogenous fertilizers totally overwhelm the ability for soil biology to absorb this substance. The problematic factor in both cases is the rate of discharge in high intensity farming operations which are urgently in need of revising their practices or we risk damaging our waterways, atmosphere and international standing as a 'clean green' producer to the point that our offshore markets will cease to exist.

Claiming that livestock numbers can 'consume' the effects of rising CO2 levels is ignorant at best. Leo Cooney should stick to supporting highway construction and light aircraft activities and leave environmental science matters to those who are expert in the field.

[zqwerty]

Yes the article seemed a tad optimistic to me, although biology and such systems are not a subject I know much about.

In general however I have always found that everything always "only just works" and any interference or modification mostly results in a downward trend away from optimization, and if interfered with enough, total collapse of the previously functional system.

[C_T_Russell]

Article explains well the science behind methane and agriculture.
More animals require more plants to feed them which in turn absorb more co2.
https://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/rural-n...dis-credit

Leo Cooney in that article is essentially stating that methane is synonymous with carbon dioxide which is totally false. Methane is a hydrocarbon (CH4) is the simplest fossil fuel chain molecule that is primary component of natural gas. It is in the order of 32x more damaging as a greenhouse gas which Leo seems happy to ignore.

Also his idea that CO2 can be absorbed by the sea ignores the fact that this process acidifies the oceans and together with rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures is largely responsible for coral death which is hugely damaging to the oceanic food chains. The magnitude of CO2 and methane emissions is well beyond the volumes that can be absorbed by natural factors in the same way that livestock urine levels combined with nitrogenous fertilizers totally overwhelm the ability for soil biology to absorb this substance. The problematic factor in both cases is the rate of discharge in high intensity farming operations which are urgently in need of revising their practices or we risk damaging our waterways, atmosphere and international standing as a 'clean green' producer to the point that our offshore markets will cease to exist.

Claiming that livestock numbers can 'consume' the effects of rising CO2 levels is ignorant at best. Leo Cooney should stick to supporting highway construction and light aircraft activities and leave environmental science matters to those who are expert in the field.

Methane only lasts for 10 years and the UV breaks it down into CO2 and goes back into the carbon cycle.
If you go after methane, then what about the millions of wilderbeasts in Africa?
What about all our biomass rotting down in our native forest that's continually producing methane?
What about all our compost heaps and food scraps?
Nature is producing methane everywhere in virtually every single living creature.
You can't escape it, but oh no, let's target the poor evil farmers who put food on your table.
It's delusional to think that taking money from farmers for each farting animal is going to save the planet.
You really think that genetic engineering, methane inhibitors and all the other drugs that's being proposed is the answer?
Now they are experimenting with vaccines to "fix" this.
Since when is killing off the essential bacteria in the animals gut biome a good idea? It's supposed to make methane.
If you didn't already know, we are at the end of an ice age in an interglacial period, do you know much about the Milankovitch cycles? That has way more influence on the earths climate.
The world has been through tons of climate change, we are just a little drop in the bucket as far as any factors that influence the climate.
Next thing we will be back in an ice age and everyone will complain about that.

[harm_less]

Leo Cooney in that article is essentially stating that methane is synonymous with carbon dioxide which is totally false. Methane is a hydrocarbon (CH4) is the simplest fossil fuel chain molecule that is primary component of natural gas. It is in the order of 32x more damaging as a greenhouse gas which Leo seems happy to ignore.

Also his idea that CO2 can be absorbed by the sea ignores the fact that this process acidifies the oceans and together with rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures is largely responsible for coral death which is hugely damaging to the oceanic food chains. The magnitude of CO2 and methane emissions is well beyond the volumes that can be absorbed by natural factors in the same way that livestock urine levels combined with nitrogenous fertilizers totally overwhelm the ability for soil biology to absorb this substance. The problematic factor in both cases is the rate of discharge in high intensity farming operations which are urgently in need of revising their practices or we risk damaging our waterways, atmosphere and international standing as a 'clean green' producer to the point that our offshore markets will cease to exist.

Claiming that livestock numbers can 'consume' the effects of rising CO2 levels is ignorant at best. Leo Cooney should stick to supporting highway construction and light aircraft activities and leave environmental science matters to those who are expert in the field.

Methane only lasts for 10 years and the UV breaks it down into CO2 and goes back into the carbon cycle.
If you go after methane, then what about the millions of wilderbeasts in Africa?
What about all our biomass rotting down in our native forest that's continually producing methane?
What about all our compost heaps and food scraps?
Nature is producing methane everywhere in virtually every single living creature.
You can't escape it, but oh no, let's target the poor evil farmers who put food on your table.
It's delusional to think that taking money from farmers for each farting animal is going to save the planet.
You really think that genetic engineering, methane inhibitors and all the other drugs that's being proposed is the answer?
Now they are experimenting with vaccines to "fix" this.
Since when is killing off the essential bacteria in the animals gut biome a good idea? It's supposed to make methane.
If you didn't already know, we are at the end of an ice age in an interglacial period, do you know much about the Milankovitch cycles? That has way more influence on the earths climate.
The world has been through tons of climate change, we are just a little drop in the bucket as far as any factors that influence the climate.
Next thing we will be back in an ice age and everyone will complain about that.

So anthropogenic climate change is inconsequential in your opinion? I've no intention mud wrestling a pig.

Your environmental and biological knowledge is so far off the mark I can't be bothered address the raft of BS that you're presenting.

[C_T_Russell]

I'm stating facts.
Whether we influence the climate doesn't matter, it's not significant enough to make any meaningful impact.
Even elon musk is downplaying it too and his business with EVs relys on the transition away from fossil fuels so that says alot.
You should be thankful that we now have a government that is taking a sensible approach to climate change.
You think taxing poor sheep farmers is going to fix things?
Wool products are are great alternative to synthetic fibres and prevent microplastics and we are seeing the uses on several episodes on country calendar.
Wool is a beneficial thing for the environment, who gives a shit about the methane they make, it's nothing to worry about.

[Lilith7]

I'm stating facts.
Whether we influence the climate doesn't matter, it's not significant enough to make any meaningful impact.
Even elon musk is downplaying it too and his business with EVs relys on the transition away from fossil fuels  so that says alot.
You should be thankful that we now have a government that is taking a sensible approach to climate change.
You think taxing poor sheep farmers is going to fix things?
Wool products are are great alternative to synthetic fibres and prevent microplastics and we are seeing the uses on several episodes on country calendar.
Wool is a beneficial thing for the environment, who gives a shit about the methane they make, it's nothing to worry about.

Jesus H Christ on a raft - "poor sheep farmers??!"