The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_Gunnar]

Biofuels aren't truly carbon neutral. There's more that goes into the production of them than growing plants. That said, powering farm equipment is probably the least intractable problem to getting agriculture to a carbon neutral state.

Nevertheless, the biofuel itself is carbon neutral. There is no carbon in biofuels that did not originally come from the atmosphere via photosynthesis.

Having said that, I still realize that carbon neutral farming involves more than just using biofuels for farm equipment.

What does ‘carbon neutral’ farming mean?

You may have heard the term ‘carbon neutral’ in relation to farming practices that are better for the environment; but what does that mean exactly?

In a nutshell, it is a system that abandons traditional tilling (plowing) on farms and promotes the use of cover crops that help the soil absorb more water and store more carbon dioxide. This combination minimises the loss of fertile soil from wind and water erosion. Moreover, crops have the potential to store at least as much carbon as soil carbon instead of releasing it as greenhouse gas emissions.

Today, after the energy sector, agriculture is the world’s second-highest emitter of carbon dioxide. Key tools for a farmer such as fuel, fertiliser, manure and other inputs used to grow crops also release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) back into the atmosphere. Mike Lohuis is an agricultural environmental strategy expert at Monsanto, and is developing Monsanto’s strategy to address climate change by reducing a farmer’s use of these tools. “By turning crops from ‘net emitters’ into ‘net sequesters’ of carbon, carbon-neutral cropping can be an important tool for mitigating the amount of GHG emissions from agriculture,” said Lohuis.

Monsanto’s global target is to be carbon neutral in its own operations by 2021. The company is working with an external analytics company, ICF International, which has been commissioned by Monsanto to independently assess the GHG reduction potential of several crop-based strategies. This means accounting for emissions on the field as well as upstream emissions associated with inputs such as fertilisers.

Initial results by ICF show that near-term strategies could reduce cropland emissions by one third to half of current emission levels. The most effective strategies with the biggest potential for farmers are precision nutrient management, cover crops and reduced tillage. These strategies are already in use in some countries but so far have experienced limited adoption on farms in Europe. If fully deployed, they have the potential to help farmers become more efficient and therefore more sustainable. As carbon neutral farming practices gain traction, Monsanto’s seed production footprint and customers’ farms will produce food from existing farmland more efficiently and limit pressure on other ecosystems.

[_Gunnar]

And I do agree with you that the agricultural sector will be very tough. We’ve known for lots of years that biofuels are not much better than fossil fuels when it comes to greenhouse gas production.

I fear you are missing the point here. Certainly burning biofuels produces as much greenhouse gas as burning an equivalent amount of fossil fuels. The reason that doesn't matter is that just burning the biofuels cannot possibly do anything more than just barely replace the carbon removed from the atmosphere by the growing plants from which the biofuel is extracted. In fact, it is less than that because some of the carbon these plants remove from the atmosphere remains in the soil in the root systems left behind when the plants are harvested, and is tilled back into the soil when preparing for the next crop to be planted. Thus, not all the carbon removed from the atmosphere is returned to it, especially when one realizes that after the biofuel is extracted, some of that carbon is still in the residue left behind that can be used for animal feed, compost and other purposes. When all this is considered, it is not much of a stretch to suggest that using biofuels may even be carbon negative! Is it?

A bigger problem, as you obviously realize, is the methane produced by the livestock that is being raised for food (the CO2 they produce doesn't matter for the reason already given above). I admit that this is a more intractable problem that will probably be hard to address until American food choices change significantly (which they probably will, when the cost of meat inevitably rises to the point that few people can still afford it.)

[_Res Ipsa]

Don’t think I missed anything. When you look at life cycle emissions, Biofuels still put out too much CO2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ ... _biodiesel And if new crop land has to be added to grow the fuel crop, it can get worse than fossil fuels.

It’s not just the methane for cattle. If you look at the life cycle CO2 emissions, they are huge as well.

[_Gunnar]

I see and understand your points, RI, and thanks for the informative links to which you referred me. Obviously there are imprudent ways to produce and use biofuels, including biodiesel fuel. Certainly destroying forests acquiring land to produce biodiesel is irresponsible and counterproductive, but surely in the links I showed of farmers who produced, stored and used biodiesel on their own farms, on land they already owned, where transportation of their own fuel was not a significant factor, there is a likely, net benefit. I still think that biofuels, wisely used and applied can be a significant part of the solution--especially the potential of the third and fourth generation biofuels discussed in one of the links referred to in the link you provided. And what do you think of the information in this link about carbon neutral farming?

As for the CO2 emissions of cattle, you must be talking about more than just the CO2 they exhale, because every bit of the CO2 they ever exhaled necessarily came from the plants they ate, which necessarily got it all from the atmosphere in the first place, and thus could not possibly have resulted in any net increase in atmospheric CO2. So what are you talking about here? The fuel costs of transporting the cattle, their feed, processing, slaughtering and the distribution of their finished products to markets, I guess, all of which could be powered by green energy sources, once we establish a green energy economy.

[_Chap]

As for the CO2 emissions of cattle, you must be talking about more than just the CO2 they exhale, because every bit of the CO2 they ever exhaled necessarily came from the plants they ate, which necessarily got it all from the atmosphere in the first place, and thus could not possibly have resulted in any net increase in atmospheric CO2. So what are you talking about here? The fuel costs of transporting the cattle, their feed, processing, slaughtering and the distribution of their finished products to markets, I guess, all of which could be powered by green energy sources, once we establish a green energy economy.

From the University of Oxford - "They found large differences in environmental impact between producers of the same product." - and high impact beef (intensive cattle raising) was right at the top.

New estimates of the environmental cost of food

Research published in the journal Science highlights the environmental impacts of thousands of food producers and their products, demonstrating the need for new technology to monitor agriculture, and the need for environmental labels on food products.

Researchers at Oxford University and the Swiss agricultural research institute, Agroscope, have created the most comprehensive database yet on the environmental impacts of nearly 40,000 farms, and 1,600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. This allows them to assess how different production practices and geographies lead to different environmental impacts for 40 major foods.

They found large differences in environmental impact between producers of the same product. High-impact beef producers create 105kg of CO2 equivalents and use 370m2 of land per 100 grams of protein, a huge 12 and 50 times greater than low-impact beef producers. Low-impact beans, peas, and other plant-based proteins can create just 0.3kg of CO2 equivalents (including all processing, packaging, and transport), and use just 1m2 of land per 100 grams of protein.

Aquaculture, assumed to have relatively low emissions, can emit more methane, and create more greenhouse gases than cows. One pint of beer can create 3 times more emissions and use 4 times more land than another. This variation in impacts is observed across all five indicators they assess, including water use, eutrophication, and acidification.

'Two things that look the same in the shops can have extremely different impacts on the planet. We currently don’t know this when we make choices about what to eat. Further, this variability isn’t fully reflected in strategies and policy aimed at reducing the impacts of farmers,' says Joseph Poore from the Department of Zoology and the School of Geography and Environment.

'Agriculture is characterised by millions of diverse producers. This diversity creates the variation in environmental impact. It also makes finding solutions to these environmental issues challenging. An approach to reduce environmental impacts or enhance productivity that is effective for one producer can be ineffective or create trade-offs for another. This is a sector where we require many different solutions delivered to many millions of different producers.'

For producers, the researchers present evidence in favour of using new technology. This technology often works on mobile devices, taking information on inputs, outputs, climate, and soil, to quantify environmental impacts. The technology then provides recommendations on how to reduce these impacts and increase productivity.

However, producers have limits on how far they can reduce their impacts. Specifically, the researchers found that the variability in the food system fails to translate into animal products with lower impacts than vegetable equivalents. For example, a low-impact litre of cow’s milk uses almost two times as much land and creates almost double the emissions as an average litre of soymilk.

Animal product free diets, therefore, deliver greater environmental benefits than purchasing sustainable meat or dairy.

Further, without major changes in technology that disproportionately target animal products, the researchers show that animal product free diets are likely to deliver greater environmental benefits than changing production practices both today and in the future.

Specifically, plant-based diets reduce food’s emissions by up to 73% depending where you live. This reduction is not just in greenhouse gas emissions, but also acidifying and eutrophying emissions which degrade terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Freshwater withdrawals also fall by a quarter. Perhaps most staggeringly, we would require ~3.1 billion hectares (76%) less farmland. 'This would take pressure off the world’s tropical forests and release land back to nature,' says Joseph Poore.

The researchers show that we can take advantage of variable environmental impacts to access a second scenario. Reducing consumption of animal products by 50% by avoiding the highest-impact producers achieves 73% of the plant-based diet’s GHG emission reduction for example. Further, lowering consumption of discretionary products (oils, alcohol, sugar, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding high-impact producers reduces the greenhouse gas emissions of these products by 43%.

This creates a multiplier effect, where small behavioural changes have large consequences for the environment. However, this scenario requires communicating producer (not just product) environmental impacts to consumers. This could be through environmental labels in combination with taxes and subsidies.

'We need to find ways to slightly change the conditions so it’s better for producers and consumers to act in favour of the environment,' says Joseph Poore. 'Environmental labels and financial incentives would support more sustainable consumption, while creating a positive loop: Farmers would need to monitor their impacts, encouraging better decision making; and communicate their impacts to suppliers, encouraging better sourcing.'

[_Gunnar]

Thanks, Chap. I realize that though there are ways to reduce the environmental impact of animal based foods, there is no question in my mind that no matter what reasonable assumptions one makes, plant based foods will have a small fraction of the environmental impact of animal based food products such as dairy and meat products.

[_Chap]

Thanks, Chap. I realize that though there are ways to reduce the environmental impact of animal based foods, there is no question in my mind that no matter what reasonable assumptions one makes, plant based foods will have a small fraction of the environmental impact of animal based food products such as dairy and meat products.

Things are beginning to change in response to the growing realisation that the human race simply does not have a future as a large-scale regular consumer of, in particular, the meat of ruminant animals (beef and lamb).

It is reported that a major world university in the UK has recently agreed to stop serving beef and lamb in its canteens, as part of the sustainable food policy it has pursued for the last few years. There are no signs of outbreaks of cow-eater or sheep-eater protests - presumably because the people who eat in those canteens tend to be people who are familiar with the relevant science.

[_mikwut]

Hi Gunnar,

I had a little time today.

Mikwut is fond of disparaging my quips upthread, but the fact still remains that he cannot come up with an even slightly plausible reason why the vast majority of the world's climate scientists should be regarded as more unreliable than the hugely wealthy and powerful fossil fuel industry who have such an enormous vested interest in denying the reality of AGW, even if true.

I don't know why you are even asking me this question unless you don't read what I post and just assume I am deniar you can just repeat your same polar talking points to.

I have stated my position that the earth is warming, Res agreed with what posted about that. I took it straight from the IPCC. My main issue is with the fear, alarm and exaggerations made because of the deeply political nature of the issue.
The IPCC itself has said, "There is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence." It has said, "There is low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global
land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence", it has said, "there is low confidence in attributing the
causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet since 1993.", it has said, "There is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence", it has said, "there is low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century."Globally, there is low confidence in any long-term increases in tropical cyclone activity," https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... _FINAL.pdf

Yet we keep hearing every storm or drought is directly caused by global warming. This fear especially to our youth is irrational. It is speculative not empirical. Through policy and technology we will arrange our energy solutions accordingly. The end of the world is not nigh, we are actually better off than in any time in history.

mikwut

[_Res Ipsa]

I see and understand your points, RI, and thanks for the informative links to which you referred me. Obviously there are imprudent ways to produce and use biofuels, including biodiesel fuel. Certainly destroying forests acquiring land to produce biodiesel is irresponsible and counterproductive, but surely in the links I showed of farmers who produced, stored and used biodiesel on their own farms, on land they already owned, where transportation of their own fuel was not a significant factor, there is a likely, net benefit. I still think that biofuels, wisely used and applied can be a significant part of the solution--especially the potential of the third and fourth generation biofuels discussed in one of the links referred to in the link you provided. And what do you think of the information in this link about carbon neutral farming?

As for the CO2 emissions of cattle, you must be talking about more than just the CO2 they exhale, because every bit of the CO2 they ever exhaled necessarily came from the plants they ate, which necessarily got it all from the atmosphere in the first place, and thus could not possibly have resulted in any net increase in atmospheric CO2. So what are you talking about here? The fuel costs of transporting the cattle, their feed, processing, slaughtering and the distribution of their finished products to markets, I guess, all of which could be powered by green energy sources, once we establish a green energy economy.

I agree, that under pretty restrictive conditions, one could arrange a scenario under which biofuels could be carbon neutral. But that requires all kinds of things to work exactly right — the kinds of things that generally don’t work exactly right in the real word. I’ve got no quarrel with a farmer making and using biodiesel to run his tractor (although, we should ask where the energy came from that he used to turn his corn into fuel). But that’s not an accurate picture of biofuel use in the US.

The US subsidizes biofuel production. As a direct result, 40% of the US corn crop is used to produce ethanol for use in Internal Combustion Engines. When we look at the total effects on CO2 emissions, we are worse off than if we’d never subsidized biofuels at all. From the standpoint of CO2 emissions, the best thing we could do is eliminate all subsidies for corn based ethanol and plant trees in the additional land that was put under agricultural production because of the subsidies.

One of the best paths we have to decarbonization is to convert our electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewable resources, while phasing out ICEs in favor of electric motors. In that context, I don’t think it makes much sense to spend time, effort, and dollars trying to create cleaner ICE fuels that would have the effect of slowing that transition down. In other words, why expend anything to support the the technology we need to phase out?

May there are uses for ICEs that will need to be around a long time. If that’s the case, and if we can produce fuel for those uses that results in lower CO2 emissions than petro gas or diesel, then I think we should pursue those. Proposed use of algae may avoid the CO2 emissions resulting from land use change may be viable, depending on the presence of other adverse effects. And it may make sense to work on developing and using biofuels as an intermediate step in decarbonizing transportation. But I don’t see biofuels as being part of a long-range, permanent solution to global warming.

As to the cows, yes. A life cycle analysis looks at all direct and indirect emissions. So, not just cow flatulence. About 35% of our corn production is for cattle feed. So, the CO2 produced in growing the feed corn also counts.

As far as carbon neutral agriculture, it requires a bunch of stuff to be done exactly right. And that is going to take making sure it is profitable to decarbonize food production and to recarbonize soil. Creating those kinds of incentives while avoiding incentives to counterproductive behavior is difficult.

[_Chap]

As far as carbon neutral agriculture, it requires a bunch of stuff to be done exactly right. And that is going to take making sure it is profitable to decarbonize food production and to recarbonize soil. Creating those kinds of incentives while avoiding incentives to counterproductive behavior is difficult.

(a) What degree of unpleasant consequences of global heating would, in your view, have to be affecting (say) the US agricultural environment before most farmers themselves started to say 'Hell, it'll be difficult to go carbon neutral but we've just gotta do it'?

(b) Might it not, in fact, be less difficult over a medium time scale for US agriculture to start implementing the necessary measures now, rather than waiting until agriculture is actually staring large-scale damage in the face, and suffering major disruption before it has even begun trying to decarbonise?