Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The thing is big business can buy up land in order to offset they're emissions on paper but the reality is the emissions are still been produced. Sure the land left idle may soak up carbon but left unchecked it'll go wild and at certain times of the year all that dead grass and scrub and such will either accidently or on purpose catch fire and poof, bye bye carbon sink. Tonnes of smoke emitted. Que much hand ringing and blustering and eventually a comment saying "well maybe a few cows to keep the grass in check might not be so bad after all".
 
jpt said:
www.dutchnews.nl

Schiphol and Lelystad buy out surrounding farms to boost nitrogen limit - DutchNews.nl

Schiphol airport has bought out a number of cattle farms around the site to raise its nitrogen emissions limit, a spokesman confirmed to NRC on Tuesday. Acquiring the land in Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland province will allow the airport to meet its obligations to cut nitrogen compound emissions...
www.dutchnews.nl www.dutchnews.nl
An idea of what’s to come,greenwashing at it finest.
I’m surprised that Shciphol airport actually bought and paid for that land as most of these large corporations want our carbon for nothing.
I’ve said it here before the green ideology doesn’t care what the consequences for rural Ireland are once their goals are achieved.
Click to expand...
Airport buying acres to offset nitrogen emissions on their existing acres.

Where did they get that idea from?


I wonder will they take the land or do they just want the maps?
 
diesel power said:
The thing is big business can buy up land in order to offset they're emissions on paper but the reality is the emissions are still been produced. Sure the land left idle may soak up carbon but left unchecked it'll go wild and at certain times of the year all that dead grass and scrub and such will either accidently or on purpose catch fire and poof, bye bye carbon sink. Tonnes of smoke emitted. Que much hand ringing and blustering and eventually a comment saying "well maybe a few cows to keep the grass in check might not be so bad after all".
Click to expand...
This is already after happening in many places, and unfortunately they are not admitting they are wrong, only claiming more rewilding will solve the problems caused by rewilding.
Most involved are ideologically driven and will never admit their Religion is not the one true religion.
 
Last edited:
diesel power said:
The thing is big business can buy up land in order to offset they're emissions on paper but the reality is the emissions are still been produced. Sure the land left idle may soak up carbon but left unchecked it'll go wild and at certain times of the year all that dead grass and scrub and such will either accidently or on purpose catch fire and poof, bye bye carbon sink. Tonnes of smoke emitted. Que much hand ringing and blustering and eventually a comment saying "well maybe a few cows to keep the grass in check might not be so bad after all".
Click to expand...
There's a growing school of thought (realisation maybe) that grazed meat production might actually be the best solution of all.

Feed cattle nothing but grass and byproducts of things like biofuel production and they are an unarguable emissions good.
 
Sure I do remember bio diesel ending up being more expensive than regular diesel due taxes and that says it all,

in Uk I believe you can produce 2500 litres per year for personal use without duty etc,

greenwashing of taxation to allow governments spend like mad
 
JohnBoy said:
There's a growing school of thought (realisation maybe) that grazed meat production might actually be the best solution of all.

Feed cattle nothing but grass and byproducts of things like biofuel production and they are an unarguable emissions good.
Click to expand...
like i said the other day ,10kgs of grass rotting down produces the same amount of methane if it rots in the air or a cows stomach
 
I happened by chance in the last couple of weeks to be talking to a couple of people who were connected to oil and gas exploration, they both had the same story, exploration is as busy as ever with numerous wells still being drilled. Once oil is found the well is capped and won't be brought into production for 25-30 years, I don't think we're going to run out any time soon.
As for big business buying up land, it came up in conversation with someone from the Dept of Agricultural a number of months ago, I was assured that mechanisms were being put into place to prevent the likes of the Schipol story above happening in this country so time will tell.
I don't buy into the theory that everyone in a position of power and decision making is clueless or part of some sort of conspiracy, most of us outside of government departments have a very simplistic and probably biased view of the issues at hand, there are an enormous number of factors at play from a local to an EU level and beyond. With great power comes great responsibility, striking a balance to keep the wheels of industry turning and keep all the vested interests on all sides pacified is the kind of stress I personally wouldn't like to be dealing with on a daily basis. There is massive pressure at EU level to reduce livestock numbers, if we're part of the EU then we have to play by their rules, there is no doubt that farming in this country is going to change so the choice is either change with it or get left behind. With change comes opportunity, for those who are prepared to seek it out.
 
A whole load of aspirations…… nothing more than that from what I can see…

Like protein area to 40k Ha…..? It’s currently around 10k Ha. The industry stakeholder group had a very optimistic target of 20k Ha for this. Sur what’s another 20k Ha between friends…

I’m a dyed in the wool tillage fan and want to see a strong tillage sector but I can’t see many new tillage entrants moving from livestock to tillage (skill set, land suitability and attitude towards risk). Unless, incentives can be put in place to encourage existing tillage farmers to take on such land and convert it to tillage.

3E88FA92-C1A1-4115-AFD8-DFDB9BFA618B.jpeg
 
Arthur said:
www.irishtimes.com

Irish food industry could contribute to innovative transformation by pioneering animal-free meat

Irish food industry could contribute to an innovative transformation by pioneering animal-free meat
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com
Click to expand...

Responsible for producing 40% of the country's greenhouse gases but they neglect to state that we are responsible for removing Co2 from the atmosphere. Until they credit us for that they have no business telling us that we are climate criminals. The rest of society are the criminals using our carbon credits without paying us for them.
 
muckymanor said:
Responsible for producing 40% of the country's greenhouse gases but they neglect to state that we are responsible for removing Co2 from the atmosphere. Until they credit us for that they have no business telling us that we are climate criminals. The rest of society are the criminals using our carbon credits without paying us for them.
Click to expand...
Bit of context left out of my post, edited now.
 
muckymanor said:
Responsible for producing 40% of the country's greenhouse gases but they neglect to state that we are responsible for removing Co2 from the atmosphere. Until they credit us for that they have no business telling us that we are climate criminals. The rest of society are the criminals using our carbon credits without paying us for them.
Click to expand...
Even if it were fact (and I'm not saying it is, I agree with you) surely food production is the one thing you could justify some damage to the planet for.
It's a funny train of thought when lifestyle is higher priority over food.
Said here plenty but a bit of hunger wouldn't be long recalibrating opinion.
 
eddie86 said:
Even if it were fact (and I'm not saying it is, I agree with you) surely food production is the one thing you could justify some damage to the planet for.
It's a funny train of thought when lifestyle is higher priority over food.
Said here plenty but a bit of hunger wouldn't be long recalibrating opinion.
Click to expand...


A lot of the food we produce is lifestyle food but if we stop making it, who will start?

If people ate less beef and lamb and breastfed their children up to weaning then there would be a lot less methane produced globally
 
eddie86 said:
Even if it were fact (and I'm not saying it is, I agree with you) surely food production is the one thing you could justify some damage to the planet for.
It's a funny train of thought when lifestyle is higher priority over food.
Said here plenty but a bit of hunger wouldn't be long recalibrating opinion.
Click to expand...
I have said it many times. People will pay a grand for an iPhone but complain about paying an extra euro for a loaf, litre of milk or piece of meat. Priorities are all wrong. 4 foreign trips abroad, a car that's bigger than the neighbours and the most up to date gadgets are more important than food to the vast majority.
 
muckymanor said:
Responsible for producing 40% of the country's greenhouse gases but they neglect to state that we are responsible for removing Co2 from the atmosphere. Until they credit us for that they have no business telling us that we are climate criminals. The rest of society are the criminals using our carbon credits without paying us for them.
Click to expand...
The counter-argument to that would be, rightly or wrongly, that the C02 would still be removed if the land was left to nature and the animals were gone, so there would be a net reduction in emissions. It's a bit like Google or Amazon going out and buying thousands of acres of woodland to offset their carbon emissions, the woodland was there anyway, it doesn't mean they're producing any less. This whole carbon credits thing is a load of bullshite anyway, it's only a paperwork exercise, it doesn't change anything in a practical sense.
 
TAFKAT said:
The counter-argument to that would be, rightly or wrongly, that the C02 would still be removed if the land was left to nature and the animals were gone, so there would be a net reduction in emissions. It's a bit like Google or Amazon going out and buying thousands of acres of woodland to offset their carbon emissions, the woodland was there anyway, it doesn't mean they're producing any less. This whole carbon credits thing is a load of bullshite anyway, it's only a paperwork exercise, it doesn't change anything in a practical sense.
Click to expand...
But reducing cows is also only a paperwork exercise too. The methane that they produce is gone from the atmosphere after 7 years. The crux is that fossil fuels are the problem- and until the exercise of burning fossil fuels changes, there will be no change in the environment
 
TAFKAT said:
The counter-argument to that would be, rightly or wrongly, that the C02 would still be removed if the land was left to nature and the animals were gone, so there would be a net reduction in emissions. It's a bit like Google or Amazon going out and buying thousands of acres of woodland to offset their carbon emissions, the woodland was there anyway, it doesn't mean they're producing any less. This whole carbon credits thing is a load of bullshite anyway, it's only a paperwork exercise, it doesn't change anything in a practical sense.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows

Investigation into Verra carbon standard finds most are ‘phantom credits’ and may worsen global heating
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Leaving aside the GWP of methane and the Carbon credits argument, what I believe will come under scrutiny in future is the sustainability of importing grain from south America to feed to animals in Ireland to export meat.

I see that getting a spotlight shed on it in future that isn't there now. Is the future of Irish beef production a more circular economy where less beef is produced but it's produced using Irish grain?

I agree with what has been said on prioritisation of food production over other luxuries, and hence the carbon emissions of same shouldn't as such be treated the same. But the imported grain issue will be low hanging fruit.

The company I work for used to sell money saving energy projects to food and pharma. Now they're less money focused and more carbon saving. The dairy sites, pharma and grain mills all talking about how to get to carbon neutral. Willing to spend more money to get there too
 
Last edited:
Kieran97 said:
Leaving aside the GWP of methane and the Carbon credits argument, what I believe will come under scrutiny in future is the sustainability of importing grain from south America to feed to animals in Ireland to export meat.

I see that getting a spotlight shed on it in future that isn't there now. Is the future of Irish beef production a more circular economy where less beef is produced but it's produced using Irish grain?

The company I work for used to sell money saving energy projects to food and pharma. Now they're less money focused and more carbon saving. The dairy, pharma and grain mills all talking about how to get to carbon neutral.
Click to expand...
I would think that beef production is going to take a hammering, that might not be what people want to hear but that's the unfortunate reality of it. There is a big increase in the tillage area needed to lower overall emissions, the money is in dairy and that will need extra acres for nitrates reasons, unfortunately beef can't compete on either score and will be squeezed in the middle and that's even before the proposed increase in forestry.
 
TAFKAT said:
I would think that beef production is going to take a hammering, that might not be what people want to hear but that's the unfortunate reality of it. There is a big increase in the tillage area needed to lower overall emissions, the money is in dairy and that will need extra acres for nitrates reasons, unfortunately beef can't compete on either score and will be squeezed in the middle and that's even before the proposed increase in forestry.
Click to expand...

I would think so too unfortunately. Our own farm is beef but we're small fish.

The next potential product on the chopping block if imported grain becomes an issue will be pigs.

I was listening to a podcast about the proposed monetary union between Brazil and Argentina in the car this morning. Ireland would fit in Brazil 100 times over. We can't compete on scale, but this is why I wonder will it survive as a premium product, with less of it produced but done with Irish grain. There will always be a demand for it.

Cheap grain is to beef what cheap credit has been to the tech industry. The cheap credit has been removed from them and the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. So if imported grain was removed from the equation, beef production would have to drop.
 
TAFKAT said:
I would think that beef production is going to take a hammering, that might not be what people want to hear but that's the unfortunate reality of it. There is a big increase in the tillage area needed to lower overall emissions, the money is in dairy and that will need extra acres for nitrates reasons, unfortunately beef can't compete on either score and will be squeezed in the middle and that's even before the proposed increase in forestry.
Click to expand...
But if beef gets squeezed and dairy stays static then what will happen to all the dairy beef offspring?
 
Kieran97 said:
I would think so too unfortunately. Our own farm is beef but we're small fish.

The next potential product on the chopping block if imported grain becomes an issue will be pigs.

I was listening to a podcast about the proposed monetary union between Brazil and Argentina in the car this morning. Ireland would fit in Brazil 100 times over. We can't compete on scale, but this is why I wonder will it survive as a premium product, with less of it produced but done with Irish grain. There will always be a demand for it.

Cheap grain is to beef what cheap credit has been to the tech industry. The cheap credit has been removed from them and the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. So if imported grain was removed from the equation, beef production would have to drop.
Click to expand...
Cheap grain is more than just beef and pigs. Dairy farmers feeding 2 ton of nuts per cow per year on average would see a massive reduction in output. Couple it with the proposed limits on fertiliser spreading and on nitratesand it will shrink dairy output an awful lot. Chicken too - its one of the cheapest meats around. There's still 4.99 supermarket chickens that were fed from chick to shelf in 6 weeks on a high protein imported diet.

When you look at it from another level, beef farming is one of the least intensive ways of farming in this country. There's plenty that comes from little or no fertiliser on land with low stocking rates. The biggest issue in beef is that there's too many producing it but if forestry plans go ahead it will reduce the numbers significantly. It will see less land, less farmers, less animals in the system. With the age profile of beef farmers, there's going to come a lot ofbland on stream for forestry in the next 10 years if forestry premiums are attractive enough.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top