the journal this week

Well from an environment point of view it is not the older suckler farmers that are doing all the damage around me it's the young 'progressive' dairy farmers so I'm not sure this change will help Eamons goals on water quality etc.
It has nothing to do with the environment, the whole thing is a PR stunt being funded by big business to take the bad look of them.
I came across it in college long before the talk about cutting suckler cows, one of the subjects was construction management or something similar, we had this fictional construction and it was tendering for a project and they had to show how green they were. They were really really green but the whole thing was just a play on words. The whole thing didn't sit well with me as it was all twisted lies but went along with it to pass the subject.
Big companies have plenty of money to fund a PR company to come out with this trash and the public buys into it. For example Aer Lingus came out a few months ago and said they will be carbon neutral by 2050, they offset it against something else but in reality they are still big polluters.

The farm organisations need to get their act together soon and get a good PR company on the case.
 
Well from an environment point of view it is not the older suckler farmers that are doing all the damage around me it's the young 'progressive' dairy farmers so I'm not sure this change will help Eamons goals on water quality etc.
That's true too here. Sure we got on grand for the last few decades the way we were. It's the prices that are the problem for the small farmer, the cost of inputs is outweighing the rewards in outputs.
 
It has nothing to do with the environment, the whole thing is a PR stunt being funded by big business to take the bad look of them.
I came across it in college long before the talk about cutting suckler cows, one of the subjects was construction management or something similar, we had this fictional construction and it was tendering for a project and they had to show how green they were. They were really really green but the whole thing was just a play on words. The whole thing didn't sit well with me as it was all twisted lies but went along with it to pass the subject.
Big companies have plenty of money to fund a PR company to come out with this trash and the public buys into it. For example Aer Lingus came out a few months ago and said they will be carbon neutral by 2050, they offset it against something else but in reality they are still big polluters.

The farm organisations need to get their act together soon and get a good PR company on the case.
Green Washing is what they call it I believe. A load of boll£x.

How an airline can call itself carbon neutral is completely sick in my opinion.

The climate bill is certainly a step upwards in terms of enforcement. The Greens are using their influence in government and it is all being encouraged by the EU.
To be fair, us as humans are only going to stop our activities if we are forced to do so. It isn't going to be voluntary. People are selfish, end of story.

Reading the Journal today certainly isn't uplifting. People won't give up their airline flights and consumerism so cuts will have to be found elsewhere. The livestock are a sitting duck.
The editor discusses the idea of the industry putting their collective shoulder to the wheel and changing the "narrative". Unfortunately, unless some golden bullet like a seaweed feed additive is found, I don't think agriculture has a snowballs chance of making the required reduction is GHG's.

Talk of Carbon sequestration through pastures and hedges is all fine and well but that is and has been happening already so I can't see how a few multispecies mixes etc are going to make a jot of difference.

The GHG issue is the big measurable issue. Not to mention the other things like water quality and biodiversity.

Industry is beginning to get its house in order from a carbon point of view - even if it is just number manipulation. Agriculture is lagging well behind......
 
Green Washing is what they call it I believe. A load of boll£x.

How an airline can call itself carbon neutral is completely sick in my opinion.

Talk of Carbon sequestration through pastures and hedges is all fine and well but that is and has been happening already so I can't see how a few multispecies mixes etc are going to make a jot of difference.

The GHG issue is the big measurable issue. Not to mention the other things like water quality and biodiversity.

Industry is beginning to get its house in order from a carbon point of view - even if it is just number manipulation. Agriculture is lagging well behind......
Industry is not getting it's house in order, it is using lies damn lies and statistics to hoodwink the populous.

Farming is not the cause of the massive rise in GHG and can not contribute to a true reduction in GHG, it is only a useful scapegoat.

All farming is part of a carbon cycle and gains you think you can make in farming will be offset on the other side of the Carbon cycle, other than our over use of plastic and oil.
 
It has nothing to do with the environment, the whole thing is a PR stunt being funded by big business to take the bad look of them.
I came across it in college long before the talk about cutting suckler cows, one of the subjects was construction management or something similar, we had this fictional construction and it was tendering for a project and they had to show how green they were. They were really really green but the whole thing was just a play on words. The whole thing didn't sit well with me as it was all twisted lies but went along with it to pass the subject.
Big companies have plenty of money to fund a PR company to come out with this trash and the public buys into it. For example Aer Lingus came out a few months ago and said they will be carbon neutral by 2050, they offset it against something else but in reality they are still big polluters.

The farm organisations need to get their act together soon and get a good PR company on the case.
Well this certainly isn't he[ping agricultures case regarding carbon. https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/grasslands-stopped-fighting-climate-change-over-a-century-ago/ A coincidence that it appeared same time as the waffle from Eamon Ryan....
 
Industry is not getting it's house in order, it is using lies damn lies and statistics to hoodwink the populous.

Farming is not the cause of the massive rise in GHG and can not contribute to a true reduction in GHG, it is only a useful scapegoat.

All farming is part of a carbon cycle and gains you think you can make in farming will be offset on the other side of the Carbon cycle, other than our over use of plastic and oil.
Yep - as I say number manipulation.

We can live without 99% of the Chinese stuff on that grounded ship in the Suez but I’ve yet to see someone live without food.
 
Talk of Carbon sequestration through pastures and hedges is all fine and well but that is and has been happening already so I can't see how a few multispecies mixes etc are going to make a jot of difference.
The issue here is the carbon sequestration of hedges, grassland and indeed cropping is not acknowledged when calculating carbon output from agriculture. It's estimated that Irish grassland alone sequesters 11 million tonnes of Carbon each year (40% of total Irish agri carbon emissions) but it doesn't suit the narrative to credit agriculture with removing carbon from the atmosphere.
 
Industry is not getting it's house in order, it is using lies damn lies and statistics to hoodwink the populous.

Farming is not the cause of the massive rise in GHG and can not contribute to a true reduction in GHG, it is only a useful scapegoat.

All farming is part of a carbon cycle and gains you think you can make in farming will be offset on the other side of the Carbon cycle, other than our over use of plastic and oil.
It's funny how Agriculture, with approx 15% of the gross emissions from humans, has to constantly defend itself while lifestyles accounting for 85% of emissions gets a free pass:blink:
 
Wasn't there figures published last year about the reduction in emissions due to less flights etc etc during the pandemic while at the same time farming continued operating relatively normally, would that not indicate that agriculture isn't as much at fault as is being bandied about? Of course that may not suit the narrative of Sleepy Ryan et al so was probably hidden away.
 
Green Washing is what they call it I believe. A load of boll£x.

How an airline can call itself carbon neutral is completely sick in my opinion.

The climate bill is certainly a step upwards in terms of enforcement. The Greens are using their influence in government and it is all being encouraged by the EU.
To be fair, us as humans are only going to stop our activities if we are forced to do so. It isn't going to be voluntary. People are selfish, end of story.

Reading the Journal today certainly isn't uplifting. People won't give up their airline flights and consumerism so cuts will have to be found elsewhere. The livestock are a sitting duck.
The editor discusses the idea of the industry putting their collective shoulder to the wheel and changing the "narrative". Unfortunately, unless some golden bullet like a seaweed feed additive is found, I don't think agriculture has a snowballs chance of making the required reduction is GHG's.

Talk of Carbon sequestration through pastures and hedges is all fine and well but that is and has been happening already so I can't see how a few multispecies mixes etc are going to make a jot of difference.

The GHG issue is the big measurable issue. Not to mention the other things like water quality and biodiversity.

Industry is beginning to get its house in order from a carbon point of view - even if it is just number manipulation. Agriculture is lagging well behind......


the only hope for agriculture is vote for the shinners , they will turn us all in to good little North Koreans , not a pot to Piss in but all of us out in the fields , toiling away , the big multi nationals will head for the gate so getting down emissions wont be a problem
 
Industry is not getting it's house in order, it is using lies damn lies and statistics to hoodwink the populous.

Farming is not the cause of the massive rise in GHG and can not contribute to a true reduction in GHG, it is only a useful scapegoat.

All farming is part of a carbon cycle and gains you think you can make in farming will be offset on the other side of the Carbon cycle, other than our over use of plastic and oil.
That's it I don't know how a vehicle such as a plane which fumes literally scar the sky could be considered carbon neutral and a farmer considered worse. Tis total nonsense used to push the greens agenda
 
The greens are the worst party in most countries. Sure they were one of the sole causes for the bush fires in Australia which had massive consequences on the environment and people they claim to protect. They banned burn offs which were controlled fires used to stop big fires from occurring which led to there being nothing in the way of stopping a fire if it did start which it obviously did. Ryan's doing the exact same thing here bar with agriculture and local industries, we won't have a leg to stand on in the next recession.
 
The greens are the worst party in most countries. Sure they were one of the sole causes for the bush fires in Australia which had massive consequences on the environment and people they claim to protect. They banned burn offs which were controlled fires used to stop big fires from occurring which led to there being nothing in the way of stopping a fire if it did start which it obviously did. Ryan's doing the exact same thing here bar with agriculture and local industries, we won't have a leg to stand on in the next recession.

Finally you are talking sense .
 
There is definitely a constructed narrative where agriculture is to blame. The green agenda is riven with contradictions, that play to their target demographic who are largely urban and middle class. We in agriculture have been too slow in getting the pragmatic message of agricultural carbon sequestration out there to contest the space. The problem as I see it is that farmers generally have a very good bullshit meter. And most of the metrics that are used for carbon skew in favour of an urban consumerist lifestyle that feeds an economy based on consuming a lot of shit that no-one really needs, and is largely based on bullshit. We don't like producing more bullshit to argue with.
I wouldn't really mind the sensationalism of the journal either. They have a habit of painting a big disaster picture to weaken your resolve to actually stop buying the rag. We all know how it is... go to the shop on the hunt for a value pack of wispa gold and a packet of fags... pass the news stand....... see journal, quick glance.... some front page banner headline that says we're all f**ked.... reluctantly buy it to see how f$%ked you actually are... buy it ... read a bit.... not as bad as you thought.... feel cheated until same happens next Thursday.
 
At the end of the day, Ryan and Europe can sell us whatever narrative they like. As long as Europe continue to have heavy industry that exports to all corners of the world and import beef, soya and other foodstuffs from places like South America where the rainforest if being burned to produce these crops, then any proposal that they make to limit Irish Agricultural production is complete thrash.
 
At the end of the day, Ryan and Europe can sell us whatever narrative they like. As long as Europe continue to have heavy industry that exports to all corners of the world and import beef, soya and other foodstuffs from places like South America where the rainforest if being burned to produce these crops, then any proposal that they make to limit Irish Agricultural production is complete thrash.
That's the real contradiction. We'll have no beef but happy to outsource production and dirty industry to someplace else.
 
The greens are the worst party in most countries. Sure they were one of the sole causes for the bush fires in Australia which had massive consequences on the environment and people they claim to protect. They banned burn offs which were controlled fires used to stop big fires from occurring which led to there being nothing in the way of stopping a fire if it did start which it obviously did. Ryan's doing the exact same thing here bar with agriculture and local industries, we won't have a leg to stand on in the next recession.
They shouldn't be, though. Farmers and a mature scientific based Green Party should make very easy bedfellows. But when the majority of dialog points at farming being the problem, that narrative becomes fixed in the publics mind.

MF240s post above about coal is a great example, the national herd must be reduced but we can import coal from Colombia for less than we can produce our own or cut turf for?
 
Back
Top