The talking points of the day have gone out. Interestingly, none of the people writing these screeds are talking about giving up their own input of meat and stuff. But, hey, if you’re hungry, you’re compliant, right?
To limit global warming, the global food system must be reimagined
Fossil fuel burning accounts for the majority of global greenhouse gas emissions, and to the world’s credit, several countries are working to reduce their use and the heat-trapping emissions that ensue. The goal is to keep global temperatures under a 1.5° to 2°C increase above preindustrial levels — the upper limits of the Paris Climate Agreement.
If we stopped burning all fossil fuels this minute, would that be enough to keep a lid on global warming?
Acording to UC Santa Barbara ecology professor David Tilman, petroleum energy sources are only part of the picture. In a paper published in the journal Science, Tilman and colleagues predict that even in the absence of fossil fuels, cumulative greenhouse gas emissions could still cause global temperatures to exceed climate change targets in just a few decades.
The source? Our food system.
“Global food demand and the greenhouse gases associated with it are on a trajectory to push the world past the one-and-a-half degree goal, and make it hard to stay under the two degree limit,” said Tilman, who holds a dual appointment at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management and at the University of Minnesota. The world’s growing population as well as its diet are driving food production practices that generate and release massive and increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to the paper, left unchecked, agricultural emissions alone could exceed the 1.5°C limit by about 2050.
If the Modern Socialist elites control the food, they control you. I bet they won’t give up what they’re eating now
“It’s well known that agriculture releases about 30% of all greenhouse gases,” Tilman said. Major sources include deforestation and land clearing, fertilizer overuse and gassy livestock, all of which are increasing as the global population increases. In “high-yield” countries such as the U.S., which have the benefit of large scale modern agriculture, intensive animal farming and heavy-handed fertilizer use are major contributors of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, in “low yield” countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, population growth and increasing affluence are driving demand for more food, and toward more “urban” diets that are richer in meat and meat products, Tilman explained.
Most of that is really not global warming, but, land use and real environmental issues. They won’t tell you that, because it’s not as easy to control your life that way.
- Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets
- Cutting Greenhouse Gases From Food Production Is Urgent, Scientists Say
- Food is one of the most damaging factors of climate change, experts say
- Michigan State hosting discussion on climate change and its impact on food
- Study: Fix to food climate problem doesn’t require veganism
That last one is interesting
Researchers looked at five types of broad fixes to the food system and calculated how much they fight warming. They found that sampling a buffet of partial fixes for all five, instead of just diving into the salad bar, can get the job done, according to a study published in Thursday’s journal Science.
To do this, you’ll be told what you can eat and when you can eat it
The researchers from the United States and the United Kingdom found:
— A nearly complete switch to a plant-rich diet around the world could slash almost 720 billion tons of greenhouse gases (650 billion metric tons). (kinda blows out the “sampling”, eh?)
— If almost everyone ate the right number of calories based on their age, around 2,100 calories a day for many adults, it would cut about 450 billion tons of greenhouse gases (410 billion metric tons). (the only way to do this is with Government control)
— If farming got more carbon efficient — by using less fertilizer, managing soil better and doing better crop rotation — it would slice nearly 600 billion tons of greenhouse gases (540 billion metric tons). (if farming was more like it was hundreds of years ago)
— If farms could increase yield through genetics and other methods, it would trim almost 210 billion tons of greenhouse gases (190 billion metric tons). (um, the same people who are die-hard Warmists are also the same freaking about about genetic modification, so, good luck)
Tell you what: if Warmists go to a near complete switch to a plant rich diet, I’ll consider believing in their Cult.
TEACH typed: The talking points of the day have gone out.
TEACH mistakenly think that Dems have a system similar to the GOP/FOX/conservapundit axis.
Fox? Shirley, you jest.
Fox has gone full on Lefty. Get your head out of your ass and look around.
TEACH mistakenly think that Dems have a system similar to the GOP/FOX/Conservative pundit axis.
Journolist ring a bell? All the Gargoyle and Facebarf clones and Twat are banning anything showing evidence of vote fraud.
That’s an axis.
People are chanting FOX NEWS SUCKS.
This network does not realize what they have done to themselves. The owner I think has no desire to own a network and wants to be rid of it. If he can turn it far enough left he can sell it to Disney and cash in BIGLY.
Ohhh how we love to hear the right self destructing
Please invite us also to the next rally where we too can chant “FOX NEWS SUCKSâ€
Don’t all you capitalists believe that every Media corporation should be Allowed to have their own point of view? Who thinks FB should be forced to allow anyone to be able to post whatever they wish for free on the FB platform
Should Red State be forced to allow ME to taunt them on their own website ? I don’t believe that, do you ?
More climate rocket scientists…â€fossil fuel burning accounts for the majority of global greenhouse gas emissionsâ€. False. The oceans by far are the largest contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere. Glad to see Science Daily has their top clowns on this story….
Not exactly. The oceans do release gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, but the oceans absorb MORE CO2 than they release. The net flux is for the absorption of CO2.
On the other hand fossil fuel burning only emits CO2.
Note that for hundreds of thousands of years the carbon cycle kept atmospheric CO2 relatively stable. Now, the accumulation of CO2 over the past century has significantly increased atmospheric CO2 from about 280 ppm to over 400 ppm, the highest is nearly 1 million years.
The net flux
In what comic book did you see that?
Sorry. “Net flux” may be too much scientific jargon for you. It’s the concept of the bidirectional movement of molecules that yields steady-state concentrations between two compartments.
Think in terms of a revolving door where 80 people exit per hour and 100 people enter per hour. The net flux is 20 people per hour entering.
It’s terminology often used in describing the movement of molecules across biological membranes, where millions of molecules cross per second.
Regarding CO2 partitioning between the oceans and the atmosphere, while jl was correct that gigatons of CO2 are released by the oceans, even MORE CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. So, CO2 is being emitted and absorbed by the oceans, but the net is absorption. More is absorbed than released. That’s why ocean CO2 is increasing and ocean pH is dropping.
You and I are done.
Anybody who actually believes that giving the government more money and power will change the weather is certifiably INSANE and should not be allowed outside by themselves.