Will we overcome the problems of Global Warming?

Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown
Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown
Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses.

The research also finds that enormous changes to farming are needed to avoid destroying the planet’s ability to feed the 10 billion people expected to be on the planet in a few decades.
 
Yes, but or Yes and
This needs to be done taking into account
a) The type of land - there are upland areas where trying to plough and plant beans would result in land erosion and no beans because the climate is too harsh anyway - so animal farming should be concentrated in those areas
b) Moving away from monoculture crops so there are more places wildlife can co-exist with farming
c) Bees are having problems with modern pesticides and there is a big drop in bee numbers (there may be other causes too) which means the pollination rates are dropping - so the bean and seed crop could fail. (Nuts are wind pollinated so they'd be OK).

Global warming may or may not kill wildlife (it is often announced as a given across all wildlife - but without detailed proof - and sometimes the proof is the habitat will disappear) but habitat removal though change in farming practices will do it immediately. As in all the birds that live on grassy uplands that need that habitat to survive, wouldn't do well if it was all turned into bean fields.
Ideally the change in farming would be an opportunity to enhance and repair wildlife habitats in conjunction with food production rather than another round of underplanned, knee jerk, big scale, one-size-fits all central government organization. To be fair there are set aside subsidies and biodiversity now included in UK planning - though I think not enough - but a big "we must offset global warming" change in farming practices could be seen as of such over-riding urgency that any concerns on biodiversity might be overwhelmed.

And let's hear it again for agroforestry or forest gardening - read more about it here The Agroforestry Research Trust – | Forest Gardening | Fruit Trees | Nut Trees | Perennial Vegetables |
Far more sustainable and biodiverse than big field farming.
 
Having gone to the Agroforestry Trust website for the link, it was there when I reopened the browser and there is a section I've not noticed before - on the benefits of tree planting for shelter, river pollution reduction and fertilization. Quite short, worth a read
Other Agroforestry Systems – The Agroforestry Research Trust

Thing is with big tractor farming bands of woodland have tended to be lost.
By the way, a book worth a read on farming is
The Running Hare: The Secret Life of Farmland by John Lewis-Stempel. He wants to restore/re-create the cornfields of his childhood that were rich in wildflowers and wildlife and this is his readable account of how he found the land and did the work, what the results were and also the state of some of the neighbouring farms.
 
Large wide open tractorized fields with no trees or natural growth is like an open wound that is constantly being scratched and the bulk harvested crops are what clots in between scratchings. Land with trees and other natural plant formations are like skin that is allowed to grow in a healthy manner.

When land is allowed to grow in a natural fashion with crops grown in smaller, disjointed sectors, the sum total of the area's life is dependent on the diversity of the life living there. The more complete it is, the more diversity in life there is at all levels, from dirt formation to wild plants and animals that show up. The best properties have everything from predators on down to the smallest insects. This also increases the biological activity of the soil in a very positive manner. Without a balanced predator scenario the wild life creates dysfunctional populations which in turn create dysfunctional plant populations, which can in turn, affect tree populations.

The point about bird populations being permanently and rapidly affected by natural land being converted into an artificial environment composed of monocultural products is a good reason to take a second look at just exactly how harmful wild cats can be to local bird populations. Having a cat population in a functioning environment versus having a cat population on an island, natural or man made where the birds have no other places to go is two different situations. People can distort the land to such degrees that birds are marooned to unnatural islands surrounded by land. By destroying the original diversity, then repopulating with whatever people see fit, all the while completely upsetting the wild bird populations, then turning on the cats and saying it's their fault the birds are gone for driving bulldozers, clear cutting the land down to the subsoil, and filling everything to the gills with any kind of pesticide or insecticide, is hardly logical.

Financial concerns are what usually changes things. The problem of lose plastic debris blowing around everywhere has become impossible to hide so it has made the beginning transition away from plastic able to get a foot hold. Paper straws cost ten times what a plastic straw costs. Paper bags are also expensive but it is getting easier for people to bring their own bags. Its based on the well known idea of bringing your own bottle, so it is hardly a new concept.

The change from animal meat to plant based proteins is not an easy street to travel. The synthetic meat business is growing by leaps and bounds. It has two paths, one of growing or fermenting an artificial protein mixture in a vat, the other is by processing natural plant products into meat substitute products. Using natural plants could alleviate the land grazing by enormous animal populations, but could also make even more land subject to the harshness of monoculture farming.

The debacle of the pursuit of green oil has not been addressed except by trying to forget about it and at the same time quietly trying to find another source of clean oil. Soylent Green had an interesting transition from algae to people, but more likely it will be garbage that gets transformed into edible food. Its probably not that far a step from using petroleum products to create meat or food substitutes, but using garbage would be so much easier and would solve the problem of what to do with all the garbage we create. If you go back far enough in time, everything was recycled back into the food circles as soon as it hit the ground. Many people have no choice where there food comes from. Where the food comes from can all too easily become what the food comes from.
 
That conference is setting goals and objectives, but there is no backing from politicians to achieve them.

CO2 concentration has just risen again after a four year levelling off. They thought progress had been made on curbing fossil fuel use, but it seems it was just a result of the recession instead. There were also increases in Methane and CFC-10 (which is banned from production but still in the majority of old refrigerators and air conditioning units, and is still produced anyhow, despite the ban.)

The White House doesn't believe the word of its own scientists, and the world has other pressing problems to deal with, but can there be anything more vital to deal with than this?

There are engineering solutions that can be employed (they are now seriously talking about seeding the upper atmosphere) So, to answer the OP question, we will survive and we will overcome global warming, but we have missed the chance we had to stop it, and now we will have to ride out the consequences.
 
Nah, Dave, what we need to do is leave this forsaken rock. I honestly think it'll be able to actually properly happen; even if it is on the most minute scale, I think we could survive long enough on Mars to thrive further.
 
I hear you Dave. I still don't think I've recovered from my disbelief and sadness from the 2016 election in the US. (Just a personal note - No political agenda intended).
 
The poles have already melted, they just haven't finished melting yet. We can't stop the water from going into the sky and we can't stop the rains regardless of whatever people decide to do for or against, action or no action, the weather is going to beat up a lot of things before it stabilizes which is going to provide routes of action that don't have any hangers to hang debates on. The current executive officers are not a one off, they are a long time coming, tip of the iceberg, and quite noticeably the icebergs are melting away, just like any old castle made of sand. Since there are no priorities, as in what me worry?, I think there will be plenty of money for space exploration with no possibility of benefiting everyone.
 
Nah, Dave, what we need to do is leave this forsaken rock. I honestly think it'll be able to actually properly happen; even if it is on the most minute scale, I think we could survive long enough on Mars to thrive further.
The problem with leaving this rock is that the vast majority of people will not be able to do so. Just to keep stop population growth requires that we transport, on current growth figures, 84 million people a year. That's over 220,000 people a day, every day! And that's just to halt the growth in population never mind actually reduce the population. Think about the logistics of moving that many people and the size of fleet needed to keep that rate up.

We need to fix our population here on Earth; colonisation will never fix it for us.

I know the growth rate is dropping but even if it flattened completely and we still managed to shift that 83 million people every year (over 200,000 every day remember) it would still take nearly a century to shift the whole population! So I think you're right when you say 'even if it is on the most minute scale.'
 
It sounds bad of me, but I don't mean shifting the whole population. That would only transfer our problems.


No, I meant for the general continuation of our species, we need to leave this planet. I don't expect to ever leave Earth, nor does any of my family, but I feel better somehow imagining humanity spreading across the cosmos...even if it was just a fraction of a percent of the world's population, that would be good enough, if we could survive different environments than to what we evolved upon.
 
Not really that oversimplified, LoW. Just a sad, sad truth.


Not that it wouldn't be cool to explore space, Mars will be about the furthest outward we've ever sent living, breathing entities out to and it's just our next door neighbor...
 
Maybe survival of the trickiest is what's happening now, that way the playing field is still wide open.
 
So here's a carbon footprint story.

We recently changed suppliers (joy)

As a result our "SMART" meter has become a pile of junk.. Not only does it not report usage to the mobile display, it doesn't even send the readings back to the new provider. (As I have to send them myself)

So what was the point and how does the govenment claim they will reduce energy useage (not that I ever looked but others may do).

As far as I can see, we all had a perfectly working meter replaced by two items of technology which is now or will become useless at the first renewal of the contracts.

Even if we look at the basic material/production costs and etimate it at £10 per household then we have a gigantic waste of money and more importantly carbon. (which will end up in landfill or being burnt)

A classic example of policy for the sake of appearing to do something that actually multiplies the problem and cures nothing.

I could make an argument against recycling, but I suspect I would be held to ridicule.

The case for lead free solder in electronic production was also an enormouse waste of money, both in energy costs and in perfect good machinery being scrapped and replaced, but there you go.
 
So here's a carbon footprint story.

We recently changed suppliers (joy)

As a result our "SMART" meter has become a pile of junk.. Not only does it not report usage to the mobile display, it doesn't even send the readings back to the new provider. (As I have to send them myself)

So what was the point and how does the govenment claim they will reduce energy useage (not that I ever looked but others may do).

As far as I can see, we all had a perfectly working meter replaced by two items of technology which is now or will become useless at the first renewal of the contracts.

Even if we look at the basic material/production costs and etimate it at £10 per household then we have a gigantic waste of money and more importantly carbon. (which will end up in landfill or being burnt)

A classic example of policy for the sake of appearing to do something that actually multiplies the problem and cures nothing.

I could make an argument against recycling, but I suspect I would be held to ridicule.

The case for lead free solder in electronic production was also an enormouse waste of money, both in energy costs and in perfect good machinery being scrapped and replaced, but there you go.
It reminds me of the car scheme a few years ago where you received £1,000 for your old car to put towards a new car, supposedly to reduce pollution. And how long will it take for electric cars to outweigh the cost of all the extra infrastructure etc? Never mind the mining practices used to get the rare materials needed for the batteries.

Smart-meter pioneer admits he has abandoned his own
Mr O’Brien told The Daily Telegraph: “I had an early version. After a while I barely looked at it, didn’t use it. We got rid of it.” In 2014 ministers said the meters would cut the average dual-fuel bill by £26 a year. They are now expected to cut it by £11 a year because installation costs have surged by £1 billion, according to a report. Up to one in ten first-generation devices “go dumb” because of a weak signal from the mobile network they use to communicate with the supplier and more than half stop working when customers switch providers, a group of MPs and peers said this week.

A source who worked in the DECC when it was run by Mr Miliband, who led Labour from 2010-15, said “there was already a suspicion that the tech was on the road to being out of date” even as it was being approved.
 
We had smart meters installed in a bunch of houses here.

Then the smart meters started catching fire and burning the houses down.

So they took them all out again. I'm guessing the CO2 and other pollutants produced by the houses that burned down were far, far worse than any possible saving that might have come from the meters.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top