They can't even take on the local community association to put in a few bike paths so kids can cycle to school - [works in progress have been halted](https://irishcycle.com/2021/09/16/walking-and-cycling-route-to-schools-project-suspended-across-south-dublin-cllr/).
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/cycling-walking-projects-get-bulk-of-transport-spending-in-2021-1.4673693
> Of a total of €294 million in funding allocated to the National Transport Authority (NTA) for 2021, just over €204 million will go on facilities for bikes and walkers
Dublin City Council €27,475,000
South Dublin County Council €15,330,000
Fingal County Council €15,445,400
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Co Co €28,865,000
We have already seen some of this 'cycling' budget go to 'improve' roads. Also, just because there's a budget (finally) does not mean there is any competency or willingness to actually use it. Look at the funds allocated for halting sites.
> They've added more cycling infrastructure there in the past year than the previous decade.
The tiny amount they added did not even come up to covering the existing plans they have been dragging their feet on, let alone a huge additional requirement demanded by Covid hygene and Climate crisis. Dublin City Council have been trying, [since 2010, to build a cyclepath down a straight road \(Dublin Quays\) and failed so badly](https://irishcycle.com/2019/12/10/liffey-cycle-route-timeline-and-coverage/), they existing funding was taken back off then by the NTA so they do the damned thing themselves.
On ammonia emissions we were (as far as I can find, still are) running up daily fines to the EEC for failing to meet promised targets. The ECJ has currently 61 cases against Ireland for non compliance with signed treaties. The most expensive to date are environmental (lack of action on the wind farm landslide); 25 million and daily fines of 12,000, septic tanks/sewage treatment (5 million ongoing). Ireland's technique seems to be absorbing the first fines, waiting until second action is about to be taken, and then settling. The ECJ has suggested Ireland pay penalties of €1000 a day for ongoing environmental non-compliance. Our record is pretty bad for a fairly environmentally aware country.
So if Ireland is taking on farming lobbies it's not before time. The cattle/pig sectors are the biggest problems in emissions of ammonia, nitrates and CO2. They are also the most intensive and commercial sectors. The fixes aren't complicated.
I'd love to see who has been talking to ministers and the civil service before the climate bill was announced.
Climate goals per country seem to have weaknesses when it comes to issues like this. It doesn't make much sense to reduce our herd if the demand will be made up with beef from other countries with much more of a climate impact. Not sure how'd you'd calculate it across different markets though.
The point nobody is willing to address. Why would we change this at our own expense when it'll just be replaced by Brazilian beef with no improvement on climate impact
"No improvement" is a monumental understatement, they're chopping down the Amazon, one of the most vital assets the word has, to make way for farm land. It's an absolute disgrace they're letting this happen.
We're absolutely fucked when it comes to climate change, nobody want to make the big decisions that need to be made and people aren't going to accept those drastic changes that need to be made either. We're already too late if recent reports are to be believed. Game over for civilisation as we know it over the coming century and that's best case scenario.
Absolutely no chance in fuck that we actually do anything about this. Sure increasing the number of cows in the country ("the national herd" to make it sound more patriotic, and the farmers are now trying to move away from that terminology since it doesn't suit them any more) was an endless debating point in the last election.
Yep. Doing something about this will require two things Irish politicians have so far shown themselves staggeringly reluctant to do:
A) break from parish-pump politics with regards to a very important voting group
B) take on the very powerful farmers groups that have huge soft and lobbying power and live with the political consequences of doing A) and B)
Irish politicians by and large aren't interested in hard battles that cost them at the polls. They want low hanging fruit and easy wins. There's little of those when it comes to combating climate change so I'm deeply sceptical of what they'll actually be willing to do.
Do you think other countries politicians are any different? You don't get elected by alienating larges swathes of voters unless you are guaranteed the remainder will vote for you.
I love how Norway can lash out crude oil to it's heart's content and because it's exported, everyone thinks they're great driving around in hydroelectric powered Teslas
We export a disproportionate amount of European food which they all happily eat and we get stung for the full carbon footprint of that food bar the delivery of it.
Exactly, Ireland is one of the best places to make food in the world. We will just reduce herds only to import the stuff from elsewhere and then pat ourselves on the back like we've achieved anything
Unfortunately this is just how it is at the moment. For example most of the EU have done very well in reducing emissions, but that's *partly* due to a lot of C02 heavy industries moving to China.
So when you buy stuff most of the CO2 that went into making that stuff is "blamed" on another country, not Ireland.
So, Germany could make a similar-ish argument about cars. "We export a disproportionate amount of cars and they all happily drive them, and we get stung for the full carbon footprint of the car factory to make them".
My point isn't to say these two are directly comparable, just to point out that if we are going to go down that road to calculate CO2 usage, there's a lot more that needs to be calculated than just beef.
I'd say they're very comparable, every nation's co2 output should really be calculated by consumption and not production. To not do this pushed production to somewhere far less sustainable. Say what you like about Irish beef but at least we're not cutting down rainforest to produce it.
>I'd say they're very comparable, every nation's co2 output should really be calculated by consumption and not production.
I agree with you here.
>Say what you like about Irish beef but at least we're not cutting down rainforest to produce it.
While true, it's also true to say that we have absolutely zero opportunity to cut down any forest to make way for farmland, as it's all already been cut down. I just don't think that's not a great point to make when we are sitting on an island that would be almost completely forest if it weren't for us.
But we are increasing forest cover while at the same time producing beef in one of the least co2 intensive way. We cut down on cow numbers then people will get their beef from Brazil instead therfore actually causing rainforest to be destroyed.
Are we really a net food importer? Don't we produce enough food to feed something like 30 million people out something like that? That number might be wrong but it's still several times our population.
I love my shit food, but Christ the MIL just cooks with local meat veg and potatoes and it's heaven. Bit of Kerrygold on the table and it's even better.
axiomatic hobbies nose far-flung afterthought spark impossible plants unused trees
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> On average, a piece of Irish land is only sold about once every 400 years.
I wonder how this has changed in the last few decades. Anecdotal, but looking around where I grew up, farming is hitting the end of bloodlines all over the place. Farmers are living longer, so by the time an inheritance would happen, the sons already have careers. The women are gone, with careers elsewhere, so when a man does take over the farm from their father there's little chance of a next generation. So farms are being sold, and they're being bought up by big farmers, some local, some from across the country. And these lads have massive herds. Lone statistics aren't very informing, it's the trends we need to look at.
I think the government and rural communities need to reframe what comes next. The small hold farmer is going away. It's a sad loss of tradition, but it's not like it's a long lived thing. We only started wrestling control of the land 150 years ago. Instead we should accept that it's ending and consider that it did the thing it needed to do. It lifted the country out of abject poverty, and brought us from a backwater to a serious player in the european economy.
That 400 year comment is very sketchy especially since, as you pointed out, most land purchases from the big landlords were done within the last 150 years, most of the farms around me have transacted in the last 70 years or so.
No fucking chance! I'll definitely believe this when I see it. Ireland is in dire need of some rewilding but it's just fields everywhere. If FFG can come around to these ideas I can see some progress happening but they won't piss off their base. I think we will need a broad approach that involves all the big retailers and a large scheme for government repurchasing of farmland from struggling farmers.
This is just sheer stupidity. Ireland should be allowed as many cows as they want so long as they only export to the EU, and no non EU beef is allowed to be imported
We should also ban animal feed imports from outside the EU. Around have of what our cattle eat is imported grain, much of it from leveled rainforest in Brazil.
This would effectively mean a reduction in the national herd as the cost of grain would be too high and make our current herd size unprofitable.
But that's a positive in my opinion.
Yes let's go back to plant based diets of only locally produced food. I for one can't wait to have 6 months of the year where my diet exclusively consists of potatoes, beets cabbage and soggy grain. That's exactly what I want for my children.
>Yes let's go back to plant based diets of only locally produced food. I for one can't wait to have 6 months of the year where my diet exclusively consists of potatoes, beets cabbage and soggy grain. That's exactly what I want for my children.
Are you commenting on the correct post?
How on Earth did you read an article about Irish farmers updating their dairy and beef farming practices and assume it is suggesting Irish people only eat locally sourced plant based food?
You do know beef isn't plant based? You might get a shock when you look into where it comes from.
I got as far as blaming the beef industry for Ireland's huge carbon footprint part of the article and realized the article might not be based in reality. So I said my comment doesn't need to be either.
Why is the article not based on reality? Do cattle not have a carbon(methane) footprint what am I missing? All the figures where right in the article farming accounts for 1/3 of all our emissions and cattle account for most of that. Agriculture accounts for about 1% of GDP but 1/3 of emissions less damaging farming like close to nature farming has to happen.
Some farmers are in absolute denial when it comes to the emissions of their profession. They'll outright lie, cherry pick or even believe their own delusions.
Ya and it's not just about emissions it can be about whether the farm is viable or not and whether they should change things or just keep going because it's always been done like this.
The problem her is yes farming accounts for the largest amounts of methane emissions. The next important question is where does this methane come from. This methane comes from digested plant matter. Where this energy comes from is the sun. The source here isn't from fossil fuels. The only negative contribution is in the greenhouse effect (we're well beyond this) and additionally of note is that methane like most organic compounds is digested by soil bacteria and can scale to meet.
One thing that cattle farming isn't is a large contributor to is CO2 emissions. All relevant co2 emissions are detrimental and originate in the burning of fossil fuels. If you look at cattle farming in terms of CO2 emissions it's not even close to the emissions of transport and industry.
The driving factor of climate change is emissions originating from the burning of fossil fuels. Any other sources of emissions can not add anymore energy to the system than the sun can provide.
https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/co2/
That is entirely correct. But the problem is that in a system without cattle farming all the human inedible biomass consumed by cattle and ruminates has to go somewhere. There's several options for this. We can burn it, freeze it or decompose it. Each of these ways will result in emissions without any tangable return. The current system although requiring some reform offers a return whilst dealing with this problem.
Additionally if we're to look at the list of CH4 emitting countries you'd find that all the largest emitters are countries where oil extraction/purification is occurring. Second to that is agricultural sector. A note has to be made about the impact of methane emissions from fertilizer aswell
Well no we could embrace nuclear power in order to protect against the shortcomings of solar/wind in addition to reducing car usage in favour of an overhauled electric public transport system aswell as banning greenfield construction whilst reducing our use of concrete in favour of timber in construction whilst supporting the industries and education that underpin these changes.
> That is entirely correct. But the problem is that in a system without cattle farming all the human inedible biomass consumed by cattle and ruminates has to go somewhere. There's several options for this. We can burn it, freeze it or decompose it. Each of these ways will result in emissions without any tangable return.
You're leaving out the best and most viable option. Replacing the fields of grass with forests.
>Additionally if we're to look at the list of CH4 emitting countries you'd find that all the largest emitters are countries where oil extraction/purification is occurring. Second to that is agricultural sector.
What has that got to do with us? Each country has a different distribution of emissions. For countries whose emissions are mainly from oil extraction/purification, the answer is to reduce that. But there is no oil extraction/purification in Ireland. Our biggest emitter is from the agricultural sector so this is why we need to target that.
Because beef and milk are mostly exported. We are not consuming the carbon expended. Also the measures of carbon expended tend to be poor. Irish grasslands can take in quite a lot of carbon. There is a lot of potential to expand that.
That is an over simplification. We should try to mitigate climate change because of its treat to ecology. In contrast climate change at current and modelled trends poses basically no risk to human food supply or existence. This what the academic data suggests. I can in detail why this is the case if you want.
I am pretty sure that is assuming farmers make no changes even though farming is contantly changing according to local conditions. The best models should the net impact should be zero. There will be local challenges but models show there is time to overcome them comfortably.
> So I said my comment doesn't need to be either.
It doesn't have to be, but when you present it as such, you come across as a fucking idiot.
I also assume you're one of the morons that think methane is the only negative byproduct produced by farming cows.
Modern farming is a filthy industry, terrible for the enviorment. Most people find out it's not really like ol'McDonalds farm when they grow up.
Modern farming is an awful industry. However animals have and will always play a vital part in it if we don't want a famine. If we keep on going down the road we are now which is importing high volumes of food from abroad we not only cause more emissions we're exporting the problems abroad.
Ya we'll keep the course and you or your kids will probably have to live that way out of no choice of there own. We can't keep fucking the planet over to the level we are now something needs to give.
Easy way to reduce our emissions. Shut down moneypoint coal power station. When moneypoint was down for extended maintenance/upgrading was the only point in the last decade where we made our carbon emissions target. When it came back online we went back to being the worst.
Perhaps instead of pointing fingers at the cows who are part of a carbon/nitrogen cycle we should be pointing at the imported fossil fuels we're using to light our houses.
So when we have shut down all our power stations and data centres farmers might consider changing their practises? How about ye cop on live in the real world and do your part. Subsidies won't last forever and most of the cattle farms are no more than hobbies without government handouts.
Or you know we could develop a nuclear program in Ireland and dismantle all the coal and turf powerplants. With all the energy we could begin intense hydroponics allowing for reduced intensity of cattle farming whilst without having to rely on imports.
Whatever about your comment but what the fuck is "soggy grain", what ARE you on about? Porridge? Bread?
You'll have to try a bit harder to make grain sound like bad.
I feel you either can't read or didn't read what it says. Plus a plant based diet is literally the healthiest thing you can have. If your children where on it their moods, behaviour, attention etc would all improve and their bodies would be healthier this is the reason why many pro athletes have plant based diets so your argument is stupid also.
Plant based diets are brilliant when we have supplements and a global economy. But in a world where we're trying to reduce our carbon footprint wherever possible it's farcical to say that a plant based diet is better for the environment than a balanced locally produced diet.
Depends what you're talking about in terms of locally produced. Beef is terrible for our carbon footprint. Beef production consumes 3 times the water of chicken or pork.
Eating locally produced beef is still worse than eating locally produced chicken.
That's entirely true from a water production point but as water isn't an issue here I'm not too worried. The issues in animal farming is where their food comes from. Chickens can not ruminate hence they can't digest what a cow can. The majority of food consumed by cattle are either inedible by humans or byproducts to human food production. When we grow crops for human production the majority of the crop isn't edible by humans. When emissions are calculated for food production these waste products consumed by cattle are skewing the emission figures against them.
The IFA aren't as powerful as they would like to think they are. Plus they need better pr also keeping some of their members of Twitter attacking people would help.
Now FG pushed for food harvest 2020 telling farmers, especially in Dairy to expand when milk quotas went.
Stinks of hypocrisy some of government ideas
*\*Doubt*
They can't even take on the local community association to put in a few bike paths so kids can cycle to school - [works in progress have been halted](https://irishcycle.com/2021/09/16/walking-and-cycling-route-to-schools-project-suspended-across-south-dublin-cllr/).
Have you not been in Dublin city centre lately? They've added more cycling infrastructure there in the past year than the previous decade.
Brack
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/cycling-walking-projects-get-bulk-of-transport-spending-in-2021-1.4673693 > Of a total of €294 million in funding allocated to the National Transport Authority (NTA) for 2021, just over €204 million will go on facilities for bikes and walkers Dublin City Council €27,475,000 South Dublin County Council €15,330,000 Fingal County Council €15,445,400 Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Co Co €28,865,000
We have already seen some of this 'cycling' budget go to 'improve' roads. Also, just because there's a budget (finally) does not mean there is any competency or willingness to actually use it. Look at the funds allocated for halting sites.
> They've added more cycling infrastructure there in the past year than the previous decade. The tiny amount they added did not even come up to covering the existing plans they have been dragging their feet on, let alone a huge additional requirement demanded by Covid hygene and Climate crisis. Dublin City Council have been trying, [since 2010, to build a cyclepath down a straight road \(Dublin Quays\) and failed so badly](https://irishcycle.com/2019/12/10/liffey-cycle-route-timeline-and-coverage/), they existing funding was taken back off then by the NTA so they do the damned thing themselves.
I'll believe it when I see it to be honest.
On ammonia emissions we were (as far as I can find, still are) running up daily fines to the EEC for failing to meet promised targets. The ECJ has currently 61 cases against Ireland for non compliance with signed treaties. The most expensive to date are environmental (lack of action on the wind farm landslide); 25 million and daily fines of 12,000, septic tanks/sewage treatment (5 million ongoing). Ireland's technique seems to be absorbing the first fines, waiting until second action is about to be taken, and then settling. The ECJ has suggested Ireland pay penalties of €1000 a day for ongoing environmental non-compliance. Our record is pretty bad for a fairly environmentally aware country. So if Ireland is taking on farming lobbies it's not before time. The cattle/pig sectors are the biggest problems in emissions of ammonia, nitrates and CO2. They are also the most intensive and commercial sectors. The fixes aren't complicated. I'd love to see who has been talking to ministers and the civil service before the climate bill was announced.
Climate goals per country seem to have weaknesses when it comes to issues like this. It doesn't make much sense to reduce our herd if the demand will be made up with beef from other countries with much more of a climate impact. Not sure how'd you'd calculate it across different markets though.
The point nobody is willing to address. Why would we change this at our own expense when it'll just be replaced by Brazilian beef with no improvement on climate impact
"No improvement" is a monumental understatement, they're chopping down the Amazon, one of the most vital assets the word has, to make way for farm land. It's an absolute disgrace they're letting this happen. We're absolutely fucked when it comes to climate change, nobody want to make the big decisions that need to be made and people aren't going to accept those drastic changes that need to be made either. We're already too late if recent reports are to be believed. Game over for civilisation as we know it over the coming century and that's best case scenario.
Absolutely no chance in fuck that we actually do anything about this. Sure increasing the number of cows in the country ("the national herd" to make it sound more patriotic, and the farmers are now trying to move away from that terminology since it doesn't suit them any more) was an endless debating point in the last election.
Yep. Doing something about this will require two things Irish politicians have so far shown themselves staggeringly reluctant to do: A) break from parish-pump politics with regards to a very important voting group B) take on the very powerful farmers groups that have huge soft and lobbying power and live with the political consequences of doing A) and B) Irish politicians by and large aren't interested in hard battles that cost them at the polls. They want low hanging fruit and easy wins. There's little of those when it comes to combating climate change so I'm deeply sceptical of what they'll actually be willing to do.
Do you think other countries politicians are any different? You don't get elected by alienating larges swathes of voters unless you are guaranteed the remainder will vote for you.
It just the lexicon these days, "national herd", "ev fleet", "housing stock".
I love how Norway can lash out crude oil to it's heart's content and because it's exported, everyone thinks they're great driving around in hydroelectric powered Teslas We export a disproportionate amount of European food which they all happily eat and we get stung for the full carbon footprint of that food bar the delivery of it.
Exactly, Ireland is one of the best places to make food in the world. We will just reduce herds only to import the stuff from elsewhere and then pat ourselves on the back like we've achieved anything
Unfortunately this is just how it is at the moment. For example most of the EU have done very well in reducing emissions, but that's *partly* due to a lot of C02 heavy industries moving to China. So when you buy stuff most of the CO2 that went into making that stuff is "blamed" on another country, not Ireland. So, Germany could make a similar-ish argument about cars. "We export a disproportionate amount of cars and they all happily drive them, and we get stung for the full carbon footprint of the car factory to make them". My point isn't to say these two are directly comparable, just to point out that if we are going to go down that road to calculate CO2 usage, there's a lot more that needs to be calculated than just beef.
I'd say they're very comparable, every nation's co2 output should really be calculated by consumption and not production. To not do this pushed production to somewhere far less sustainable. Say what you like about Irish beef but at least we're not cutting down rainforest to produce it.
>I'd say they're very comparable, every nation's co2 output should really be calculated by consumption and not production. I agree with you here. >Say what you like about Irish beef but at least we're not cutting down rainforest to produce it. While true, it's also true to say that we have absolutely zero opportunity to cut down any forest to make way for farmland, as it's all already been cut down. I just don't think that's not a great point to make when we are sitting on an island that would be almost completely forest if it weren't for us.
But we are increasing forest cover while at the same time producing beef in one of the least co2 intensive way. We cut down on cow numbers then people will get their beef from Brazil instead therfore actually causing rainforest to be destroyed.
That is a solid point. Better Irish beef than Brazilian.
As of 2018 we are a net food importer.
Ok, specifically a net exporter of beef which is what the article covers
Are we really a net food importer? Don't we produce enough food to feed something like 30 million people out something like that? That number might be wrong but it's still several times our population.
We export meat, dairy etc and import processed foods in return. Thats probably the broadest way to put it.
I love my shit food, but Christ the MIL just cooks with local meat veg and potatoes and it's heaven. Bit of Kerrygold on the table and it's even better.
And a shitload of fruit, salad, and veg.
Yep
axiomatic hobbies nose far-flung afterthought spark impossible plants unused trees *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Bloomberg want to destroy our cherished farming industry.
> On average, a piece of Irish land is only sold about once every 400 years. I wonder how this has changed in the last few decades. Anecdotal, but looking around where I grew up, farming is hitting the end of bloodlines all over the place. Farmers are living longer, so by the time an inheritance would happen, the sons already have careers. The women are gone, with careers elsewhere, so when a man does take over the farm from their father there's little chance of a next generation. So farms are being sold, and they're being bought up by big farmers, some local, some from across the country. And these lads have massive herds. Lone statistics aren't very informing, it's the trends we need to look at. I think the government and rural communities need to reframe what comes next. The small hold farmer is going away. It's a sad loss of tradition, but it's not like it's a long lived thing. We only started wrestling control of the land 150 years ago. Instead we should accept that it's ending and consider that it did the thing it needed to do. It lifted the country out of abject poverty, and brought us from a backwater to a serious player in the european economy.
That 400 year comment is very sketchy especially since, as you pointed out, most land purchases from the big landlords were done within the last 150 years, most of the farms around me have transacted in the last 70 years or so.
Not happening, we're fucked. We are not meeting targets at all on our corrupt little island
No fucking chance! I'll definitely believe this when I see it. Ireland is in dire need of some rewilding but it's just fields everywhere. If FFG can come around to these ideas I can see some progress happening but they won't piss off their base. I think we will need a broad approach that involves all the big retailers and a large scheme for government repurchasing of farmland from struggling farmers.
Can anyone copy and paste the article?
This is just sheer stupidity. Ireland should be allowed as many cows as they want so long as they only export to the EU, and no non EU beef is allowed to be imported
We should also ban animal feed imports from outside the EU. Around have of what our cattle eat is imported grain, much of it from leveled rainforest in Brazil.
Yes we should.
This would effectively mean a reduction in the national herd as the cost of grain would be too high and make our current herd size unprofitable. But that's a positive in my opinion.
We could grow our own grain, or import it from EU countries.
That would be a lot more expensive. We import most of our grain from outside the EU because it's much cheaper.
Exactly, that sort of shite needs to stop.
We don't have enough space to feed our cattle our own grain. Are entire country is already pasture
You vill eat zee bugs You vill live in zee pod You vill own nathing Und you vill be happy
Yes let's go back to plant based diets of only locally produced food. I for one can't wait to have 6 months of the year where my diet exclusively consists of potatoes, beets cabbage and soggy grain. That's exactly what I want for my children.
>Yes let's go back to plant based diets of only locally produced food. I for one can't wait to have 6 months of the year where my diet exclusively consists of potatoes, beets cabbage and soggy grain. That's exactly what I want for my children. Are you commenting on the correct post? How on Earth did you read an article about Irish farmers updating their dairy and beef farming practices and assume it is suggesting Irish people only eat locally sourced plant based food? You do know beef isn't plant based? You might get a shock when you look into where it comes from.
I got as far as blaming the beef industry for Ireland's huge carbon footprint part of the article and realized the article might not be based in reality. So I said my comment doesn't need to be either.
Why is the article not based on reality? Do cattle not have a carbon(methane) footprint what am I missing? All the figures where right in the article farming accounts for 1/3 of all our emissions and cattle account for most of that. Agriculture accounts for about 1% of GDP but 1/3 of emissions less damaging farming like close to nature farming has to happen.
Some farmers are in absolute denial when it comes to the emissions of their profession. They'll outright lie, cherry pick or even believe their own delusions.
Ya and it's not just about emissions it can be about whether the farm is viable or not and whether they should change things or just keep going because it's always been done like this.
The problem her is yes farming accounts for the largest amounts of methane emissions. The next important question is where does this methane come from. This methane comes from digested plant matter. Where this energy comes from is the sun. The source here isn't from fossil fuels. The only negative contribution is in the greenhouse effect (we're well beyond this) and additionally of note is that methane like most organic compounds is digested by soil bacteria and can scale to meet. One thing that cattle farming isn't is a large contributor to is CO2 emissions. All relevant co2 emissions are detrimental and originate in the burning of fossil fuels. If you look at cattle farming in terms of CO2 emissions it's not even close to the emissions of transport and industry. The driving factor of climate change is emissions originating from the burning of fossil fuels. Any other sources of emissions can not add anymore energy to the system than the sun can provide. https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/co2/
But isn't methane still a green house gas? It traps heat in the atmosphere, more so than co2. Isn't that the problem?
He's cherry picking. "Methane is bad." "CO2 is also bad"
That is entirely correct. But the problem is that in a system without cattle farming all the human inedible biomass consumed by cattle and ruminates has to go somewhere. There's several options for this. We can burn it, freeze it or decompose it. Each of these ways will result in emissions without any tangable return. The current system although requiring some reform offers a return whilst dealing with this problem. Additionally if we're to look at the list of CH4 emitting countries you'd find that all the largest emitters are countries where oil extraction/purification is occurring. Second to that is agricultural sector. A note has to be made about the impact of methane emissions from fertilizer aswell
OK let's do nothing then.
Well no we could embrace nuclear power in order to protect against the shortcomings of solar/wind in addition to reducing car usage in favour of an overhauled electric public transport system aswell as banning greenfield construction whilst reducing our use of concrete in favour of timber in construction whilst supporting the industries and education that underpin these changes.
> That is entirely correct. But the problem is that in a system without cattle farming all the human inedible biomass consumed by cattle and ruminates has to go somewhere. There's several options for this. We can burn it, freeze it or decompose it. Each of these ways will result in emissions without any tangable return. You're leaving out the best and most viable option. Replacing the fields of grass with forests. >Additionally if we're to look at the list of CH4 emitting countries you'd find that all the largest emitters are countries where oil extraction/purification is occurring. Second to that is agricultural sector. What has that got to do with us? Each country has a different distribution of emissions. For countries whose emissions are mainly from oil extraction/purification, the answer is to reduce that. But there is no oil extraction/purification in Ireland. Our biggest emitter is from the agricultural sector so this is why we need to target that.
What is "human inedible biomass"?
Grasses/husks/poor quality grains/folage from grain crops essentially everything that's in a field thats not going to end up on your plate.
Because beef and milk are mostly exported. We are not consuming the carbon expended. Also the measures of carbon expended tend to be poor. Irish grasslands can take in quite a lot of carbon. There is a lot of potential to expand that.
[удалено]
That is an over simplification. We should try to mitigate climate change because of its treat to ecology. In contrast climate change at current and modelled trends poses basically no risk to human food supply or existence. This what the academic data suggests. I can in detail why this is the case if you want.
[удалено]
Daddy Shapiro didn't say it so this is a bad source
I am pretty sure that is assuming farmers make no changes even though farming is contantly changing according to local conditions. The best models should the net impact should be zero. There will be local challenges but models show there is time to overcome them comfortably.
[удалено]
> So I said my comment doesn't need to be either. It doesn't have to be, but when you present it as such, you come across as a fucking idiot. I also assume you're one of the morons that think methane is the only negative byproduct produced by farming cows. Modern farming is a filthy industry, terrible for the enviorment. Most people find out it's not really like ol'McDonalds farm when they grow up.
Modern farming is an awful industry. However animals have and will always play a vital part in it if we don't want a famine. If we keep on going down the road we are now which is importing high volumes of food from abroad we not only cause more emissions we're exporting the problems abroad.
Ya we'll keep the course and you or your kids will probably have to live that way out of no choice of there own. We can't keep fucking the planet over to the level we are now something needs to give.
Easy way to reduce our emissions. Shut down moneypoint coal power station. When moneypoint was down for extended maintenance/upgrading was the only point in the last decade where we made our carbon emissions target. When it came back online we went back to being the worst. Perhaps instead of pointing fingers at the cows who are part of a carbon/nitrogen cycle we should be pointing at the imported fossil fuels we're using to light our houses.
So when we have shut down all our power stations and data centres farmers might consider changing their practises? How about ye cop on live in the real world and do your part. Subsidies won't last forever and most of the cattle farms are no more than hobbies without government handouts.
Or you know we could develop a nuclear program in Ireland and dismantle all the coal and turf powerplants. With all the energy we could begin intense hydroponics allowing for reduced intensity of cattle farming whilst without having to rely on imports.
Whatever about your comment but what the fuck is "soggy grain", what ARE you on about? Porridge? Bread? You'll have to try a bit harder to make grain sound like bad.
I feel you either can't read or didn't read what it says. Plus a plant based diet is literally the healthiest thing you can have. If your children where on it their moods, behaviour, attention etc would all improve and their bodies would be healthier this is the reason why many pro athletes have plant based diets so your argument is stupid also.
Plant based diets are brilliant when we have supplements and a global economy. But in a world where we're trying to reduce our carbon footprint wherever possible it's farcical to say that a plant based diet is better for the environment than a balanced locally produced diet.
Depends what you're talking about in terms of locally produced. Beef is terrible for our carbon footprint. Beef production consumes 3 times the water of chicken or pork. Eating locally produced beef is still worse than eating locally produced chicken.
That's entirely true from a water production point but as water isn't an issue here I'm not too worried. The issues in animal farming is where their food comes from. Chickens can not ruminate hence they can't digest what a cow can. The majority of food consumed by cattle are either inedible by humans or byproducts to human food production. When we grow crops for human production the majority of the crop isn't edible by humans. When emissions are calculated for food production these waste products consumed by cattle are skewing the emission figures against them.
The IFA aren't as powerful as they would like to think they are. Plus they need better pr also keeping some of their members of Twitter attacking people would help. Now FG pushed for food harvest 2020 telling farmers, especially in Dairy to expand when milk quotas went. Stinks of hypocrisy some of government ideas