pollution v global warming

[Paul mabbott]

Whatever we do, the stinking rich and stupid can do even better (= worse )

The Sun Online - News: Liz in wedding carbon shame

[Paul mabbott]

And the industrial processes to produce fertilisers - high energy use. And the heat to keep animals in factories warm. Farmers chop down trees or drain bogs thus releasing more carbon .......
As you say, the nitrates &c then get into the ecosystem to create further problems.
Agree that there isn't much you can legislate for but governments could do more to encourage organic farming, low meat diets &c..

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

farming's contribution to global warming is mainly through methane production (i.e. cattle) and to a lesser extent nitrous oxide emissions. I'm not sure how governments are meant to legislate to reduce the production of methane in cattle! They could obviously limit the no. of livestock kept in the UK, but that is obviously driven by the economics of farming. Having said all of this, methane is still a relatively small contributor to global warming, certainly relative to CO2.

Farming obviously produces other forms of pollution such as nitrates and phosphates entering rivers and lakes, but these problems (serious though they are) are not related to global warming.

Matt

[almostnormal]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

And the industrial processes to produce fertilisers - high energy use. And the heat to keep animals in factories warm. Farmers chop down trees or drain bogs thus releasing more carbon .......
As you say, the nitrates &c then get into the ecosystem to create further problems.
Agree that there isn't much you can legislate for but governments could do more to encourage organic farming, low meat diets &c..

coming back to my earlier point...the current price farmers get for milk is around 17p/pint. the average cost for farmers to make a pint of milk is 24p. organic farmers get maybe an extra 4-10p/pint but the cost of creating organic milk is significantly higher.

encouraging farmers to go organic is all very well but it is currently not feasible for modern farming to become organic. it requires more land to produce an equal amount of produce (draining of more of britains wetlands and chooping down of more woodlands), the chemicals that organic farmers use (don't be fooled, there are some) are generally exetremely nasty, and the benfits for the farmer are slim. there are also issues with animal welfare, particulalry in organic chicken/turkey farming and in dairy herds.

there are several schemes available to help farmers go organic, but they simply aren't enough. the fact of the matter is that farmers are currently running at a loss, and will continue to do so because of the demand for cheap produce. until the farmers get more for the food they are producing (and this is unlikely because most of us buy from supermarkets) they will be unable to haul themselves back into more environmentally friendly farming practices.

and suggesting low meat diets is all very well, but this will only hit livestock farmers more harshly and invariably leads to loss of important grazed habitats. the drop in the beef market, for example, is one of the main factors in the widespread conversion to sheep grazing in the uplands, which has led to the loss of upland moorland and heathland through over grazing and in turn the erosion problems that many upland areas are now seeing. this in turn leads to water quality issues.

it is perhaps partly the governments job to help farmers to revert to less intensive ways, but the majority of the problems lay with the consumer. if we want more environmentally friendly farming practices we must accept that we will pay more for our food, and that we should be buying from local shops, not supermarkets. sadly that just isn't going to happen as the majority simply want cheap food and conveniance.

[Paul mabbott]

Must ask about one point - are you just referring to upland grazing here?

Originally Posted by almostnormal

.............. and suggesting low meat diets is all very well, but this will only hit livestock farmers more harshly and invariably leads to loss of important grazed habitats. the drop in the beef market, for example, is one of the main factors in the widespread conversion to sheep grazing in the uplands, which has led to the loss of upland moorland and heathland through over grazing and in turn the erosion problems that many upland areas are now seeing. this in turn leads to water quality issues.

Sure, the shift from cattle to sheep in uplands is leading to overgrowth of bracken but upland cattle grazing never was on the same scale as that down on the flat Earth. When I talk about a 'low meat' diet I am, I suppose, especially concerned about extensive beef grazing which requires heavily fertilised soils and produces a massive excess of nitrogen run-off to the water system (as well as the environmental pollution caused by fertiliser manufacture). All bad for the broader biodiversity ...
By and large, of course, all habitats could benefit by reduced grazing (in some cases, complete cessation of grazing).