IPCC climate report

Forums › Off topic › IPCC climate report

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 23

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2130938 21-Nov-2018 11:28

frankv:

tdgeek:

I agree. So you quoting Nepal isn't relevant. It doesn't prove that there are widely differing emissions levels between people, as the people we are concerned with are those that do emit a lot. Using the countries that are emitters of note, the range between these people is quite narrow

Ahhh, gotcha. On rereading the thread, I see that I'd taken your comment out of context and thought it related to all 7 billion people, not just the heavy emitters.

Nevertheless, one American or Australian has the impact of 2 Chineseor 4 Mexicans or 10 Indians, all in the top 20 countries from your link. I still think that a 10:1 range says that there's widely differing emissions levels between people.

India and China are difficult. Im not sure of the numbers that are subsistence farmers and how many are capitalist coke drinking, KFC eating, disco-going consumers in the cities. The former would be very low emitters the latter up with Americans or more I would expect.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2131151 21-Nov-2018 15:01

tdgeek:

India and China are difficult. Im not sure of the numbers that are subsistence farmers and how many are capitalist coke drinking, KFC eating, disco-going consumers in the cities. The former would be very low emitters the latter up with Americans or more I would expect.

That spread of consumption and consequent CO2 emission would apply to Aussie or the USA or most places, I'd say, although there's probably less people in the subsistence bucket. But any regulation would need to effectively inhibit the capitalist hedonists, whereas usually they're the ones making the rules.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2131519 22-Nov-2018 09:21

Just read this.
I'm not saying I agree or not as I have no clue.

https://www.businessinsider.com/giving-up-meat-wont-save-planet-2018-10/

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2131555 22-Nov-2018 09:44

That makes a lot of sense.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2131557 22-Nov-2018 09:47

One man vs 97% of scientists ... I can see how it's going to go?

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2131565 22-Nov-2018 09:52

Batman: One man vs 97% of scientists ... I can see how it's going to go?

How does your comment relate to that link you posted? The article is about the makeup of emissions, not whether CC caused by humans is real or not

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2131569 22-Nov-2018 09:55

tdgeek:
Batman: One man vs 97% of scientists ... I can see how it's going to go?

How does your comment relate to that link you posted? The article is about the makeup of emissions, not whether CC caused by humans is real or not

Tongue in cheek - he's disputing the UN report. That takes a lot of momentum to displace i would think.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2131606 22-Nov-2018 10:11

The link within your link shows the IPCC accepted this.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2131641 22-Nov-2018 10:49

On the other hand, there is this: "Bloggers and sceptics leaping all over a UN report that 'exaggerated' the link between meat and climate change are not revealing that the scientist challenging the figures has been funded by the livestock industry"

And this. John Hopkins is about as scientifically reputable as you can get, and they say this person fiddled his statistics, which is exactly what he claims the UN did.

The point being, that a lot of misinformation and fake news comes from people uncritically re-tweeting and otherwise linking to stuff that passes across their screens without ever bothering to check it for veracity or even common sense. This is a real problem in the Internet age because it spreads rumours that can easily do a lot of damage.

It only took me a very quick Google search to find the above links and many more. The first think that occurred to me when I read the piece is where is this guy getting his funding from? What is it they say? Follow the money.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2131678 22-Nov-2018 11:36

It depends how meat is grown. If you grow beef on a feed lot and feed it grain and sugar products shipped in trucks, emissions are horrific. However a feed lot allows you to capture and treat all effluent. If you raise cattle on pasture the emissions are not as bad.

According to some figures I saw presented recently, the majority of the world's livestock emissions come form very small 'herds'. These are made up of subsidised herds in developed countries and subsistence herds in developing countries. Emissions in both categories tend to be higher because of poor genetics, diet, high overheads etc.

To really tackle ruminant emissions we need to end subsidies for farmer in wealthy countries and address subsistence herds.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2131704 22-Nov-2018 12:05

There is an additional factor here that should at least be looked at. I don't know what significance it has, if any. I live on a farm that is no longer farming but I am surrounded by grass paddocks used by others for grazing sheep and cows. This is exactly what you are talking about. But every year in early spring we are buried in clouds of fertiliser and weed killer that get dumped for days on end from low-flying aircraft to stimulate the grass growth and suppress unwanted vegetation. Whatever effect this may or may not have on the environment, it certainly makes a hell of a mess of anything not under cover before it all gets washed into the lifeless streams below. Does this also count as an emission?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2131817 22-Nov-2018 13:20

Rikkitic:

they say this person fiddled his statistics, which is exactly what he claims the UN did.

It did seem kindof mixed-up and sloppy, in that he compared agricultural animal emissions with transport emissions. But large chunks of agricutural emissions *are* transport emissions e.g. transporting feed to/from animals, to transporting the animals themselves, manufacture and transport of fertilisers, etc, etc. The methane and CO2 produced by ruminants is only part of the emissions involved in getting a steak onto my plate.

To get an accurate picture, he should have measured the transport emissions involved in raising cattle and distributing meat, and added those to the "agricultural" bin and subtracted them from the "transport" bin.

My own theory is that we now live in an energy economy, where the price of a good or service is by and large proportional on the energy involved (and therefore the emissions generated) in producing it.

Hence, Bitcoins cost about the same as gold or platinum to mine.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2131829 22-Nov-2018 13:31

frankv:

Rikkitic:

they say this person fiddled his statistics, which is exactly what he claims the UN did.

It did seem kindof mixed-up and sloppy, in that he compared agricultural animal emissions with transport emissions. But large chunks of agricutural emissions *are* transport emissions e.g. transporting feed to/from animals, to transporting the animals themselves, manufacture and transport of fertilisers, etc, etc. The methane and CO2 produced by ruminants is only part of the emissions involved in getting a steak onto my plate.

To get an accurate picture, he should have measured the transport emissions involved in raising cattle and distributing meat, and added those to the "agricultural" bin and subtracted them from the "transport" bin.

My own theory is that we now live in an energy economy, where the price of a good or service is by and large proportional on the energy involved (and therefore the emissions generated) in producing it.

Hence, Bitcoins cost about the same as gold or platinum to mine.

Agree. It appears to exclude transport in as far as meat is concerned, and it excluded the life cycle costs of cars which it later admits. Needs a new report, perhaps an overall report where all the emissions come from, so we can start picking some low hanging fruit. Complex though, but not that complex. Easier to figure out than sending a spacecraft into space for years to land on a small comet or asteroid. We need a lot of these reports so we can get a real handle on emissions.

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2131839 22-Nov-2018 13:37

frankv:

To get an accurate picture, he should have measured the transport emissions involved in raising cattle and distributing meat, and added those to the "agricultural" bin and subtracted them from the "transport" bin.

I see what you're getting at, but by that argument, transport emissions are nearly zero, since transport is only a means to an end, apart from transport for pleasure, but that is a small part of the overall transport emissions budget.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2131878 22-Nov-2018 14:02

My comment wasn't directed so much at the item itself, though it deserves to be called out, but more at the practice of linking to things to give weight to one argument or another, without bothering to drill down even a little to test the thing you are linking to. It is so easy to cite this or that to back up an argument without bothering to check where this and that comes from. An awful lot of rumour and fake news gets started this way. We are not all experts in things that interest us and we can't be expected to analyse every link, but we can at least do some quick sniff test checks before quoting something as an authoritative source.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 23