British Farmers Accuse News Media Of Climate Alarmism
By bennypeiser.
National Farmers’ Union president Minette Batters has accused the British media of “inflating” the findings of a report by published this week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The IPCC report on land use across the world and its impact on the climate concluded that better land management and dietary changes were needed.
However, NFU president Minette Batters said it was “frustrating” that some media outlets had inferred this meant the panel was recommending meat to be cut out altogether.
“Having gone through the report in detail, it is clear that the IPCC recognises the important role animal products play in a balanced diet,” Batters said.
When produced sustainably in low greenhouse gas emission systems, these are actually part of the solution to climate change.
“It is therefore incredibly frustrating to see this inflated within some part of the media to recommend a reduction of meat consumption in the UK.
“I take this opportunity to reiterate that our aspiration to become net-zero – reducing our greenhouse gas footprint and offsetting emissions – by 2040 does not mean downsizing agricultural production.
This would only export our production to countries which may not have the same standards of environmental protection.
“Our plan for achieving our net-zero goal is focused on making the most of our natural resources.
Large parts of the UK that are currently used for grazing livestock, are not suitable for growing arable crops. If that land loses its value as farming land, the only financial return will be from development and I’m pretty sure that concreting over it will not help to keep temperatures from rising.
The UK’s PM’s attitude on climate change is undeterminable
Extracts from DESMOGUK:
In December 2015, following the signing of the Paris Agreement, Johnson wrote a column for the Daily Telegraph praising the work of notorious climate science denier and brother of the Labour leader, Piers Corbyn, who he called a “great physicist and meteorologist.”
“In the view of Piers and his colleagues at WeatherAction,” he wrote, “it is all about sun spots,” adding: “Whatever is happening to the weather at the moment, he said, it is nothing to do with the conventional doctrine of climate change.”
Johnson’s position has apparently changed since then, though, having recently come out in support of a 2050 “net zero” emissions target.
And during his stint as Foreign Secretary, he said he would “continue to lobby the U.S. at all levels to continue to take climate change extremely seriously.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/11/farm-unions-accuses-media-of-inflating-ipcc-report/
He’s just a moron. No point in analyzing moron behavior over time. All that you’ll find is that it’s consistently moronic.
For ‘moron’ read ‘politician’……
Vuk, you seriously go to the smegheads at DeSmegUK to find out about anything? Piers Corbyn IMHO is a charlatan and a cockney “barra boy” but not “climate science denier” and no more a charlatan than the prominent members IPCC gang.
There is as much evidence that it is sunspots as there is that it is CO2, ie very little.
Bojo will say whatever he thinks will help him gain and retain power. He knows he will have played his game long before 2050 comes around.
However, it is disappointing that NFU apparently think they have to play along with ” zero-carbon ” BS. They should be pointing out that UK dairy does not go into the kind disgusting intensive “farming” methods used on cattle in the USA and Australia, where animals are penned in without even the space to turn around.
Greg…. as an Australian livestock producer, I have to ask you what the hell you are smoking to claim that cattle in feedlots “don’t even have room to turn round”.
Use your head instead of being gullible. Livestock grow faster, produce more and convert fodder more efficiently if they are comfortable and unstressed. That includes room to move, access food and water, socialise…..
We are not short of land. There is no reason to pen stock as tightly as you claim, even if it was not AGAINST THE REGULATIONS.
Like I said, think it through.
Like you said PeterW, Greg clearly does not have a clue. You can’t do feedlots with cattle like you can pigs and chickens.
I think he is thinking of “veal pens” in certain countries.
Penned in? In Australia? What are you smokin? You obviously haven’t been to Australia.
Greg, not even the space to turn around:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cow+barn&oq=cow+barn&aqs=chrome.
Bist du irre oder was?
More to the point, much land is suitable only for undulates AND the land must have undulates to be sustainably maintained. Especially true of the US western grazing lands. Western lands converted to grain would exhaust all available water supply in short order
Ungulates…
Given the number of earthquakes in the west, undulates might be the right word.
In the Southwest deserts, wheat and Johnson grass are grown and harvested several times during a single growing season, usually around or near by cattle feedlots. The wheat can only be fed to cattle so as not to impact the regular wheat markets.
Any grains fed to cattle would usually be of unsuitable varieties or quality for human consumption for any number of reasons – weather, uneven ripeness caused by uneven germination, drought, hail.
It’s always annoying to see the ignorant connection in media between ‘hungry human’ in one place and livestock eating something unfit for humans in another.
Saving the climate? NIMFY -Not In My Farm Yard /sarc
Climate will be fine. Time for ‘progressives’ to stop breathing out ‘ polluting ‘ CO2.
We had the exact same ‘implied’ view in our media in New Zealand.
Go figure.
Worse, I think it may even be central to some of the govt policy goals.
SIGH!!!!
and your ultra green pm will support ruining your dairy and meat industries, shes already stuffed and oil/gas development.
seing as your largest dairy co fonterra is heavily involved in massive setups in China and exports huge amounts of powdered milk/baby formulas etc it will be interesting to see how they respond.
theres many many billions involved yearly.
Don’t worry ozspeaksup.
We New Zealand farmers a very concerned with what is happening .
A UN report titled Climate Change and Land is probably our best tool to push back on what the greens are trying to do to farming in New Zealand .
It states that better land management and dietary changes are needed .
BUT it states “Land must remain productive to maintain food security as the population increases and the negative impact on vegetation increases ”
Farmers have to keep producing food for a growing world population .
New Zealand exports food to feed 45 million people in other countries .
There will only be one group to blame when food supplies become short .
The politicians .
The government are going through the motions of hearing submissions on their Zero Carbon Bill.
It will be an exercise in futility as they want to start taxing farmers for methane emissions from livestock in 2025.
This will be done at the Dairy companies and the Meat works .
It has been calculated that our green house gas emissions from our livestock farming are some of the lowest in the world per unit produced .
The only real gains that can be made are by reducing output and then other countries meat and dairy products will replace what we are not producing .
That would mean that world wide emissions would increase .
We have to get through these politicians heads that virtual signalling doe’s not feed hungry people.
The irony of it all is that methane from livestock is a NON problem and has been pushed by activists in the UN
Graham
It is the same in all Western countries (like New Zealand). The left-leaning red-green bubble simply hates economical and effective production. As the number of farmers per capita has decreased, people rarely know about tge realities of food production. These red-green (green from outside, red inside) people babble on about ‘natural’ and ‘ecological’, hate big companies and want to get rid of production in their home country.
These are the same prople who want a recession to oust Trump.
Farming is not needed by these people. They think they can buy their food in any case.
“…people rarely know about the realities of food production”
Most people think food comes from supermarkets.
The same people tend to think money comes out of the wall.
President Trump is just about the only politician who has, in any way, stood up to the green machine.
I think our only hope is massive public discontent with the pain and chaos created by failed green policies. We had that in the latest Ontario (Canada) election where electricity rates were a major factor leading to the defeat of the incumbent Liberal party.
commieBob
August 11, 2019 at 3:02 am
President Trump is just about the only politician who has, in any way, stood up to the green machine.
Please do not forget Václav Klaus who served as the second President of the Czech Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Klaus#Climate_change_scepticism
“I think our only hope is massive public discontent with the pain and chaos created by failed green policies.” You may be right but they seem to find new ones to replace the old ones hence our only hope is for them to run out of new policy options. And just when you think they can’t come up with anything more stupid they do. However the “Green New Deal” sure seems to have hit nerves across party lines so the end (in that sense) may be near.
How does one make a net-zero carbon cow?
The concepts and terminologies of modern spokespersons have become quite strange.
Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington
Nail firmly on the head mate.
The concept of Net Zero is utterly meaningless. No one will stop producing, building or farming anything; it’s just that accountants will be paid much more money to find ways to tax people more and the government will fiddle with the numbers to show how well we’ve all done.
The MSM will continue to
exaggeratedownright lie about climate change in order to sell copy because on every other subject they conjure up, no one is interested in buying or advertising in their left wing rags.Governments will continue to game the entire system and use climate change as an excuse to impose more of it’s authority, tax us all into penury, and add more departments and QUANGO’s.
The UN will continue to use climate change, warming or cooling, to achieve it’s ambition of global governance.
They will collectively lie, cheat, abuse the poverty stricken whilst the whole lot of them will continue to jet around the world to their frequent jollies where they indulge in any number of illegal/immoral practices whilst away from their spouses and families. I have been to lots of jollies and I promise, they are like swingers conventions with old businessmen leching over younger woman and using their influence to get them into bed. I’m no prude but I had more respect for my wife and family.
Climate change is nothing more than a power grab by the wealthy ‘elite’.
“lie, cheat, abuse the poverty stricken”
Extraordinary claims usually require extraordinary evidence.
Nothing extraordinary about the claim. It’s common knowledge.
“Extraordinary claims usually require extraordinary evidence.”
Absolutely. Like the evidence-free claim that we’re undergoing a climate crisis.
Loydo
They lie by not telling the public that atmospheric CO2 has never been empirically demonstrated to cause warming.
They cheat by disseminating entirely false information via an entirely left wing MSM that the world has a climate crisis.
They abuse the poverty stricken by, for example, the world bank not distributing loans to Africa to build fossil fuelled power stations but instead handing the money to China.
WTF are you smoking?
I guess if there was any evidence you’d post a link to it. Alas not.
Loydo, you wouldn’t read it anyway. If you were interested you would have found it yourself. So what?
Precisely the point- where oh where is any evidence of a climate crisis? I see breathtaking hypocrisy by warmists, the repeated use of the word “science” with no actual replicable science, a long long long record of failed predictions….enough with the climate lies!
You forgot cows also need to methane neutral. LOL
Talk about “inflated” fake news.
One spokesperson (a cattle-owner) says within some “part” of the media – which could mean The Daily Vegan for all we know. Over at the GWPF amplifier that becomes:”Farm unions (plural) accuses media of “inflating” IPCC report”
Here it gets a little extra juice and a tweak and morphs into:
British Farmers Accuse News Media Of Climate Alarmism.
“News Media”? Evidence please.
Next it will be “Trump saves farmers from socialist, human-hating IPCC.”
Fake news all the way down the rabbit hole.
The truth is that over-consumption of meat, particulalry beef and lamb in the industrialised west, is a major contributor to abrupt and irreversible climate change. Shame.
“Trump saves farmers from socialist, human-hating IPCC.”
Somebody has to.
“The truth is that over-consumption of meat, particulalry beef and lamb in the industrialised west, is a major contributor to abrupt and irreversible climate change.”
If you do happen to see some “abrupt and irreversible climate change” please do let us know, won’t you?
“If you do happen to see some “abrupt and irreversible climate change” please do let us know, won’t you?”
Yeah. Loydo talks like he can see it happening or something. He should probably define “aburpt” in this context, and it would help if he could point to one instance in the past (or present!) where the climate went into an irreversible change.
And look up the defintion of hyperbole.
Talk about extraordinary claims without evidence, see above.
“…over-consumption of meat…”
Not defined. This causes that when ‘this’ is not defined. Your statement fails.
The, “over-consumption of meat” is a value judgment. And you should sell it to people who are trying climb out of poverty and be able to afford beef. I would imagine your values would not allow to help them do that. Here’s money, but don’t raise cattle with it.
Do you have something that means something and can be either true or false?
Loydo .
You are making me angry with your slander .This is not the truth Loydo .Methane from livestock is cyclic . A non problem.
Methane from livestock is a con job dreamed up by activists in the UN ,
The liberal media publishes straight out lies about climate change every day .
Most countries have pasture land which is not suitable for cultivation .
Animals have been grazing pastures for ever and global methane levels were not a problem .
The slow rise in methane levels is nothing to do with livestock .
If you must blame some thing then blame coal mining and oil and gas extraction and pipelines.
Energy production and use emits 110 GT and live stock are estimated to emit 90 GT per year .
The majority of the energy emissions are fugitive emissions that can be captured and if a small percentage was captured methane levels would fall .
The other fact is that all the energy emissions come from carbon that has been locked up for millions of years .
Methane from livestock is cyclic and as methane breaks down in the atmosphere into CO2 and water vapour it is then absorbed in forage .
The same carbon atoms could be counted 5 or 6 times over 50 years.
Do the news media tell you these facts Loydo?
No that would be just to simple and they would have to stop bashing farmers .
I have sent this to our news agency Stuff and as its stuffed and they refuse to publish any thing that doe’s not fit there line of thought .
Graham
The USA EPA will soon propose NSPS OOOOb, regulations to reduce harmful emissions from all animals and humans. They plan on addressing cows first, requiring BGVRU’s (bovine gas vapor recovery units) which are to be fitted on the intake and exhaust ports. These solar powered units will convert the CO2, SOx and volatile organic compounds directly to fertilizer for the marijuana industry. The cost benefit will show that the transfer payments from the farmers to the snack food industry will be completely offset, making the net cost to the taxpayers zero.
Since humans don’t emit CO2, SLWRU’s (solid/liquid waste recovery units) will be mandatory. Each human will be fitted with portable units which will ferment the waste directly into alcohol, which is then reintroduced to the human, who will remain blitzed 24/7 and won’t really care. The cost benefit analysis is currently being performed. However the drastic increase in liver issues will be partially offset by the drop in car accidents by those too drunk to find their keys.
Details to follow but but essential elements are available for comment in the Green New Deal.
Cows are naturally a Carbon net-zero. When cows (or any animal) eat plants to supply them selves with nutrition, they speed up the rotting process of hay and grass which dies every winter anyway and rots on the ground (like the leaves that fall off the trees) and turns into methane regardless if it is eaten or not.
Letting plants (food) rot uneaten is a waste of resources.
“Cows are naturally a Carbon net-zero.”
Yes, didn’t we have a study published here on WUWT saying this a couple of months ago?
Keep in mind that biomass not eaten by a cow would mostly decompose into CO2, not CH4. Nonetheless, this is still carbon neutral.
The unintended consequence of this folly is that without livestock creating methane, there would be no manure to fertilize the vegetables that are supposed to replace meat.
To paraphrase Pink Floyd:
“If you don’t eat yer meat, you can’t have any vegetables. How can you have any vegetables if you don’t eat yer meat?””
Easy. Eat it. That’s some really delicious “carbon”.
It’s a process of creative accounting. Like burning wood chips in DRAX as opposed to coal even though that chips are shipped across 3000+ miles or more of ocean they are considered renewable and therefore are not counted in emissions data!
The media misrepresentation of the IPCC report is led by that well-known liar at the BBC, Cardinal Roger Harrabin – BBC enforcer-in-chief of the “climate change scam”.
See: https://www.thegwpf.com/charles-moore-meet-the-bbcs-anti-meat-activist-his-eco-zealots/
So going green and saving the planet means, no fossil fuels no meat, redistribution of the wealth from fossil fuels, and protecting the land?! I still haven’t read/heard one single solid explanation as to what’s causing the weather to be off? I’ve read its the solar cycle causing the jet streams to back themselves up with pressure, the south Atlantic alimony, the earth magnetic flip…. It would be so nice to have a large panel of Respected scientists to tell us not to worry as: Etc etc is causing the funny weather and not CO2…
Sunny … 3:24 am…I still haven’t read/heard one single solid explanation as to what’s causing the weather to be off?
The weather isn’t off. Stop believing media bullshit.
The real truth is that there is no ‘funny’ weather. All is within the norm of the last 10.000 years. Before that we had an ice age so go figure.
Small comment from a geologist, Jeroen, we are in an Ice Age and have been for around five million years. There are interglacial phases and intraglacial phases, and we are currently nearing the end of an intraglacial. Enjoy the weather while you can because any time now we could slide into the next glacial phase. The glacial phases have names, and I’m wondering if the next will be “Dramatic End Of Green Nonsense” glacial phase? Or?
“any time now”
No. Minimum 1500 years but more likely postponed indefinitely.
On a geological scale, that’s right around the corner.
PS: You sound like you would be disappointed if the next ice age were to be delayed.
Loydo,
the planet has been sliding towards the next glaciation phase for around 3250 years now. The long term cooling trend is dominant and has been for that time frame. This modern warming period is actually on time and nearly over, as the last few 300+ years warming phases started with the Minoan warm period, but the cooling intervals in between have greatly deepened, which is why see this in the Ice Core data:
https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01287656565a970c-800wi
“No. Minimum 1500 years but more likely postponed indefinitely.”
Loydo, any extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim? Even if so, it’s definitely a good thing.
“Minimum 1500 years but more likely postponed indefinitely.”
I don’t know whether to be appalled at your monumental hubris, or pleasantly relieved at such a fortuitous turn of events.
I’m in a good mood today, so I’ll go with pleasantly relieved.
““any time now”
No. Minimum 1500 years”
Well, now we know Loydo’s definition of “abrupt”.
The estimates I see when I google it range from 1500 to 50,000 years. But research now indicates the opposite is occuring and that we’re going to see a rise of between 3 and 6C.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page5.php
Thats puts us back in the Eocene – so no more Quaternary to worry about.
The rearing of cattle-and other farm animals-has been an integral part of human culture for THOUSANDS of years; these idiots haven’t a clue!
“Our plan for achieving our net-zero goal is focused on making the most of our natural resources.”
There is noting worse than a bunch of non elected bureaucrats telling us what to do. In the case of GHG emissions from living creatures there is also a big inconsistency in the messages. On one hand the UN claim that emissions from humans exhaling or farting are not a problem because we are part of the carbon cycle. But then they take the opposite view for farm animals, but offer no explanation as to why there is a difference. Also, humans produce methane only by eating vegan, but none if we eat only meat, meaning all you do is shift the methane emission source from cows to humans by legislating veganism. This policy makes no sense, like all other green socialist ideas !!!
Hitler and the Third Reich were very found of organic farming. Such are actually the origins of “biodynamic” cutures, those supposed to preserve the earth from being polluted by the food requirements of “untermenschen”.
Today elitist extremist movements of both far right supremacy and left ecology actively endorse and lobby vegan lifestyles.
Whatever follows has been already history.
I dont believe or have any trust in the corrupted green movement the agw scam or the vegan vego crowd/mobs,
but do believe in non chem biodynamic and no GMO
I also believe in tilling the soil for weed control after heavy grazing and burning off at least 2 yearly
and allowing a fallow year.
I wont allow or use any weed poisons on any land i own or toxic drenches on my animals
its funny how less crowded stressed and naturally grazed animals with good mineralisation supplied just dont seemto have the issues factory farmed ones do.
and if they do have issues they tend to go find the plants they need to treat it themselves
ie my sheep only eat wormwood at certain times for self worming, ditto my hens, my dogs get a rub over with a branch and dont have flea issues or mosquito annoyance.
Id love to use heavy horses for farm work but dont have the money to buy the horses the harness equipment or the land for them to graze either. and Im getting older,physical limits now apply;-(
Heavy horses for farming ? I’m quite not sure what the point of view of the horses would be. Fire-up the good old reliable massey-ferguson and get the job done 😉
I mean, imagine if we had domesticated dinosaures. Like 40 tons of pure work power. Now you’re talking 😉
Horse riding ? Nah, nothing beats a saddle on a 36ft wingspan pterosaur.
However since such useful animals are unaccounted for, we have machines and brains to use them.
The only problem with riding a pterosaur, is that it might decide to have you for a mid-flight snack.
Each to their own. If you don’t want to take advantage of the benefits of modern chemistry, nobody’s going to stop you. Just don’t pretend to be righteous or that you are doing anybody any favors.
If it feels good and it’s your land, go for it.
Just be aware that organic farming systems applied to broad-scale agriculture typically reduce yields by 30%. Apply that world-wide and tell us how we are going to feed the current population.
As 97% of Australian cattle and sheep are grazing pastures at any one time, and the majority of those are in EXTENSIVE grazing conditions, there is no reason to bang on about crowding or lack of room to move.
The other side of the coin is that cattle and sheep don’t share some philosophy about “proper” farming. They care about food,water, shelter and absence of predators. Every professional farmer knows that livestock which have their needs met are healthier, more productive and MORE PROFITABLE, but they don’t care whether their pasture was fertilised “ organically” or not….. as long as there is enough and it tastes good.
Yet, there is still the acceptance of the ”necessity to reduce Carbon emissions” . As long as farmers subscribe to the Con, they will continue to be slave to it.
Eamon
The whole climate change story, propaganda plan reminds me of some hidden physicological agenda that we experienced during the 2nd World War. Both involve flexing of power, control, oppression, humiliating and crushing opponents, though in different forms. It is a shame that it is continuing for so long even when we are in the 21st century. Some very strong movements are required similar to how Hitler was stopped.
Many people who value morality and science are very eagerly looking forward to that great day.
Yes, it’s a pity that the farmers have been brainwashed to believe in zero ‘carbon’ fiction .
link: https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/07/23/boris-johnson-where-does-uk-s-next-prime-minister-stand-climate-change
announced: death of proof-reading
“Minette Batters said…”
Well she would wouldn’t she, she owns a hundred cows.
“within some part of the media”
Which part?
Once again, Loydo leaps to the ad hominem rather than actually deal with the issues.
RE: Well she would wouldn’t she, she owns a hundred cows.
Which means she producing food and co-products for a few thousand people, probably providing employment for several ranch hands, and adding more than her share to the national GDP. What exactly do you produce, Loydo, besides poorly thought out comments and inaccurate, unsupportable claims?
As usual, Loydo defaults to the belief that defending yourself proves your guilt.
Obviously she is a witch and should be burnt. She says she isn’t, so she must be….
Net zero carbon emissions…..
Great! So all the plants get to experience a prolonged famine now.
Fantastic policy! Wonderful! Amazing!
/sarc
The group that believes ranchers and farmers (dairy and the like) are the scourge of the planet because they raise animals for consumption, have they not thought about what starvation to their veggie gardens is going to do to them? Oh wait, that would require looking past their own noses….my mistake! Sorry (not sorry).
I still haven’t figured out why CO2 is still listed as a pollutant, a gas that causes life to flourish is a pollutant? A gas that becomes more abundant as the earth warms is a pollutant?
So far this summer we’ve had one day where it reached 101F for three hours and a week later it is 50F at night / 85F day again.
What proportion of those claiming that meat consumption represents a serious threat to mankind has made insect protein an important part of their diet?
Exactly.
As a politician who is rational and who does not hold risible views on climate change AND who is not afraid to say it out loud, check Maxime Bernier’s agenda for his new PPC party in Canada. A politician who is not afraid to say what he thinks.
The international airline industry through ICAO (Intl. Civil Aviation Org., part of UN) has pledged to halve their GHG emissions by 2050. (https://www.newser.com/story/69983/airlines-pledge-to-halve-emissions-by-2050.html) This is essentially unachievable as they also expect to double travel by 2040. They claim that renewable fuels can provide the needed low carbon intensity fuel needed flor flight, but that is both nearly impossible to do with existing biomass resources and incredibly expensive as a 1000 bbl/day biomass to jet fuel plant can cost $600 million to develop and build. And just to meet expected growth, they will need 2 Million bbl/day of renewable near zero carbon emissions fuel to meet their goal. Cost, $600 billion. But they (the airlines) want to pay exist pricing for fuel (<$1.80/gal DOE EIA Spot Price) for fuel that costs 3-5X that to produce.
So my conclusion is that the airlines have made promises they have no intention of keeping so the goal must be to placate EcoNuts and NGO's that want to shut airlines down (as they do the oil industry in general).
At least in the U.S. mid and high level government officials and employees travel an extraordinary amount on “business.”
I would propose that governments lead the way by example and reduce their own air travel by something modest, likely 5-10%/year. And prohibit government employees from earning frequent flyer miles and any other loyalty benefits for official government business.
I assume in those calculations, the fact that to grow 1 calorie of food requires 20 calories of energy input, has been skated over? Would it make sense to burn 20 calories of bio fuel to make 1 calorie of aircraft biofuel? Sounds very governmental.
ICAO, the “Madam” of the skies is in a very difficult position. Between hammer and anvil.
On one side, the industry has to fly you safely. On the other, it has to fly you cheaply. The balance is delicate as a sudden flood of taxes will impact maintenance budgets. Which is scarier than you might think of.
Single engine taxiing, almost universal APU ban on ground, delayed flaps approaches, a full set of headaches are already common practice.
But there’s worse. Can the grounded MAX fleet be fixed and resume safe operation ?
Big fat no.
This airframe is a textbook demonstration of what happens when fuel savings prime safety.
Very high bypass engines and thin airfoils have achieved an airframe that is both stall-prone and stall-intolerant. And the MAX is not the only affected type. Wait and see.
Therefore a suicidal stall prevention system to hide the dirty little secret that once stalled, such a combination of engines and airfoils is extremely hard to (if ever) recover, even more so at takeoff or steep climb.
So “Madam” ICAO has adopted the only viable position: -Wait until the green worldwide hegemony implodes under it’s own load of bravo-sierra or, until the world evolves to a situation where civil aviation becomes useless.
They could use airships. You could put a lot of solar panels on top of the gas bag.
The IPCC inflates the effect of man’s CO2 emissions on the temperature, then inflates the effects increased temperature will have on the planet and then further inflates the impact the changes to the planet will have on man.
Inflating the influence of CO2 emissions is all the alarmists have to support their position, so why is anyone surprised when a politically biased media further inflates what the IPCC chooses to report? I’d be far more surprised if the media presented a balanced and truthful view of climate science.
So much insanity from townies who think the countryside is a fun weekend playground, and have no idea what food production really is.
Firstly, there used to be a thing called the “Stock Reduction Fund”, which was an EU initiative to reduce the amount of livestock in the UK. The big foot&mouth epidemic paid compensation from this fund. Leaving the eu is going to be intetesting, as farmers will be able to produce food they think will be commercially successful, as opposed to producing food that doesn’t impinge on French and German producers.
Next thought – the UK countryside – all of it – has been managed by humans for the last 1,500 years, or more if you want to consider the pre-roman Celtic civilization. Taking animals away from the landscape will have huge, monumental impacts on how townies can walk their dogs at the weekend. Probably detrimentally. Farmers are already paid to not produce food (set-asside) – will this extend to them becoming park keepers? Farmers cutting grass and mowing lawns to replicate the work that ruminants would have done, for the benefit of idiots like Janet Street Porter and their perennial “Right to Roam”? Will that be carbon neutral?
Whenever government gets involved with production you get inconsistencies, malinvestment and bizarre outcomes. This should be fun to watch.
Yet you prefer a mega-bureaucratic government in Brussels? Puzzling.
Cows do not harm the climate and the cattle farmers should be getting paid a subsidy by the Alarmists for raising them.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/30/methane-warming-exaggerated-by-400/
“Not only are steady-state cattle herds climatically harmless, but they have the opportunity to help out the motorists and jet-setters. Professor Allen says in a further speech that if New Zealand reduced methane emissions by 30% over the next 30 years, that would actually contribute to global cooling:
“If a farmer is providing a service to the rest of the country by compensating for other people’s global warming, then that farmer might want to make a case that they should be compensated for that.”
end excerpt
Bjorn Lomborg takes down the report:
“Vegetarianism as Climate Virtue Signaling: First World solipsism misses the point of a new U.N. report.” By Bjorn Lomborg on Aug. 8, 2019
https://www.wsj.com/articles/vegetarianism-as-climate-virtue-signaling-11565301932
Excerpts:
pundits are fixating on the supposed need for people in rich countries to change their dining habits radically. This is an ineffective and unachievable policy response. It relies on a 2016 paper that finds if the entire world switched to a vegan diet, giving up dairy and eggs as well as meat—what the U.N. calls the “most extreme scenario”—food-related greenhouse-gas emissions could be cut by up to 70%. This sounds more impressive than it is: Only a seventh of all emissions are food-related. Besides, the estimate also assumes that “people consume just enough calories to maintain a healthy body weight.”
Rather than false hopes about dietary change, the focus should be on improving agricultural practices. First, organic food is bad for sustainability. A 2017 paper found organic farming takes 70% more land on average to produce the same amount of produce as conventional methods.
Second, agricultural yields must increase. The Green Revolution of the 1970s spread fertilizers and modern practices, making a lasting difference in Asia and South America. A second Green Revolution is needed to make agriculture even more efficient.
This means more spending on agricultural research and development … Copenhagen Consensus research estimates that increasing research spending by $8 billion a year would increase crop yields annually by an additional 0.4%. … it would improve food security, reduce prices, and achieve social good worth more than $30 for every dollar invested.
Focusing only on vegetarianism is more about virtue signaling than improving the food system. Instead of shaming people for eating hamburgers, let’s ramp up agricultural R&D.
Good comments by Bjorn Lomborg.
I further suggest that more research should be devoted to frost-resistant crops, because I predicted (in 2002) that climate is about to get colder. While the average temperature may not drop much, the advent of early killer frosts will have a significant negative impact on global crop yields.
We experienced this global cooling from ~1945 to 1977, even as fossil fuel combustion accelerated, and grain crop failures were much more common, especially in Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/21/business/soviet-grain-crop-one-more-failure.html
Don’t need more R & D!
Need more education and incentive schemes for farmers to change practices.
Need strict monitoring of schemes to ensure corruption doesn’t take the money first.
Improving/changing traditional methods will do much more at less cost.
Lomborg is your typical academic with minimal practical knowledge.
Warren – your comments need to be supported by facts – your opinions are completely unsupported.
Re Lomborg – he is dead wrong about his stated belief in global warming alarmism – but after that he makes practical and economic sense – saying that there are much more pressing problems to spend our money on now.
Do you really want to significantly reduce energy waste and society’s carbon footprint?
Then downsize governments to one-fifth of their current uber-bloated levels.
It is now obvious to every sensible person that governments have intruded into every aspect of society, and ~every time they have done so they have caused much more harm than good.
Most politicians are uneducated dolts, and so are their civil servants. All they do well is make their departments more and more bloated and inefficient, and increase the cost of everything they touch – because that is in their self-interest..
I suggest that we could reduce the cost of living by ~half if we just put these government clowns on the shelf – and leave them there.
“This would only export our production to countries which may not have the same standards of environmental protection.”
Change that to “not have the same substandard, agenda science powered by advocacy groups and politicos.”
Has anyone seen this published Chinese story on Global Cooling and climate change over the last 4,000 years?
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3022136/china-scientists-warn-global-cooling-trick-natures-sleeve
Do we have to exterminate wild ruminants or do they produce “good” methane?
“Do we have to exterminate wild ruminants?”
There is no sacrifice too great to allow the glitteratti to indulge themselves in their private jets and their $400 million dollar yachts.
We must be even-handed – we cannot play favorites.
Rhinos, giraffes, herds of elephants, antelope and buffalo – they all fart and they all gotta go!
National Farmers’ Union president Minette Batters has accused the British media of “inflating” the findings of a report by published this week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). –>
National Farmers’ Union president Minette Batters has accused the British media of “inflating” the findings of a report published this week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).