IPCC climate report

Forums › Off topic › IPCC climate report

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 23

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#2183241 18-Feb-2019 20:50

frankv:
I think your figures are way off. Some back of the envelope calculations:

A steer might give you 200 or so kg of beef = 1,000 servings. Stocking rate of 3 animals/hectare for 2 years. So that's 1,500 servings /hectare/year

Cabbages at .25sq m each = 400/hectare/year How many servings do you get from a cabbage? 8 would give you 3,200 servings /hectare/year

So cabbages are about twice as efficient at feeding people compared to beef. But they don't fart.

Cabbages might not fart, but there’s going to be plenty of farting if our new climate-friendly diet is cabbage-based

Ge0rge

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2060

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2183244 18-Feb-2019 21:01

You're going to need a lot more cabbage to get the same amount of energy as you would a serving of beef.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2183331 19-Feb-2019 01:39

Rikkitic:

I am prepared to look at any data but I have major reservations about these kinds of arguments, which I think are just backdoor attempts to carry on without making any meaningful changes. As I understand it, any form of agriculture is many, many times less polluting and more efficient than any form of livestock farming. In any case, the NZ system is far from closed. Grass is also artificially boosted with fertiliser and pesticides, that then run off into the streams along with all the animal excrement. Although steps against riverside feedlots are fortunately being taken at last, there are still a lot of cows crapping in our waterways. Where I live, very little effluent seems to get used as fertiliser.

Growing food crops requires far more pesticides and fertilizer. As very few people are willing to eat lettuce and other vegetables that are full of holes from bugs. As for cows crapping in waterways, that is an enforcement problem. Fonterra have min environmental standards that their farmers must meet. One of which (by my understanding) is that waterways must be fenced off from cattle. But some rural people buy a few cows, which they raise to get milk or beef for personal consumption or small time sales. And who are not a member of Fonterra or any of the other dairy or meat Co-ops. Meaning that they fly under the radar in relation to environmental rules and protection. Then there are different rules applied to dairy farms that were recently setup under the resource management act. And those that have been operating for decades. Of course some dairy farmers would be annoyed by environmental rules, when those rules don't apply to their neighbours.

Rikkitic:

Crops don't have to be limited to vegetables. As has been mentioned, bio-fuels can also be grown. And land that is too steep for crops is perfectly fine for trees. The article I cited was about world-wide measures that are needed to save the planet. Arguing that inefficient producers elsewhere will cancel any improvements made in New Zealand is fake reasoning. What the article is saying is that if changes aren't made everywhere we will all die anyway.

Improvements in NZ will definitely displace inefficient producers elsewhere. It is the laws of supply and demand. If an NZ producer can produce something for a lower cost (In both emissions terms and financial terms). Of course consumers will buy from the cheaper source. Just look at how overseas governments place restrictions on NZ meat and dairy exports. As they know that if NZ producers had unrestricted access to their markets, their local producers would struggle financially or go bankrupt. If NZ had completely open access to the GB and EU markets for meat and dairy. High carbon taxes would actually be on benefit to NZ producers. (assuming that the exact same carbon taxes are equally applied). As NZ can produce dairy and beef with lower carbon emissions per unit of output. For lots of people - dairy and meat are staple foods. Meaning a decrease in prices will only mean a relatively modest increase in demand. Which in turn means that the highest cost producers will be forced out of the market. Surely some reductions in carbon emissions are a good thing? Even if the reduction is not to zero.

Rikkitic:

You want to have your steak and eat it too. The point of this is that you will choke on it if that remains your attitude. If we want to survive, there has to be a fundamental change in the way we do things. There has to be a new way of thinking. You are still locked into the old one.

From https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=184&topicid=243884&page_no=2

Rikkitic:

I do not disagree with the census in principle. I accept that demographic data is useful and necessary. But I strongly disagree with the way the census is conducted and I regard it as a gross invasion of privacy. You can disagree with this all you like, but it is genuinely how I feel.

Every time this comes up for discussion, the usual bla bla is rolled out about how privacy is protected and no unauthorised people can access the information. Tell that to the German politicians and celebrities who have just been hacked!

Recent history demonstrates, again and again, that 'security' equals zero security. All the guarantees in the world are pure BS. Remember the WINZ kiosks? I am proud to wear a tinfoil hat where that is concerned.

I do not break the law, but I do bend it wherever I can. Every time there is a census, I take an overseas holiday. If you are not in the country, you do not have to be counted. In fact, you cannot be. This is perfectly legal.

Census data is not shared to the 'unauthorised', but it is not anonymous, either. When it genuinely is anonymous, I will gladly participate. Not before.

So in otherwords you are saying that I should not eat any steak. (due to its effect on the environment) Yet you find it perfectly acceptable to engage in overseas travel, just to avoid filling out a form for the government. Even though your overseas travel will cause lots of carbon emissions. All to try and avoid Statistics NZ obtaining some information from you. Even though Immigration NZ provide information about you anyway to SNZ, for the purposes of generating the official stats on arrivals and departures of visitors and immigrants. And by travelling, your information is also provided (or can be provided to). The Police, IRD, NZ customs, Ministry of Justice, WINZ, Interpol, And the other countries that are members of the 5 eyes intelligence sharing network. Plus of course your airline, and possibly your bank as well. So international travel is the last thing you should do if you don't trust the government to keep your personal information secure.

Apologies if this comes across as a personal attack. But im interested in your logic, In that the carbon emissions from overseas travel are OK. Because you genuinely feel like travelling. But the carbon emissions from choosing to eat one food instead of another are not OK (despite me genuinely feeling like eating that food). And of course, I have to eat to stay alive. Yet you don't need to travel to stay alive. (at least not internationally). Is there something in your logic that I haven't thought of / considered?

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2183332 19-Feb-2019 02:28

Rikkitic:

This is also worth a look. We have our fair share of neo-liberalism here on Geekzone.

That article can pretty much be sumed up as:

Free markers = Bad

Central planning and control = Good

A lucky few people getting lots of money = Bad.

Yet it doesn't state how changing the above 3 things will help the environment. As none of the current or former communist countries have good environmental records or conditions. Which shows that central planning is unlikely to improve the environment.

Free markets - Meridian energy wanted to build more hydro generation. (project aqua) As they can generate power from hydro cheaper than what their competition can generate it for from coal and gas. Consent denied, as the government of the day didn't like that hydro project. Coal and gas generation still in use, as central planning stopped the market from providing renewable generation for cheaper. While the low user regulations mean that for lots of people, gas is cheaper than electricity. Despite gas having far higher carbon emissions.

House prices. Councils make rules regulating exactly where, how big, external designs, and a whole lot of other factors that regulate the building of houses, and the availability and price of land that can be used for housing. Councils don't care about things like hardship on low income earners, due to expensive rents and house prices as a result. And central government prefers to spend big money on subsidies to low income earners. Spend more money on road upgrades due to more long distance driving. And deal with higher carbon emissions from that extra driving. Instead of forcing councils to remove those rules that artificially inflate housing costs. But all of the above was centrally planned. So is therefore OK.

As a result, there is lots of building work going on in Kaiwaka and Pokeno. As those are the 2 places North and South of Auckland, That are closest to Auckland while still being outside of the Auckland council area. And the residents of those areas find that the benefits of cheaper land and less rules, outweigh the costs of time, petrol needed to commute such long distances.

A lucky few people getting lots of money. One such person is Elon Musk. If he gets his way, we will all be driving EVs, and running our homes using solar power. While long distance transport will be provided quickly and cleanly via the Hyperloop, instead of carbon belching air travel. But he is a billionaire. So he is therefore evil, and must be stopped.

Sorry, but blaming any and all bad things in the world on Neo Liberalism. Sounds like the old excuse of blaming bad things on God or the devil. As it implies an absolute truth, that should never be questioned, no matter what. Instead of questioning why. Especially as lots of examples that get quoted as a market failure. Are actually due to government controls.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2183353 19-Feb-2019 07:03

Aredwood:

Free markets, [lack of] Central planning and control, A lucky few people getting lots of money

Yet it doesn't state how changing the above 3 things will help the environment.

I thought it was pretty clear; rich people consume more and spend money inefficiently. Free markets and lack of governmental control are the mechanisms whereby they get to spend money on environmentally bad things, which the rest of us then have to pay for. E.g. rich people fly a lot more often, and when they do, it's in bizjets carrying 10 or fewer people, whereas the rest of us go in planeloads of 300 or more.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2183362 19-Feb-2019 07:30

frankv:

SaltyNZ:

Rikkitic:

Your points make sense and I don't doubt they are correct, but every study I have seen on this says that growing crops places a far lower burden on the environment overall than raising livestock, whether CO2 or other things. It isn't only just about CO2 and methane, important as those are. If you are going to look at the whole cycle, you have to do it for every variable.

It's two things; firstly, cows fart, and methane is much more potent than CO2. Secondly, it takes several years growth of a whole paddock of grass to raise one cow which might feed a few dozen people for a couple of meals. If that paddock were growing cabbages instead, then it could feed hundreds or thousands of people.

I think your figures are way off. Some back of the envelope calculations:

A steer might give you 200 or so kg of beef = 1,000 servings. Stocking rate of 3 animals/hectare for 2 years. So that's 1,500 servings /hectare/year

Cabbages at .25sq m each = 400/hectare/year How many servings do you get from a cabbage? 8 would give you 3,200 servings /hectare/year

So cabbages are about twice as efficient at feeding people compared to beef. But they don't fart.

There are 10,000 sq metres to a hectare

At .25 of a sq m that's 40,000 cabbages per hectare not 400. Plus you will get two crops (I think one early before Summer, one after Summer or in Winter)

so thats 80,000 cabbages per hectare per year

8 servings = 640,000 servings per year

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2183371 19-Feb-2019 07:42

Getting heated here, ironic that!

I see little will in the world and here. Many say CC is bad but dont want to do anything. Or they do as long as it doesn't affect them

India and China are greener, yay, more CO2 ingestion, more O exhaust, but they didnt do that for CC they did it for food. China has probably done the most by its EV production and renewables in some new experimental towns. They probably did that for their own future sustainability than fighting CC

So, the globe wont do much, it will in the future spend money coping

1. NZ doesn't pollute much so not our problem

2. It costs too much

3. I like my meat and its inconvenient

4. Doesn't align with my political party

Given this, we should discuss what will happen 100 years from now that our grand children and so on will be dealing with

There was a doco that I have tried to locate I will try again. It looks at what it will be like with +1 degree C, +2, +3 +5 etc Its a great watch. Starts with new wineries in the UK (thats actually started) and ends with war, famine and the break down of human society

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2183531 19-Feb-2019 11:29

frankv:
Aredwood:

Free markets, [lack of] Central planning and control, A lucky few people getting lots of money

Yet it doesn't state how changing the above 3 things will help the environment.

I thought it was pretty clear; rich people consume more and spend money inefficiently. Free markets and lack of governmental control are the mechanisms whereby they get to spend money on environmentally bad things, which the rest of us then have to pay for. E.g. rich people fly a lot more often, and when they do, it's in bizjets carrying 10 or fewer people, whereas the rest of us go in planeloads of 300 or more.

But those rich people flying in private jets would be paying carbon taxes on the CO2 that they are emitting. And at least they are paying using their own money.

While government officials often are provided with free air travel on government owned / military planes. Or allowed to spend taxpayers money on air travel however they like. So no incentive to limit unnecessary travel when you get it for free.

Central planning is vesting control of government money and the ability to change laws and policy. With a few lucky people. With very little oversight or accountability. So corruption always happens. And there is no incentive to help the environment. Things like carbon taxes are meaningless when you control government finances.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2183548 19-Feb-2019 11:51

tdgeek:
Getting heated here, ironic that!

I see little will in the world and here. Many say CC is bad but dont want to do anything. Or they do as long as it doesn't affect them

India and China are greener, yay, more CO2 ingestion, more O exhaust, but they didnt do that for CC they did it for food. China has probably done the most by its EV production and renewables in some new experimental towns. They probably did that for their own future sustainability than fighting CC

So, the globe wont do much, it will in the future spend money coping

1. NZ doesn't pollute much so not our problem

2. It costs too much

3. I like my meat and its inconvenient

4. Doesn't align with my political party

Given this, we should discuss what will happen 100 years from now that our grand children and so on will be dealing with

There was a doco that I have tried to locate I will try again. It looks at what it will be like with +1 degree C, +2, +3 +5 etc Its a great watch. Starts with new wineries in the UK (thats actually started) and ends with war, famine and the break down of human society

I have nothing against helping the environment. But I expect that any laws, rules, taxes etc. Which are promoted as helping the environment. Actually do help the environment.

Getting rid of cattle, when the demand would be made up by overseas production doesn't help the environment. As the emissions still happen. Just in another country.

Banning oil drilling. Instead of implementing measures to reduce oil and gas consumption.

The above things also mean a big reduction in tax revenue to the government. So now I have to either pay extra tax for no improvement in government services. Or I will have to live with a reduction in government services. But not get any tax cuts to compensate for the reduced services. And no actual reductions in carbon emissions, means no improvement to the environment. So I dont get to enjoy a cleaner planet earth either. And how is the government going to put more money into helping the environment, when it will be facing large tax income reductions? The Left would probably just run up heaps of government debt. And leave our grandchildren with a bankrupt country. And an environment that is only marginally better if they are lucky.

For example, I have advocated for ages on these forums for electricity industry reform. But I often get opposed. As people dont want to loose the subsidies that allow them to use coal generated power at peak times. Without needing to pay the full costs of that power. And they like being able to put some solar panels on their house to make themselves feel better. Even though low income people have to pay extra for their power due to those panels. Just look at the complaints when nett metered power plans disappeared. All of those people who complained clearly didn't buy their solar panels for environmental reasons.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2183552 19-Feb-2019 12:05

Aredwood:I have nothing against helping the environment. But I expect that any laws, rules, taxes etc. Which are promoted as helping the environment. Actually do help the environment.

Getting rid of cattle, when the demand would be made up by overseas production doesn't help the environment. As the emissions still happen. Just in another country.

Banning oil drilling. Instead of implementing measures to reduce oil and gas consumption.

The above things also mean a big reduction in tax revenue to the government. So now I have to either pay extra tax for no improvement in government services. Or I will have to live with a reduction in government services. But not get any tax cuts to compensate for the reduced services. And no actual reductions in carbon emissions, means no improvement to the environment. So I dont get to enjoy a cleaner planet earth either. And how is the government going to put more money into helping the environment, when it will be facing large tax income reductions? The Left would probably just run up heaps of government debt. And leave our grandchildren with a bankrupt country. And an environment that is only marginally better if they are lucky.

For example, I have advocated for ages on these forums for electricity industry reform. But I often get opposed. As people dont want to loose the subsidies that allow them to use coal generated power at peak times. Without needing to pay the full costs of that power. And they like being able to put some solar panels on their house to make themselves feel better. Even though low income people have to pay extra for their power due to those panels. Just look at the complaints when nett metered power plans disappeared. All of those people who complained clearly didn't buy their solar panels for environmental reasons.

Getting rid of cattle is a utopia, I didnt mention just in NZ. It will help CO2 markedly. I would support diary cattle, not beef as part of this Utopia.

If a Govt commits to the environment, and that needs to be global, there is a cost. What will the cost be when its +3.5C above pre Industrial Revolution levels? Our lives and the Governments efforts will all be central to managing that, everything else will be a poor second. Its easy now as we cannot see anything change daily and we arent having to manage CC fallouts yet. The end costs will be exponential than what we could do now, which are lifestyle adjustments. Using alignment with National so as to bag the left wont help

Thats correct, if the globe tries to deal with CC, none of us here will benefit. The future will.

I agree with your solar stuff, although I want a situation where it is viable

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2183555 19-Feb-2019 12:16

LOL I said I would support diary cattle.

I guess I meant only 365 of 'em. :-)

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2183572 19-Feb-2019 12:40

https://www.theland.com.au/story/5453409/too-much-hot-air-over-cows-and-greenhouse-gas/

Above article states that we should be concentrating on reducing carbon emissions. Instead of worrying so much about methane emissions from cattle. Which is pretty much what I have always said. It is also very dangerous to be making policy decisions on areas of science, where the science is not settled. When the science in relation to carbon dioxide emissions is settled.

As for the other things you have said. Yes, I agree drastic action is required. But the government seems to have little concern. Implementing the electricity reforms That I want. Raising the level of lake Manapouri and building Project Aqua will mean far more renewable energy. The above will also mean lower energy prices for offpeak power. So a further benefit, as the lower prices will mean end energy usage that is currently done directly by fossil fuels. Will instead be converted to carbon neutral electricity. Solar would also be able to be a part of the electricity network without loading costs onto low income people. So you would get your wish there as well.

But the greenies can see the land flooded by a lake. Yet they can't see the immediate damage from extra carbon emissions. So nothing gets done to lower emissions.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2183582 19-Feb-2019 12:57

Aredwood: https://www.theland.com.au/story/5453409/too-much-hot-air-over-cows-and-greenhouse-gas/

Above article states that we should be concentrating on reducing carbon emissions. Instead of worrying so much about methane emissions from cattle. Which is pretty much what I have always said. It is also very dangerous to be making policy decisions on areas of science, where the science is not settled. When the science in relation to carbon dioxide emissions is settled.

As for the other things you have said. Yes, I agree drastic action is required. But the government seems to have little concern. Implementing the electricity reforms That I want. Raising the level of lake Manapouri and building Project Aqua will mean far more renewable energy. The above will also mean lower energy prices for offpeak power. So a further benefit, as the lower prices will mean end energy usage that is currently done directly by fossil fuels. Will instead be converted to carbon neutral electricity. Solar would also be able to be a part of the electricity network without loading costs onto low income people. So you would get your wish there as well.

But the greenies can see the land flooded by a lake. Yet they can't see the immediate damage from extra carbon emissions. So nothing gets done to lower emissions.

The Govt or this Govt? Remember while this Govt may not act, the previous had 9 years to and didn't also.

Greenies yes I 100% agree. I bet all of the houses they live in sat where native plants used to be. Humans have every right to be here and consume the Earth, as long as they consume it like other animals. No issue with us emitting CO2 or methane, as long as its at a level the planet can manage. 80 sq km for a new hydro scheme doesn't seem much, nor does 3 of them

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2183589 19-Feb-2019 13:12

Previous government introduced the RUC exemption for EVs. Along with a policy requiring more EVs for government use. And the 620MW of gas generation capacity closed down while they were in government. Even though they never promoted themselves as primarily an environmental party. While this government has so far announced that they will do something to promote EVs (haven't said what yet). They have given out money for people to spend on power (winter energy subsidy) Yet not building any new renewable generation. So the new demand has to be met by fossil fuels.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2183591 19-Feb-2019 13:18

Aredwood: Previous government introduced the RUC exemption for EVs. Along with a policy requiring more EVs for government use. And the 620MW of gas generation capacity closed down while they were in government. Even though they never promoted themselves as primarily an environmental party. While this government has so far announced that they will do something to promote EVs (haven't said what yet). They have given out money for people to spend on power (winter energy subsidy) Yet not building any new renewable generation. So the new demand has to be met by fossil fuels.

RUC was a very very niche entry. Very very small, very cool, thats pretty much about it

EV's for Govt uses failed, I read about this the other day was quite humourous. Rough numbers. They purchased 2039 cars. 9 EV's. They were asked in question time how many EVs they have purchased that year. He said we have purchased 2030 non EV vehicles. Funny! So that was a fail

Nats are not an environmentally interested party. They do need to change that as the demographic changes every year, older people pass on, younger climate-knowledgable people vote

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 23