Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

[Funky_monks]

Without a doubt farming needs to put its house very much in order. But that doesn’t mean to say it should just give up.

No - but the idea of the "just do this" one size fits all global solution is bollocks. It's no good going plant based if we are freighting this stuff in from all over the world. The UK is very good at producing ruminants from poor grade land, sequestering carbon in the process (as an aside, emissions from ag never take into account the amount of carbon sequestered by it), so, within the context of the UK, they are pretty sustainable things when farmed with minimal inputs - and we certainly have the gene bank to do that, soya in feed is not an old phenomenon.

 

[lazythursday]

As elsewhere in this thread, tree planting is a busted flush, It just shows how slow policy moves in relation to the science, there was a huge study undertaken by Stirling University that showed that tree planting didn't sequester anything like as much carbon as thought (I've linked to it on this thread in the past) - permanent pasture, on the other hand, does. Most of the sequestration is done by soil organisms.

Think about it like this: You plant trees and the trees grow, sequestering carbon in the process (wood). If you log the trees and burn them (or do anything else with them that results in the carbon being "lost" to the atmosphere), that carbon is re-emitted. So, what you'd need to do is bury them somehow when they are mature.

This is precisely the problem with fossil fuels - the carbon was sequestered millions of years ago in swamps etc and it is being extracted and re-emitted.
Alternatives need to happen, and sadly, at the moment a lot of them pollute massively (see: lithium and batteries).

Arrgh. This is just not true and is cherry picked science.

 

[Funky_monks]

Arrgh. This is just not true and is cherry picked science.

In what way? Tree planting does not always boost ecosystem carbon stocks, study finds | About | University of Stirling

Also, what are we going to do with these trees? Most plantations are softwoods and are incredibly unlikely to be harvested and then buried to sequester their carbon.

 

[lazythursday]

You are quoting one single study (which says 'not always' rather than 'not ever' as well). The science behind trees capturing carbon is well established. Of course there are issues with relying on trees as a long term way of doing this. But at the moment it's one of the only ways we have of (reasonably) reliably increasing the natural carbon carrying capacity of our country, and so is recommended by the Committee on Climate Change (who review all the science) as part of how we can get to net zero. The extra trees mean we can still emit a small amount of carbon in 2050.

On the other hand, pasture-based carbon capture remains highly controversial. I read a recent big review which looked at evidence across dozens of studies which concluded it only happens in limited circumstances and it isn't clear how long for. Of course farmers are leaping on this whole regenerative agriculture argument as a way of sticking with the status quo (although it actually isn't as would need significant changes in grazing practices even if it worked). But so far we do not have the evidence for it.

 

[Funky_monks]

You are quoting one single study (which says 'not always' rather than 'not ever' as well). The science behind trees capturing carbon is well established. Of course there are issues with relying on trees as a long term way of doing this. But at the moment it's one of the only ways we have of (reasonably) reliably increasing the natural carbon carrying capacity of our country, and so is recommended by the Committee on Climate Change (who review all the science) as part of how we can get to net zero. The extra trees mean we can still emit a small amount of carbon in 2050.

On the other hand, pasture-based carbon capture remains highly controversial. I read a recent big review which looked at evidence across dozens of studies which concluded it only happens in limited circumstances and it isn't clear how long for. Of course farmers are leaping on this whole regenerative agriculture argument as a way of sticking with the status quo (although it actually isn't as would need significant changes in grazing practices even if it worked). But so far we do not have the evidence for it.

Its a newish study and a very long term one, which calls into doubt previous work - this is how science works.

Regen ag is nothing like the status quo.

The ICCC aren't currently using 2020 science - as stated, policy lags way behind the science.

Also, what are we doing with these trees please? The only way the carbon (in trees - wood) is sequestered is if it degrades under the soil, this is how fossil fuels were formed - anoxic environments (sediment, bogs) into which animals and plants sunk, unable to decompose on the surface. If they do, most of that carbon is lost as respired carbon dioxide by the organisms (fungi, bacteria) doing the degrading.

 

[lazythursday]

There's little point arguing about this except to point out that the fact that forests absorb and store CO2 is uncontroversial (though not always predictable) whereas pasture based carbon capture is not yet proven. It certainly isn't the case that you can make a blanket statement as you did above suggesting that 'The UK is very good at producing ruminants from poor grade land, sequestering carbon in the process' when right now we do not know that with any certainty. And we certainly can't argue that that soil-based carbon sequestration through grazing is any greater or more stable than that which would be created through tree planting in the same location. This is very new science with a whole load of contradictory evidence. That's why it isn't making it into CCC plans.

 

[Funky_monks]

There's little point arguing about this except to point out that the fact that forests absorb and store CO2 is uncontroversial (though not always predictable) whereas pasture based carbon capture is not yet proven. It certainly isn't the case that you can make a blanket statement as you did above suggesting that 'The UK is very good at producing ruminants from poor grade land, sequestering carbon in the process' when right now we do not know that with any certainty. And we certainly can't argue that that soil-based carbon sequestration through grazing is any greater or more stable than that which would be created through tree planting in the same location. This is very new science with a whole load of contradictory evidence. That's why it isn't making it into CCC plans.

If you'd read the thread (although tbf, it is very long), I'm definitely not in favour of cutting more down, and it seems ancient forests do sequester carbon - possibly to do with the depth of soil/anoxic leaf litter. Also, the vast majority of global CO2 isn't sequestered terrestrially (a point which we seem to forget - phytoplankton).

We also have to balance this with feeding people, and offshoring our food production to make our own emissions look good is pretty piecemeal if you ask me, therefore we should be looking to feed populations on a local level and in the UK, we can't do that with plants alone. It may well be possible elsewhere - the med countries for example.
We are attempting to shoehorn macro solutions into micro geography.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You are quoting one single study (which says 'not always' rather than 'not ever' as well). The science behind trees capturing carbon is well established. Of course there are issues with relying on trees as a long term way of doing this. But at the moment it's one of the only ways we have of (reasonably) reliably increasing the natural carbon carrying capacity of our country, and so is recommended by the Committee on Climate Change (who review all the science) as part of how we can get to net zero. The extra trees mean we can still emit a small amount of carbon in 2050.

On the other hand, pasture-based carbon capture remains highly controversial. I read a recent big review which looked at evidence across dozens of studies which concluded it only happens in limited circumstances and it isn't clear how long for. Of course farmers are leaping on this whole regenerative agriculture argument as a way of sticking with the status quo (although it actually isn't as would need significant changes in grazing practices even if it worked). But so far we do not have the evidence for it.

“This report finds that better management of grass-fed livestock, while worthwhile in and of itself, does not offer a significant solution to climate change as only under very specific conditions can they help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the greenhouse gas emissions these grazing animals generate. The report concludes that although there can be other benefits to grazing livestock - solving climate change isn’t one of them.”

Grazed and Confused

Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question – and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions.

www.tabledebates.org

 

[Cid]

Nature feature on state of science wrt forests and climate change:

How much can forests fight climate change?

Trees are supposed to slow global warming, but growing evidence suggests they might not always be climate saviours.

www.nature.com

 

[Saul Goodman]

As elsewhere in this thread, tree planting is a busted flush, It just shows how slow policy moves in relation to the science, there was a huge study undertaken by Stirling University that showed that tree planting didn't sequester anything like as much carbon as thought (I've linked to it on this thread in the past) - permanent pasture, on the other hand, does. Most of the sequestration is done by soil organisms.

Think about it like this: You plant trees and the trees grow, sequestering carbon in the process (wood). If you log the trees and burn them (or do anything else with them that results in the carbon being "lost" to the atmosphere), that carbon is re-emitted. So, what you'd need to do is bury them somehow when they are mature.

This is precisely the problem with fossil fuels - the carbon was sequestered millions of years ago in swamps etc and it is being extracted and re-emitted.
Alternatives need to happen, and sadly, at the moment a lot of them pollute massively (see: lithium and batteries).

We could lock a lot of carbon up in things like furniture. A move away from plastics and back to wood would be no bad thing. I still think irrigating the deserts is the way forward. Maybe use all the heat generated from Bitcoin mining to desalinate sea water.

 

[Cid]

We could lock a lot of carbon up in things like furniture. A move away from plastics and back to wood would be no bad thing.

Unless you smother the stuff in 8 fucking layers of lacquer...

 

[lazythursday]

The point is that even if regenerative agriculture can be made to work in some circumstances, all it will do is add a bit more to our capacity as a country to store carbon - and that will help enable us to still emit a low level of carbon emissions for some essential purposes (some industries and tranport, mainly). It doesn't mean we can continue with the same amount of animal agriculture and associated methane etc - it won't magically offset it all. It still all leads to a conclusion that a future diet needs to include a lot less meat (not zero, but less).

 

[Funky_monks]

We could lock a lot of carbon up in things like furniture. A move away from plastics and back to wood would be no bad thing. I still think irrigating the deserts is the way forward. Maybe use all the heat generated from Bitcoin mining to desalinate sea water.

Any move away from plastics would be great, not least because wood, even if you do then burn it is, at least carbon neutral.

 

[danny la rouge]

It still all leads to a conclusion that a future diet needs to include a lot less meat (not zero, but less).

Indeed. And the idea that the UK is unable to do that is a) defeatist, b) wrong, c) if true, pretty bad news for the people of these islands. So we’d better find ways of getting the balance right.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Unless you smother the stuff in 8 fucking layers of lacquer...

9 now

 

[WouldBe]

And we certainly can't argue that that soil-based carbon sequestration through grazing is any greater or more stable than that which would be created through tree planting in the same location.

Slight problem with that is that the soil on which a lot if not most sheep graze is only a few inches deep and physically incapable of supporting a tree. Slightest breeze and they would be uprooted.

 

[lazythursday]

Slight problem with that is that the soil on which a lot if not most sheep graze is only a few inches deep and physically incapable of supporting a tree. Slightest breeze and they would be uprooted.

Well how come there is plenty of successful tree planting going on in upland areas formerly grazed by sheep?

 

[danny la rouge]

It’s notable that despair and a “can’t do” attitude has congealed around climate change debate.

“It would be great if we could do something but actually we’re fucked”.

We’re not. The work we need to put in is more intense now that it’s been left so late, but we can still put in the work. We’re pretty ingenious, you know.

 

[danny la rouge]

Despair plays into the deniers’ hands.

 

[WouldBe]

Well how come there is plenty of successful tree planting going on in upland areas formerly grazed by sheep?

I didn't say all I said "lots if not most".

While the planting may be successful how they thrive is yet to be seen.

 

[lazythursday]

I didn't say all I said "lots if not most".

While the planting may be successful how they thrive is yet to be seen.

I live in the Pennines. I've seen multiple areas of successful tree planting and natural regeneration in the last twenty years. The soil is crap precisely becasue it has been overgrazed by sheep and is an ecological disaster zone. The answer is not to carry on with the fucking sheep.

 

[editor]

I didn't say all I said "lots if not most".

While the planting may be successful how they thrive is yet to be seen.

Got any studies or numbers to back any of this conjecture up?

 

[maomao]

It’s notable that despair and a “can’t do” attitude has congealed around climate change debate.

“It would be great if we could do something but actually we’re fucked”.

We’re not. The work we need to put in is more intense now that it’s been left so late, but we can still put in the work. We’re pretty ingenious, you know.

See also 'people won't accept that'.

 

[lazythursday]

More people should read the Committee on Climate Change pathways and scenarios to net zero. They aren't the most radical - it's a statutory organisation reporting to government - and you can argue that they rely too much on carbon capture or other technologies - but they represent a carefully thought out way of getting there based on established science and within acceptable political boundaries. And they still include plenty of steps - like a pretty large tree planting programme and cutting meat and dairy consumption by 20% - that some here seem to be dismissing out of hand. If those steps aren't possible, it leaves a whole load of carbon emissions unabated. And this is just one little part of the whole jigsaw, there are plenty of other measures on transport and housing that are also seen as impossible by many. But if there were obvious alternative solutions to getting that number down to zero they would have been identified.

 

[Funky_monks]

Indeed. And the idea that the UK is unable to do that is a) defeatist, b) wrong, c) if true, pretty bad news for the people of these islands. So we’d better find ways of getting the balance right.

There's plenty we can do - but squabbling of the 10% ghg emissions that ag is responsible for (EU figures) rather than targeting the fossil fuel companies and industry is exactly why they employ marketing executives etc.

For a start, we could stop getting on aeroplanes to go on holiday.

For perspective:
An A320 is a small, modern and fuel efficient jet. It has a capacity of 27000 litres. A return flight from London heathrow to Ibiza is 2700nm which is basically a whole tank of aviation fuel so that 170 people can go on a holiday.

A large upland farm (say, 1300 sheep and 50 cattle) might use 2000 litres of fuel per year. That’s 13 years of fuel within one a320 return trip to Ibiza.
In those 13 years, they could produce
13,000 lambs and 390 calves. All these animals would have been fed on ground unsuitable for any arable crop.
That's without planting trees, maintaining/laying hedgerows etc.

 

[lazythursday]

There's plenty we can do - but squabbling of the 10% ghg emissions that ag is responsible for (EU figures) rather than targeting the fossil fuel companies and industry is exactly why they employ marketing executives etc.

For a start, we could stop getting on aeroplanes to go on holiday.

For perspective:
An A320 is a small, modern and fuel efficient jet. It has a capacity of 27000 litres. A return flight from London heathrow to Ibiza is 2700nm which is basically a whole tank of aviation fuel so that 170 people can go on a holiday.

A large upland farm (say, 1300 sheep and 50 cattle) might use 2000 litres of fuel per year. That’s 13 years of fuel within one a320 return trip to Ibiza.
In those 13 years, they could produce
13,000 lambs and 390 calves. All these animals would have been fed on ground unsuitable for any arable crop.
That's without planting trees, maintaining/laying hedgerows etc.

What part of ZERO don't you understand? That 10% emissions have to either go, completely, or be accounted for through additional capture of CO2 through nature or technology. There's no point quibbling about whether agricultural emissions are somehow more useful than aviation. They are still emissions.

 

[maomao]

There's plenty we can do - but squabbling of the 10% ghg emissions that ag is responsible for (EU figures) rather than targeting the fossil fuel companies and industry is exactly why they employ marketing executives etc.

For a start, we could stop getting on aeroplanes to go on holiday.

For perspective:
An A320 is a small, modern and fuel efficient jet. It has a capacity of 27000 litres. A return flight from London heathrow to Ibiza is 2700nm which is basically a whole tank of aviation fuel so that 170 people can go on a holiday.

A large upland farm (say, 1300 sheep and 50 cattle) might use 2000 litres of fuel per year. That’s 13 years of fuel within one a320 return trip to Ibiza.
In those 13 years, they could produce
13,000 lambs and 390 calves. All these animals would have been fed on ground unsuitable for any arable crop.
That's without planting trees, maintaining/laying hedgerows etc.

Well yes but (most) people go on holiday occasionally and eat food every day. Air travel is responsible for 2% of carbon emissions.

 

[danny la rouge]

we could stop getting on aeroplanes

I can count the number of (return) flights I’ve taken on one hand. But I’m not interested in making this about personal morality. I’m interested in how best to plan for the future. And a planet that gives too much space to meat production is unsustainable. A British Isles that thinks it can disproportionately produce meat is unsustainable.

I’m not talking about converting everyone to veganism. I’m not a vegan. I’m talking about these islands producing its own food in these proportions: lots of veg, some carbs, a little meat. If we can’t do that, then we can’t sustain these islands. Literally.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Well yes but (most) people go on holiday occasionally and eat food every day. Air travel is responsible for 2% of carbon emissions.

Air travel is set to increase, though. Everywhere there are airport expansion programmes. If there is one thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint substantially it is to stop flying (if you do currently). If air travel becomes seen as antisocial behaviour it becomes easier to defeat plans for increasing it.

 

[Funky_monks]

I can count the number of (return) flights I’ve taken on one hand. But I’m not interested in making this about personal morality. I’m interested in how best to plan for the future. And a planet that gives too much space to meat production is unsustainable. A British Isles that thinks it can disproportionately produce meat is unsustainable.

I’m not talking about converting everyone to veganism. I’m not a vegan. I’m talking about these islands producing its own food in these proportions: lots of veg, some carbs, a little meat. If we can’t do that, then we can sustain these islands. Literally.

A British Isles that thinks it can disproportionately produce meat is farming in the way that the environment allows it to.
This is my point - blanket, global solutions utterly ignore geography, which is critical when it comes to farms and farming potential.
As explained, horticulture is particularly environmentally damaging, although if you scaled it down it might not be - I've talked about small scale community ag in the past on this thread.