EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Earth Sends Climate Warning by Busting World Heat Records
First decade of 21st Century warmest on record; US locations break 7,000 temperature records in March
Accelarated climate change, driven by human activity, has led to soaring temperatures around the world and the decade between 2001 and 2010 was the warmest ever recorded in all continents of the globe, according to a new report released by the World Meteorological Organization.
Additionally, an 'unprecedented' heatwave in the United States "has set or tied more than 7,000 high temperature records" across the country, according to a report from Climate Central. "This heat wave is essentially unprecedented," said the media and research orgnanization's Heidi Cullen told Reuters. "It's hard to grasp how massive and significant this is."
The increase in global temperatures since 1971 has been “remarkable” according to the WHO's assessment. Atmospheric and oceanic phenomena such as La Niña events had a temporary cooling influence in some years, the report says, but did not halt the overriding warming trend.
The “dramatic and continuing sea ice decline in the Arctic” was one of the most prominent features of the changing state of the climate during the decade, according to the preliminary findings. Global average precipitation was the second highest since 1901 and flooding was reported as the most frequent extreme event, it said.
“This 2011 annual assessment confirms the findings of the previous WMO annual statements that climate change is happening now and is not some distant future threat. The world is warming because of human activities and this is resulting in far-reaching and potentially irreversible impacts on our Earth, atmosphere and oceans,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. "The world is warming because of human activities and this is resulting in far-reaching and potentially irreversible impacts on our Earth, atmosphere and oceans," he added.
* * *
Reuters: US Heat 'Unprecedented,' 7,000 Records Set or Tied
An "unprecedented" March heat wave in much of the continental United States has set or tied more than 7,000 high temperature records, and signals a warming climate, health and weather experts said on Friday.
While natural climate variability plays a major role, it is the addition of human-spurred climate change that makes this particular hot spell extraordinary, the scientists said in a telephone and web briefing. [...]
Since March 12, more than 7,000 high temperature records have been equaled or exceeded, Cullen said, citing figures from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center.
These records include daytime high temperatures and record-high low temperatures overnight, which in some cases are higher than previous record highs for the day, Cullen said.
"When low temperatures are breaking previous record highs, that's when you see this is incredibly special," she said.
* * *
From Climate Central: State-by-State Look at How Early Spring Has Arrived:
Click for access to interactive map at Climate Central.
For most of the country spring has sprung earlier this year, but is this anything more than a single warm year? It seems that it is. During the past several decades, with the exception of the Southeast, spring weather has, indeed, been arriving earlier.
In the interactive above, you can see how much earlier spring has arrived state-by-state, measured by the date of "first leaf." As you hover over any state, it'll display two boxes: a gray box that represents the day spring used to arrive (based on the 1951-1980 average) and a colored box that represents how much earlier spring has arrived in recent years (based on the 1981-2010 average).
Nationwide, the date of “first leaf” has clearly shifted — arriving roughly three days earlier now on March 17th (1981-2010 average) from March 20th (1951-1980 average). This shift affects all sorts of biological processes that are triggered by warmer temperatures — not just flowering, but animal migration and giving birth and the shedding of winter coats and the emergence from cocoons. How much will an earlier spring disrupt the intricate natural balance between the tens of thousands of species that depend on each other for food, reproduction and ultimately, survival? No one really knows.
* * *
AFP adds:
"Most likely the weird weather arises from natural variation on top of a warming climate," said Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton and a veteran participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "What we're seeing now is not surprising in the greenhouse world ... It's just the beginning of our experience with the new atmosphere."
Oppenheimer was a lead author of the panel's path-breaking 2007 report that analyzed research by hundreds of scientists and found there was a 90 percent probability that climate change is occurring and human activities contribute to it.
That report projected an increase in heat waves, droughts, floods, severe storms and extreme temperatures as a result of human-spurred global warming, caused in part by rising emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel burning.
* * *
The WMO report looks at the increased prevalence of extreme weather events around the world:
Numerous weather and climate extremes affected almost every part of the globe with flooding, droughts, cyclones, heat waves, and cold waves. Two exceptional heat waves hit Europe and Russia during summer 2003 and 2010 respectively with disastrous impacts and thousands of deaths and outbreaks of prolonged bush fires.
Flooding was the most reported extreme event during the decade with many parts of the world affected. Historical widespread and prolonged flooding affected Eastern Europe in 2001 and 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (in particular Pakistan) in 2010 and India in 2005, and Australia in 2010.
A large number of countries reported extreme drought conditions, including Australia, eastern Africa, the Amazonia region and the western United States. Humanitarian consequences were significant in eastern Africa during the first half of the decade, with widespread shortage of food and loss of lives and livestock.
Forty-eight out of 102 countries (47 per cent) reported that their highest national maximum temperature was recorded in 2001-2010, compared to 20 per cent for 1991-2000 and around 10 per cent for the earlier decades.
The decade saw the highest level of tropical cyclone activity on record for the North Atlantic basin. In 2005 category 5 hurricane Katrina was the most costly hurricane to hit the United States, with a significant human toll of more than 1 800 deaths. In 2008, tropical cyclone Nargis was the worst natural disaster in Myanmar and the world’s deadliest tropical cyclone during the decade, killing more than 70 000 people.
# # #
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
250 Comments so far
Show AllDr. James Hansen says,,, quote from Null's post,,, > ("Note that Hansen finds that current CO2 levels are dangerous. But his calculations show that 6% per year reductions (with reforestation) can restore the safe level of around 350 ppm by 2100. Though 6% per year would be quite drastic, it is technologically within reach, given sufficient will. A fee and dividend system to discourage fossil fuel use shows promise in effecting the desired reductions.”).. end quote.
That is where Dr. Hansen is sadly mistaken. He may be absolutely correct that we could reach the 350 ppm level by 2100 if only Co2 were the issue.
Co2 emissions by human activity are not the (only) issue.. The feedback loops to global warming (*must be*) taken into consideration. And the most dangerous feedback loop is the now rapidly melting Arctic ice and the release of billions and up to trillions of tons of methane gas, CH4, into the atmosphere,,, not just Co2.
That pending and now ongoing Arctic methane threat is something Dr. Hansen ignores in his math equations and he is wrong.
We do not have until 2100 before runaway, irreversible global warning will have begun. In fact we probably don't have until 2020, just 8 more years. So doing as Dr. Hansen suggests is so far wrong it is pitiful and I personally believe you know it, but chose to deny it Aleph Null.
During our 6 month episode of arguing the issue, I have posted numerous links for very credible scientific reports which backup all I have posted and you deny those too and say I don't give references for my opinions…. That is not true and you know that also.
My opinions are based entirely upon the research findings of some of the top scientists in the world, not armchair climate scientists playing with their computer models, but hands on onsite research by geologists, oceanic bio-chemists and earth scientists, who mostly have earned doctorates in their fields of study.
We have to act now with a (a whole lot more) than just a 6% reduction of Co2 annually for the next 88 years or we will not survive. That is how it is Aleph Null, that is reality. . .
WayneWR wrote:
Please provide supporting documentation.
>>Siouxrose wrote: "... while I think Alcyon & Aleph both raise excellent points, I find their NEED to attack you troubling."<<
Siouxrose, you could not be more WRONG in this assessment.
It is more a case of setting the record straight after WayneWR has said several times that my insistence on drawing attention to the effect of producing meat in such a largescale amounts to "denying" the need to stop coal. This is a bizarre accusation that can be ignored only so many times.
A couple of days ago, I had decided that I was NOT going to engage with WayneWR any further because it was all getting to be tiresome, with same old references to reports and statistics. I genuinely wished him well, and this is what I said in the last thread:
90 Degrees in Winter: This Is What Climate Change Looks Like
>>"Anyway, WayneWR, beyond drawing attention to a MAJOR source of greenhouse gas emissions (that is, meat and dairy production) and beyond responding to some things in your posts, I have no need to engage in a pointless exchange here. So take care of yourself. Be well!"<<
Even though I was tempted to make a couple of posts in this thread in reply to some AGW deniers and overpopulation hawks, I did NOT. Simply because I wanted to take a break.
Then what does WayneWR do? He kept mentioning me and Aleph Null even when I was NOT even posting on this thread. I am sure you would have had some similar experience where people talk about you on a thread where you were not even posting? Even after I saw him mention me, I still did not respond, until I felt that this nonsense had gone far enough. Here's the timeline:
WayneWR, Mar 24 2012 - 4:57pm (replying to Mairead):
>>"You are right in the Aleph Null and Alycon group here, who deny in a very subtle manner, that the (major) and most serious problem is burning fossil fuels and burning coal it by far our most serious problem and we have little time left, if any, to correct it."<<
My first response - more out of annoyance at trying to drag me into yet another pointless argument, and with a clear reluctance to get involved:
Alcyon, Mar 24 2012 - 7:32pm:
>>"What the hell are you blabbering about, WayneWR? Can't get enough attention?"<<
If that sounds rude, that is because it was less than 24 hours after he engaged in some ridiculous arguments on a previous thread, even using dishonesty and mischaracterization.
WayneWR's reply to me - Mar 24 2012 - 8:35pm:
>>"Oh wow! I get ample attention from the obtuse, ignorant shills and pro GW deniers Alycon.... You know that.
And ~Aeph Null~, it's perfectly alright for your sidekick ~Alyucon~ to say with 2,000 word posts, that we must just stop eating meat and take out the meat industry, but offers no (references) of how to do that...."<<
WayneWR, Mar 24 2012 - 7:56pm (replying to Aleph Null):
>>"Null is one who supports his sidekick ~Alycon~ who says we can do that if we stop eating meat... ... Therefore; we should stop farming ALL food crops, not just stop raising cattle, cows, chickens, ducks and hogs if we accept Alycon's opinions. ... ... Of course he is wrong as is Alycon and all other pro fossil fuel shills and GW deniers,,, who are equally bad news."<<
I like to respect people's age, and I try not to make things personal, because the point of my posting something is to draw attention to something I consider important, and making it personal will defeat that purpose. Therefore, despite the natural tendency to respond to an obviously personal and what I see as a childish comment directed at me, I HAVE deleted so many responses in the past, replacing it with the word "Deleted". And that is exact what I did here too:
Alcyon, Mar 25 2012 - 1:52am:
>>"Reply deleted. Never mind."<<
However, I thought I must still go ahead and post a comment about the role of livestock, now that the topic has been dragged into this thread - not by me, but by WayneWR. And that is what I did:
Alcyon, Mar 25 2012 - 12:44am
That is a generic post, mentioning links and excerpts.
But then, WayneWR wouldn't give up. Here's how he starts his post:
WayneWR, Mar 25 2012 - 4:16am:
>>"Alycon~ continues his spiel about eating meat is the big problem he says it accounts for 51% of AGW greenhouse gases. That is utter nonsense. If Alycon is going to blast the neat industry he should also blast the produce and citrus fruit industry... Blasting either one is senseless... To go after the coal industry makes a great deal of sense.
~Alycon's contention 51% of our greenhouse emissions is due to the e meat and dairy industry is false..
57% of AGW is from (burning fossil fuels) and more than half of that is from mining and burning (*coal*)... Alycon downplays the damage done from burning coal and attempts to blame the major problem on the livestock, animal husbandry and the meat industry."<<
So, you see, Siouxrose, it has stopped being merely childish and annoying, and has become a direct attack on someone's motives. So why should my response be limited ONLY to a factual rebuttal? Especially after I HAVE done this countless times before, and with every instance, WayneWR's need to divert attention away from the meat industry and the tactics employed were becoming more and more bizarre. And that is why you see the kind of reply I was forced to make:
Alcyon, Mar 25 2012 - 5:23am
I could actually take exception to your characterization of my response as some kind of a NEED to attack someone. But then I won't, for now, because you have obviously not read through all the tiresome arguments I've been engaged in, with this person.
I can do a similar timeline analysis on every single thread where WayneWR has been less than polite, and has been clearly rude and childish, calling me a sidekick of someone, a possible shill for the coal industry, ridiculing me a few times for posting "book length posts", and all that. But that would be tiresome and pointless.
Despite pointing out the ridiculousness of such accusations, the most I have done by way of an "attack" in the past was to call him a "closet patriot", someone "wanting to have his cake and eat it too", and a defender of "the American way of life".
~Alycon wrote,, > (">>"Anyway, WayneWR, beyond drawing attention to a MAJOR source of greenhouse gas emissions (that is, meat and dairy production) and beyond responding to some things in your posts, I have no need to engage in a pointless exchange here. So take care of yourself. Be well!"<<"). end Alycon'scomment.
Alycon in anther of his long posts once again says that the 51% of the greenhouse emissions from human activity due to the meat industry included the fuel used to process and ship the animals and the meat products and the result is (*the major source of our fossil fuel emissions*) are due to the meat and dairy products industry.
Well let us take into honest consideration, that less than 25% of our food is meat and dairy products… Therefore; the other 75% of our food products must also cause a great deal of our Co2 emissions as all food products must be shipped to the processing centers and shipped from there to the markets just as meat and dairy products are. .
So (IF) the meat industry emits most of our greenhouse gases, what energy is left for the other 75% of our food products?
How about the energy and result of Co2 emissions used for our electricity, for gasoline, for diesel, for aircraft pleasure and cargo ships, fuel for manufacturing products other than food products, for the military, etc, etc, etc. We can easily see how irrational Alycon‘s arguments are. We should be able to see it anyway.
The fact is, Alycon does not care what he writes, as long as it sounds smart and someone does not question it… He’s a good writer,,, real smart.
~Aleph Null~ and I have argued the isue of Dr. Hansen's proppsals for 6 months. I have posted at least a dozens links with the words of top scientis and Null argues them, but says I should not argue what Dr. Hansen says.
If I post a link or links again, Aleph Null will argue it and we will once agin be back to first base with needless arguments... So I will say to anyone,,, just (google arctic methane) and read the articles wrtitten by the highly qualifed scientists and what they say is what I say on the issue....... Basically that is, we are running out of time and the Arctic methane threat is a (*ticking time bomb*) which is about ready to explode... We have to prevent it from going off. Aleph Null argues otherwise. He goes along with Dr.James Hansen,,, who is wrong.
"Former US vice president Dick Cheney was given a new heart today in a transplant operation at a northern Virginia hospital." - but without any comment field.
It must be assumed that CD doesn't want comments like: "That @$$hole will never have a heart whatever is put into him...", or: "Who did he kill to get it?", or: "Now that his plastic heart is out, let's hope it increases his chances of a real heart-attack" - or something equally affectionate.
But the connection between Cheney and "Earth Sends Climate Warning by Busting World Heat Records" is undeniable. Cheney's been in crooked republican administrations since Nixon, fercryssake, and is complicit in global climate extreming like few others, the damned oilman he is - in every sense of "oilman", including that of a slippery devil.
String him up and take his heart out. Do the symbolic gesture and give it to some third world global warming victim who needs it. Put Cheney on lit de parade with open casked and chest to prove that he's dead, preferably with a stake through where his heart was.
Why won't CD allow comments and connections made between Cheney and the major problems in the world - militarism as distraction from climate extreming, and global warming as result of overpopulation due to growth demand in capitalism? - Cheney's surely one of the very worst villains alive in those respects.
The doctors who swore the Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm" and then put a fresh heart into Cheney's evil body should be ashamed: traitors to the oath!
Hvrotal,
Great music is my personal therapy for those times when I lose track of why I passionately love humanity. It's hard to bear the pain of thinking that, should we crash and burn as a species, Beethoven would be forever lost to the universe. The Buddhist in me says (unconvincingly), "Well, that's just impermanence, the nature of all things."
Those you label "misanthropic liberals" might have a more expansive sense of obligation at their moral core. Morality is about what you owe others, it's the only escape from our modern mental disease - the single-occupant cell of solipsism. In the first stage of morality, one finds that the comfort of loved ones is more important than personal comfort. In a wider sense, one is able to sacrifice for the tribe, the nation, humanity, all sentient beings, all living things - until finally one becomes a citizen of the universe.
This kind of moral aspiration - expanding the circle of beings one belongs to - is the gauge by which spiritual traditions should be evaluated. Brother Powell, on a gospel music radio show in my area, always signs off with the the tag line:
From a standpoint of feeling bound to a loyalty to all of Life, it is difficult to avoid repugnance for the depredations of humans - look at us: humans are apparently causing the sixth and greatest extinction event. Ultimately it is compassion for all Life, humans included, which motivates the demand for better conduct from Homo sapiens - not misanthropy.
It's rather sickening that Common Dreams is crawling with misanthropic liberals. So much being a "progressive" site where most people here don't even value humans at all.
TJ says:
Really? I've never seen any of those here. Then again, I've never seen you post before this year on CD. The people who post here care deeply about the Earth and the Liberty and Health of the people living on it. It's the Misanthropic Conservatives who are driving us all off a cliff. I'm sure you know the type: Driving Hummers around by themselves, Living in McMansions, investing in war and infinite growth scams, denying Global Warming while they burn the planet to a cinder.
If you valued humans as you claim, you'd support public transit, sell your cars, quit eating meat, stop buying plastic crap, join occupy wall street. But I'll wager you're the the kind of guy who opposes Universal Single Payer Health Care for everyone, hates Unions and is glued to Faux News where they blame everything on those dern Liberals.
That's what I'd wager, if I was a betting man.
However; Shotgun Dick or classical music is not the issue here...The issue is we are all in the midst of the most dangerous event humanity has ever faced and many here are really not very sensible to just post ignorant comments about global warming and deny the fact that burning coal world wide is going to kill all of us and all of our children if we don't act to reverse what is happening.
But, the truth here is with so many deniers and ignorant ones who wish to believe it won't happenin their lifetime, it is a waste of time trying to discuss the issue..
I will say this: By the end of this coming summer, a lot of the commenters here will be eating their words... And if no action is taken to replace the coal fired power plants, by 2020 or perhaps sooner, many here will wish they had never been born... We'll see. .
No they will not eat their words, so dont hold your breath. Some will continue to pretend that nothing is happening. Some will say that it is happening, but it has nothing to do with humans. Others will admit that something is happening, and pretend that it is for the best. Some will point out that the earth was hotter 300 million years ago than it is now, as if that makes it OK. Still others will say that the calamities are gods way of punishing us for permitting homosexuality. In other words, for as long as these denialists are funded, I predict that you will still get the full spectrum of misinformation that you are seeing on this forum.
I can just see some of the idiots commenting here being a driver of a bus which goes plugnging down from a two mile high cliff yelling out,, "It's alrigh folks, don't' be alarmed, this type of thing has happened before and it will happen again."
Wow Wayne, powerful prediction. You may be right. The uncalculated Methane Supercharger following the meltdown of the Arctic may have already put us into thermal runaway. This will be known as The Year Without A Winter for a few years before we go extinct and there's nobody alive to tell the story. Hansen was wrong. He predicted a few degrees warming in 100 years. We now have 30 degree overheats all over the world.
So everything the Big Zero and his sock puppets posted means zilch. A measly Six Percent reduction isn't going to swing it now. We were in a Solar Minimum, and temps were climbing due to Coal Plants and Autos and now we are coming head on into Solar Max which will cook the chit out of this planet.
We are in Deep Chit now.
A billion tons of methane in the atmosphere would be equivilent to another 105 billion tons of Co2... There are (*trillions*) of tons of methane in the Arctic's sub sea permafrost which will release as the permafrost melts... No science is necessary for us or any seven year old child to understand that.
The Arctic Ocean's sub sea permafrost will melt much faster than it currently is now melting from now on as the ocean's perennial sea ice disappears and the sun heats the open blue water all summer long... It's about 24 hours of sunshine there in the summer.
The Arctc's "ticking time bomb" is not something to ignore, scoff at or deny, unless one is brain damaged. How many, or what percentage are upset about it here on this progresive website? I don't know but not very many from what I have seen during the past 9 years.
I really have a hard time understanding and believing it... When a situation that is so deadly serious as the Arctic methane threat is downplayed, ignred, scoffed at and denied by people who obviously are not stupid do it, I cannot conprehend why.
I see ~~Alycon~~ is still hard at it, posting his two looooong -continued posts about the deadly hazards of the (meat industry) is the MAJOR problem though.... Even when proven he is so far wrong it is actually funny, he continues on... He reminds me so much of RFinston's mind set, same type of bullheaded, obtuse ignorance.
~Alycon~ has twice brought up a months old thread here where I questioned how 8 pounds of burned gasoline could prduce 19 pounds of Co2... I've read that is possible but I don't understand it.
Anyway; I was (not) confused by the fact that operating gasoline powered engines produce (both) Co2 and CO as he tried to say about me in another of his continual attempts to show that I am not very smart... He sounds like my wife when I told a cop to fuck off. After getting my ass kicked she says to me, "You aren't very smart."
Deciduous fruit trees - apples, pears, cherries, peaches, apricots, plums - will not bear fruit if they don't through a dormancy phase in the winter. Different varieties have different "chill hour" requirements. They also need to stay dormant long enough so that the buds are not vulnerable to freezes. Disturbances to this pattern - always very rare, going back 1500 years, probably longer - have been happening for the last 12 years, and it is getting increasingly worse. The trees are 7-8 weeks ahead of schedule here this year. The same phenomenon is happening in all of the fruit growing regions around the world.
I have been talking about this for 12 years now. Outside of the grower community no one cares. I may as well be talking to a wall. Not sure why they don't care. They must be so estranged and alienated from the natural world that it may as well not even exist for them.
Those who are genuinely interested (and NOT out to simply drown out any attempt to draw attention to an important subject) may please check out the following sources to understand the methodology and the kind of data used:
There are two reports I cite in particular:
(1) Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). According to this report, which came out in 2006,
*****>> Gaseous emissions and climate change - More impact than road transport
Livestock’s contribution currently amounts to about 18% of the global warming effect – an even larger contribution than the transportation sector worldwide.
Livestock contribute about 9% of total carbon dioxide emissions,
but 37% of methane (23 times as warming as CO2)
and 65% of nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential - GWP - of CO2.)
Greenhouse gases are emitted from rumen fermentation and livestock waste. Carbon dioxide is released when previously forested areas are converted into grazing land or arable land for feed. Therefore, expansion of pasture and cropland at the expense of forests releases significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. As does the process of pasture and arable land degradation, which results in a net loss of organic matter.
Carbon dioxide releases resulting from fossil fuel consumption used for the production of feed grains (tractors, fertilizer production, drying, milling and transporting) and feed oil crops must also be attributed to livestock.
The same applies with the processing and transport of animal products. Yet another category is constituted by nitrous oxide emissions from leguminous feedcrops and from chemical fertilizer applied to other feedcrops.<<*****
The link above has the entire report available as separate PDF files for each section. Those who do not have the time to read all sections may check out the following section that talks about the methodology and the data used:
Livestock's role in climate change and air pollution.
Some more information on the methodology is available in the following section:
Annex 3: Methodology of quantification and analysis.
Keep in mind that the FAO report uses a global warming potential of only 23 for methane (i.e., 23 times as warming as CO2), based on a 100-year timeframe, whereas it is now generally agreed that it is best to use a 20-year timeframe, which gives a GWP of 72 for methane (i.e., 72 times as warming as CO2). This is just one of the various underestimations in the FAO report pointed out by the next report by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, which came out in 2009 (pdf file):
(2) Livestock and Climate Change
This is only 9 pages long, including a discussion on solutions and alternatives.
The authors essentially critique the above FAO report and point out that there are several underestimated, overlooked, and wrongly attributed emissions in the FAO report, and that according to their methodology, the greenhouse gas emissions related to livestock operations are 51% of all GHG emissions.
More importantly, they also argue that the total greenhouse gas inventory itself is grossly underestimated, and they offer a revised estimate of 63,803 million tons.
Let me also repeat the authors' own statement about their report:
>>"This is a strong claim that requires strong evidence, so we will thoroughly review the direct and indirect sources of GHG emissions from livestock. Some of these are obvious but underestimated, some are simply overlooked, and some are emissions sources that are already counted but have been assigned to the wrong sectors. Data on livestock vary from place to place and are affected by unavoidable imprecision; where it was impossible to avoid imprecision in estimating any sum of GHGs, we strove to minimize the sum so our overall estimate could be understood as conservative."<<
The main thing to keep in mind about the methodology of both these reports, despite their widely varying estimates, is that they use a "lifecycle analysis" or "lifecycle assessment".
Therefore, emissions from fossi fuels used in the manufacture of fertilizers used to grow cattle feed are attributed to the livestock category. So, even though a "black box" accounting of emissions from fossil fuels is normally cited as 57%, a portion of this, as per this methodology, is attributed to livestock operations (and subtracted from the "black box" amount which lumps together all end use cases). The same is the case with emissions due to deforestation, when carried out for the purpose of creating grazing land or to grow soy to feed livestock.
This is also somewhat like moving the separate budgets for Veterans Affairs and the military-type operations of the CIA (supposedly a "civilian" agency) and some other expenses under the State Dept.'s budget, into the "military" category, in addition to the "Defense" budget, in order to get a true sense of the military-related expenditure (or as close as one can get). Of course, this is strictly not an example for lifecycle analysis, but only an attempt to properly account certain expenses under the right category.
Another example would be the book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict" by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. It is obviously possible to argue, and people have been arguing, that the cost of this war was only in the hundreds of billions of dollars and not in trillions of dollars. But one way or the other, those trillions are being spent anyway, but I would imagine that those interested in a bit of truth would want to see them properly attributed to the correct category.
Continued below.
Eating higher up on the food chain immediately makes it more resource-intensive, and the increased quantities of land, water and inputs needed to produce meat and dairy has long been known and documented. So it should not be terribly surprising that this increased use of resources must necessarily result in increased greenhouse gas emissions.
What was not so well-known before these reports came out was the extent of these emissions when the entire supply chain was considered - from land use changes that release CO2, to production of fertlizers to growing of livestock feed to processing of this feed, transporting this feed over long distances, transporting meat and dairy products and so on.
Whether we acknowledge these emissions are not, these are taking place. So we can either have "black box" categories of "transportation", "power generation", "industry", "agriculture", etc., or do a proper accounting to understand the real contribution of meat and dairy production to the climate crisis.
Since accusations have been made about my alleged reluctance to chant "Stop burning coal!", let me explain my thinking on this matter:
But first some numbers:
A rough estimate for CO2 emissions from coal power plants is about 1 - 1.1 kg/kWh.
From Wikipedia,
total worldwide electricity generation from coal (2008 numbers) was 8,263 TWh (USA: 2,133 TWh, China: 2,733 TWh, India: 569 TWh)
(1 terawatt-hour = 1 trillion watt-hour or 1 billion kWh).
So 8,263 TWh = 8.263 trillion kWh.
So a rough estimate for CO2 emissions, then, would be 8.263 trillion kg or 8,263 million tonnes or 8.3 billion tonnes of CO2 from coal power plants worldwide, as per 2008 numbers.
Coal is also used for other purposes, so the total emissions from mining and burning coal will be even higher.
Some countries get a large percentage of their electricity from coal power plants. The USA, for example, gets 45% of its electricity from coal power plants.
The urgent need to shut down coal power plants is clear. In fact, I used to argue on some of the anti-nuclear threads about making coal the bigger threat than nuclear power, from a global warming POV.
I am convinced that the ONLY way that coal power plants can be shut down in a short period of time is by massively reducing the demand for electricity, starting with all non-essential uses of electricity.
In the past, I have cited electricity consumption numbers for a sporting stadium such as the Houston Astrodome, the Las Vegas Strip, an ice rink in Florida, an escalator, an amusement park such as Disneyworld, etc. In a crisis situation, these kinds of activities cannot be deemed "essential" by any means. But shutting them down may be difficult. The alternative will be to build massive capacity of renewable energy systems to continue powering such items. I have proposed "boycotting" instead of shutting them down, leading to an eventual shutting down of these.
Big reductions in electricity demand will also be a direct result of reducing meat and dairy production and consumption significantly -- due to reduced demand for electricity all across the supply chain - from fertilizer manufacture all the way to freezers.
I have also argued on the need for an upper limit on GHG emissions for the country as a whole (and for all countries), and I support a carbon tax as part of a "fee & dividend" system to force the pace of the transition.
In contrast, some people don't want a carbon tax, don't understand "fee and dividend", don't think a major demand reduction is feasible, and don't seem to have understood why an upper limit on GHG emissions is needed. And yet, burning coal must be stopped now.
As fossil fuel-based cars are replaced by plugin hybrids and public transportation, the demand for electricity may actually increase, unless some other demand such as those listed above is reduced. More conservation is possible by banning open freezers in supermarkets, avoiding over-cooling and overheating (and over-lighting) of buildings, non-stop running of escalators, and so on. The potential to reduce demand without much loss of comfort is really huge.
Additional electricity will also be needed in the near term when all the manufacturing of renewable energy systems and public transportation infrastructure take place, as they should -- unless these are imported!
It is because of this kind of a daunting reality that I became convinced, long ago, of the urgent need to massively cut down on demand for electricity by doing an extreme budgeting for energy consumption. An extreme budgeting of energy will also be needed to make the transition to an all-renewable energy scenario.
These are all hard choices. But they must be understood and faced. Saying so takes more words than for just saying "Stop burning coal now!". Maybe that is why most politicians keep their "message" short?
What kind of a solution is advocated will depend on someone's particular worldview. My own worldview is to keep things simple, avoid needless and unsustainable consumption, instead of trying to find ever more complex ways of feeding the same old appetites and addictions, and to prioritize actions that will have the highest and most immediate payoffs, and actions that are most feasible and actions with multiple benefits, from various considerations.
Not everyone will agree on the worldview or on the prioritization order, of course. That is where I was hoping that some numbers will be of help. But only if we move beyond the "black box" pie charts lumping all kinds of things together.
You do not mention or acknowledge the fact, that the MAJOR source of AGW greenhouse gas emissions is actually from burning fossil fuels, primariy from burning coal. which is also acidifying our oceans, a double edged sword.
Only a small precentage of the power produced from burning fossil fuels is used by the meat industry, much more is used for other sources of food prduction... What is your real agenda Alycon?
That report you reference is very questionable... Most by far methane gas emitted due to AGW is from (*landfills*)... Another high on the list is from human waste disposal plants,,, another is rice cultivation, mostly in Asia,,, another is mining and burning coal.
Indeed; Animal husbandry is a cause of methane releases... Now please tell us that there is any credible plan to kill of all of the livestock in the world, to eliminate that source of methane releasing... How about stopping use of all landfills and stop growing rice? __ Ya got any suggestions there?
What food sources are going to replace the meat and dairy foods? __ Tell us... Growing crops, farming, already releases far more Co2 and N2O than that from animal husbandry and the meat and dairy industry combined.
Btw; your figures of the potency of methane and N2O are not close to what I have reaad... New science studies from last year from the CDIAC say methane is 105 times as potent as Co2 for the first 20 years in the atmosphere.... Learned about that new study from ~Aleph Null~ in fact.
When I google N2O the articles say N2O is near 900 times as potent as Co2. I believe the reference you cite is outdated information or I misread the articles I looked up? It's burning coal that is the MAJOR issue Alycon... Or are you with Aleph Null who supports the coal industry? __ Are you and Aleph related in any way? __ Just askin Al.
"you have stated in a post here that the (meat industy) alone... is the MAJOR cause of AGW greenhouse gas emissions... You do not mention or acknowledge the fact, that the MAJOR source of AGW greenhouse gas emissions is actually from burning fossil fuels, primariy (sic) from burning coal"
Wayne, have you even bothered to read the report? (it's not that long -- try it). You don't think fossil fuels are being burned to support meat production? Have you even considered how much of our fossil fuel use goes to the big agriculture industry? (don't forget about manufacturing all those synthetic fertilizers)... and what proportion of those fuels are used simply to grow crops to feed livestock? Then add in: trucking around all that livestock feed; the electricity needed to power all the huge intensive-confinement buildings; and the electricity needed to refrigerate or freeze all that highly-perishable meat (do they use coal for electricity where you live?). That is not even dealing with the deforestation and land-use issues...
In short, your comment about meat production versus fossil fuel use, as if there is absolutely no connection between the two, seems almost deliberately obtuse.
Now tel me if you believe that we use more energy shipping and producing meat products than for all other uses combined .
Then consider that growing all food crops, other than for the livestock business, cows, cattle, chickens, hogs, etc, emits more Co2 than the food animal industry. So we probably should shut down growing potatoes, tomatoes, wheat, celery lettuce, onions, squash, beans, peanuts, beets, carrots, spinach , broccoli, berries and fruit instead of killing all of the farm animals, chickens and ducks.... Right?
Here is a link for a Common Dreams article which shows what is emitting humans greenhouse gases and if you take the time to figure it all out, the meat industry accounts for about 7% of our greenhuse gas emissions,,, not 51%, okay.
Growing other food crops about 14%, which includes the 8% of N20.
N20 is 900 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than Co2 and after 100 years 300 times more potent than Co2. N20 comes mostly from farming crops.
,, http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/01/18-0
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/01/18-0
Same info is from the NOAA.
It's burnng coal that is the MAJOR problem.
Would you care to know why I didn't bother? If you care to know, here is why.
~Alycon~ has been writing for at least 6 months here that the (meat industry) is responsible for (51%) of human's greenhouse gas emissions.... That is sheer nonsense.
So if Alycon posts an articel to (bakc up) his (51%) claims, it is not worth reading, no matter who wrote it.
I have fully explained more than once why it is sheer nonsense and have posted a link for an article which proves it is sheer nonsense and common senses and honesty should reveal to you it is sheer nonsense..... Did you bother to read the article I posted?
Now I have answered your questions... So perhaps you would care to answer mine?
Do you believe the meat industry emits (51%) of human caused greehouse gases?
Do you believe the meat industry emts even (15%) of the greenhouse gases emtted by human activity?
Have you ever before posted here on threads prior to this one, where Alycon and I have debated and argued the issue? I have never seen your name prior to today.
You did not reply in any manner to anything of what I wrote in reply to you ~avileeg~, so I would suggest that it is you who is being obtuse,,,, not I.
WayneWR wrote:
The World Watch report in question finds that a full accounting of energy inputs to the meat and dairy sector "shows that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32,564 million tons of CO2e per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions."
The capsule bios at the end of the paper indicate that the authors have some experience with complex macro-economic accounting - but knowing what you're talking about doesn't count for anything with some folks.
much better than the dumb red and blue of the world of the Pretend Election...
how can a lovely leaf showing up 5 days early be a problem? isn't that kind of neat?
much nicer to contemplate a green go-getter than an oil-and-Corexit-and-blood-covered dolphin corpse suffering death from cell wall destruction...
no wonder they had the Coast Guard shooting at you to keep you from seeing that...
no, no...let's talk about the happy, unfolding leaf, and '5 days'...
Climate Central's Heidi Cullen describes lows higher than former highs as 'incredibly special'...
are you fucking serious? 'incredibly special'?
these are not the words I would use...these words are insane...
this is incredibly bad, if not cataclysmic (hello, methane), and obvious cause to begin dismantling human industrial infrastructure, and confronting the false economics we have allowed to rationalize the situation by fighting to reclaim the land beneath our feet, and our right to the natural resources upon...
the remote we use to change channels will not take care of this...
this is not the only danger we face, either...
there are other reasons our infrastructure must go, triple nuclear meltdowns aside, as if...
in the wrong hands, which it is, it will be our undoing...
A new analysis of attribution, from Kevin Trenberth:
People in science should really settle on a clear, honest (if simplified) way to describe the causal chain and hammer it home at every opportunity.
Good summation. Scientists like Trenberth always feel compelled to rigourously quantify. The hard statistics and confidence intervals extinguish ambiguities for those seeking exactitude, but may leave the average person lost in the numerical mist.
A severe gap in comprehension, I think, emerges from a failure to grasp the physical reality of the greenhouse effect - the absorption of heat by invisible, scarce molecules in the air. Climate science deniers exploit this natural difficulty by implying that there's some kind of scientific controversy over the radiative properties of greenhouse gases - basic physics since Fourier in the mid-1800's.
Last week it occurred to me that people can't see microwaves, either, but they have no trouble understanding that microwaves can heat up your coffee - it's not a matter of belief. Microwaves are longer than the infrared absorbed by CO2, and microwaves make the water molecules rotate, while infrared makes the chemical bonds of CO2 vibrate - but both forms of motion are heat, induced by molecular absorption of electromagnetic energy. People who question the existence of the greenhouse effect should not be allowed to use microwave ovens.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm one of those "ask me the time and I'll tell you how to build a watch" nerds. It's taken me all my life to even begin to get a grip on the idea of honest simplification.
Last week it occurred to me that people can't see microwaves, either, but they have no trouble understanding that microwaves can heat up your coffee - it's not a matter of belief.
You bring up an extremely interesting issue. My Mum, born during the time of gas and paraffin lamps, grew up as those flammables were giving way to electric lighting. But as intelligent as she was -- and she was -- she never quite felt comfortable seeing a lamp socket without a bulb in. She was convinced on an emotional level that the electricity would "leak out into the room" and cause an disaster.
She mapped the behavior of gas, which she understood, onto the behavior of electricty, which she didn't really understand in the same way. She knew there were differences (there weren't any gas-powered radios), but the differences weren't brightly delineated -- some refrigerators ran on gas, others on electricity, and she could never really get them clear. But she could use them. She understood them on an instrumental level, and that was sufficient for her real-world needs.
Perhaps we should think about how to get past the disbelief of people who understand microwave ovens only instrumentally. They probably have no idea about how they work at a physical-law level, but on the other hand they don't need to: they understand how they work on a kitchen level. Can we come up with a way to explain how planetary overheating works at a kitchen level?
Your blanket analogy is perfectly apt. Greenhouse gases keep heat from escaping, like a blanket keeps heat from escaping. But then some smart-ass child asks "But how does a blanket keep heat from escaping?" At that point we might need to define heat. Forgive me if I seem to be telling you things you already know - I'm just thinking out loud about an explanation "at the kitchen level."
David Archer says "A thermometer is an atomic speedometer." In things which store heat, all the atoms are jiggling around - the temperature is a measurement of the amount of jiggling. It's always a two-way street: any substance which can store kinetic energy in jiggling atoms will also emit electromagnetic energy - at infrared frequencies, in the case of substances at room temperature.
Every blessed thing with a temperature above absolute zero glows in the infrared spectrum. We don't need to know what it's made of - just tell me how hot it is and I'll tell you how much infrared light it's giving off. Because the Earth is about 14.5°C*, you can calculate what its infrared spectrum should look like, or you can go up in a satellite and take a picture of it.
The satellite spectrometry shows chunks bitten out of Earth's infrared spectrum by various greenhouse gases. Each bite is retained energy - held in by our atmospheric blanket.
* Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index
Deepwater Horizon unfolding in the North Sea. This time, it's a natural gas reservoir which is gushing uncontrollably:
This morning there's a CD headline on this disturbing disaster:
"That gas has a high proportion of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide and that makes it very flammable and quite poisonous." How do you get close enough to stop a blowout of poisonous, flammable gas?
You are right Alycon,,, ~Avilegg~ managed to say what you have been trying to say for the past six months in a lot fewer words than you have posted here. . Lots less words, probably 60,000 or more less words.
So I went out and sat on a pillow in one of our camping tents, all alone and thought and thought and thought about it, meditated while gazing through the top vent at the quarter moon. After several hours of meditation, I concluded that I have been horribly wrong and you are right.
Think of it!!! World wide, 51%, more than half of the electrical energy humans develop by burning fossil fuels, is used by the meat industry…. Just think of that, it is amazing, incredible, mind boggling, when one really thinks and meditates about that. Wow, wow , wow!!! There just are not enough words to describe it, I can think of any others.
It is clearly obvious now that instead of concentrating on having a world wide massive effort to replace the coal burning electrical power plants with clean energy, which would accomplish nothing, that we must concentrate on the MAJOR problem,,, the (*meat industry*) and the animal husbandry industry…. Kill the head and the snake dies.
We must kill every cow, steer, sheep, goat, pig, chicken, duck, and domesticated water buffalo, bison and yak in the entire world… Don’t some places herd reindeer and ostrich too? __ Kill all animals raised or herded for the meat industry.
That is the heads of the meat industry, eliminate the head and the meat industry dies. Everyone will be a veggie and everyone on Earth will be healthier, no more cholesterol caused heart attacks.
I bet with all of the world governments’ support, that could be started and finished within less than six months… The hides could be saved for the boot and shoe, belt, wallet and clothing industries and all of the meat ground up for the pet food industry. After that meat is all eaten up, we can kill all of the dogs and cats. And if anyone is caught eating horse, mule or donkey meat, off to the tower.
Now with that issue taken care of, we've eliminated more than half of human carbon emissions, we can burn coal, lots and lots of coal and shut down the gas and oil fired power plants and all of the nukers too.
And don’t ever worry about running out of coal… We can mountain top remove every mountaintop in Southern Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Tennessee... We would have enough coal to burn until doomsday.,,, which come to think of it, probably would not be long in coming.
Oh; I just now thought of another word besides amazing, incredible and mind boggling to describe your opinions Alycon,,,,,,,, “unbelievable“.
You know what Alycon? If you try, instead of writing 1,500 to 2,000 word comments, you could cut it all down to just 10 words… Just write,,, > (“ 51% of world’s electrical power, is used by the meat industry.”). Thank you for all of the amazing help here Alycon and your new admirer, ~avilegg~.
Hey, is anyone here missing a sock?
Energy efficiency is probably the cheapest alternative energy source available*. Any reasonable person who is sincere about phasing out fossil fuel energy sources will immediately understand that the primary alternative is to stop wasting so much energy.
It strains common sense to imply that advocates of energy efficiency or energy conservation are somehow opposed to phasing out fossil fuel use. It is absolutely upside down.
Alcyon's consistent theme is energy conservation. I can't think of a more pertinent focus. Because there's no reasonable way to advocate continued waste of energy resources, the only means WayneWR has to oppose Alcyon's message is clowning around and ridiculous invective. Some of us take the issue of global warming seriously.
I see a post above in which WayneWR announces that he has no intention of ever reading the 10-page World Watch report Livestock and Climate Change - which he pretends to refute with his absurd antics. How sad.
* Comparative electrical generation costs
Hey ~Aleph Null,~ that report ~Alycon~ referenced that states the meat industry emits 51% of our greenhouse gases if wrong... So is Alycon... So are you.
Anyone with at least two brain cells wired would have to know that burning coal produces far, far more Co2 and methane than the meat ndustry does. So does all other farming,,, so does using electrical and gas energy for all of our electricity and heat and cooking around the world,,, so does burning oil to run machinery and vehicles, ships and aircraft,,, so does deforestation, etc.
The meat industry is minor in comparrison and to say it emits more than half of our greenhouse gases is sheer stupidity and it's also a damn lie.... I know you are smarter than that, so you are just supporting that lie....Why?
My summer bike is a tourer, not quite 30yo. As I'm not a purist I swapped out the stupid Tour-de-France-fantasy drop bars popular in the US for sensible North Road touring ones with cork grips, and fitted period thumb shifters in place of those frame-mounted death-to-cyclists ones popular back then. Fifteen speeds standard instead of 10, front and rear racks, aluminum fenders, and a beautiful ride that just gets more stable as I load her up. I wouldn't ride her in the winter as she has the old-style open-race wheel bearings, and the skinny tires would almost guarantee disaster, but for the rest of the year she's a joy.
But I live in milder climes so to speak and even in winter when I used to really get out on an everyday basis and do 10 miles pulling at least 3 good hills, so just a pair of long handles or 2 and a few layers up top and knit cap and scarf serves me or served me well until the people around me got to resenting my presence on the road so I have reduced my riding. Being harassed, intimidated and threaten doesn't sit well so when I ride now I ironically put my bike on my truck and drive to different places which really affords different scenery.