What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Non Footy Chat Thread II

TheRam

Coach
Messages
11,648
OK so instead of saying that the concept of a price on carbon is bonkers without any explanation, perhaps we can start here. Explain why Australia's emissions went south during the ETS and when Abbott came in and celebrated the dismantling of the ETS, it immediately went north ?

View attachment 61993

What I find weird is that you ^^^ are banging on about how we are starving the land of carbon, yet the very nature of an ETS encourages this very thing.

"In this (2012 ETS) scheme “credits” could only be obtained in two ways: via the Carbon Farming Initiative where Australian farmers were paid to maintain their land as carbon sinks, and by already possessing credit from participation in the Kyoto Protocols. The scheme was limited to Scope 1 emissions (combustion of fuels, fugitive, industrial & landfill emissions) and wouldn’t be applied to fuel, though small changes were made to fuel excise and tax credits in a bid to price pollution from transportation. And, most importantly, the scheme worked. In its three years of operation Australian carbon emissions fell significantly as high-emitting entities changed their behaviour."


Look I don't want to get into the weeds on the merits or otherwise of carbon trading schemes other then to say that Al Gore and David Blood his business partner, through their Company named 'Blood and Gore', became the first billionaires investing in carbon trading. I think enough said.

What is more important and can't be manipulated is restoring the soils of the world and bring life back to otherwise dead and or dying landscapes of the world that will only get much much worse and see humanity and all of nature actually starve and or die off completely.

Why not get behind a scheme that guarantees life and prosperity for all of the planet not just humanity by regrowing all our lost grass lands and forests? There is a belief by many of the people that advocate soil regeneration that all deserts are unnatural and are due to man intervention or some extreme event that when either is removed the earth over time will heal itself as long as the damage isn't to far gone. Unfortunately after around 12000 years of human agriculture we are seeing permanent deserts right across the globe and in particular the desert belt of the world that start from the western top of Africa and goes all the way across to the edge of Mongolia above and including China. This region of the world has and is some of the most heavily farmed lands going all the way back into antiquity. Combined with the hot winds that push up from the equator and it is/was a recipe for disaster.

But anyway look I don't want to argue with you on this subject, it is way to important and vital for all of us to find some middle ground and work out what really is killing our planet and then the best possible solutions to resolve and restore it back to health. I think that we can both agree that the soils are dying and that putting chemicals in them and on the food we grow can't be a good thing for us or mother earth right? So lets start there and support better practices in bringing back the soil that has now turned to lifeless sand by implementing a practice that can't be manipulated by big business and won't make anyone or just the wealthy more wealthy.

Remember that 70% of the worlds farms are 5 acres or less and the majority are run by women. Fixing their soil with a variety of multi species cover crops to act as a guard over the soil instead of mono species with tons of chemicals farming and teaching them how to graze their live stock can't be all that difficult. The other 30% of the worlds farm which includes massive industrial farms can also be shown how to do this effectively and even be more profitable in the long run then they are now. We aren't talking about splitting the atom here, this is just mimicking nature in a man made controlled way that will benefit both us and nature instead of being at war with her and ourselves frankly.

Look there is a great doco on all of this and more, including the history of farming and how we got here called 'Kiss The Ground'. I don't know if you have heard about it or already seen it, but it is a brilliant and a well made film narrated by Woody Harrelson. The majority of the people are come from the left of politics like you in it, but I don't hold that against them because they have identified the problem and have a real world solution that will benefit all of us and not just a few, even though Patricia Arquette who is advocating compost near the end is still not understanding the big picture and that composting is good, but will not fix what we are talking about here at all and that you don't need composting if you practice no till farming correctly. But her heart is in the right place and it can help in a small way I suppose, so you can't fault her for that.

I strongly recommend it though and hope you have a way to download it or know how to view it from somewhere. Also just to be clear, I don't believe that Co2 in our atmosphere is a major problem like they say in this doco. I believe that the planet can and does just fine and actually thrives when there is more Co2 in the atmosphere as is has throughout its history even before mans existence. But I also believe, just like all these activists, scientist and farmers that we are removing it out of our soils with all the bad farming practices that we have been implementing and that the earth needs it to be healthy and become nutrient dense life producing soil. That is why we need it and a lot of it in our atmosphere otherwise where will the soil get it from? I think from memory that healthy soil should hold about 56% carbon in it. In other words the more carbon in the atmosphere the healthier our soils can get if we practice good land management. Anyway I just thought I would explain my point of view just so we are clear.

No Co2 trading schemes that make a hell of a lot of money for the smarties while soils and water ways just keep getting polluted and raped while our farmers go bust and our food just keeps getting less and less nutritious and poisonous. This is something all of us can see the benefits of and get behind, don't you think?

 

TheRam

Coach
Messages
11,648
We may have to result in cannibalisation.

Sweet Hindy, I'll eat you while you eat Gary, while Gary eats me. Sounds delicious right? Especially when we squeeze the sauce freely and directly into our mouths.

To much? OK we'll eat the sauce from off of the meat then like normal meat loving dudes. ;)
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
66,435
Look I don't want to get into the weeds on the merits or otherwise of carbon trading schemes other then to say that Al Gore and David Blood his business partner, through their Company named 'Blood and Gore', became the first billionaires investing in carbon trading. I think enough said.
You don't want to discuss it, but at the same time dismiss it as a capitalist money grab ? Look I know you are pig headed and only want to talk about your take on things, but it's a fact that Climate Change and your baby Desertification are absolutely correlative, and hence emissions, are a significant factor of the equation..

If you think that carbon sequestration is the only thing necessary to slow down or combat climate change, then you need to look beyond your biases. Even people who are fans of Allan Savory's work, don't limit it as the silver bullet. We need a holistic approach and attack it from all angles.

Studying three grazing areas in northern Texas, Richard Teague, Ph.D., a range ecologist at Texas A&M University, found that the soil on the ones managed regeneratively had the greatest water- and nutrient-retaining abilities, as well as the highest concentrations of sequestered carbon. Other research has shown the ability of regeneratively tended land to trap greenhouse gases. A study in the journal Rangeland Ecology & Management found that holistic farming was able to sequester 106 grams of carbon per square meter annually. Other pasture-management approaches released around 200 grams. Project Drawdown, a nonprofit coalition of scientists, policy makers and business leaders aimed at identifying solutions to climate change, believes the potential for carbon sequestration is so great that it ranks farming methods like Savory’s ninth on their list of the 80 most effective things that can be done to counteract methane emissions and sequester carbon—above crop-only regenerative practices where no livestock are involved. They call it a “climatic win-win.”

 

TheRam

Coach
Messages
11,648
You don't want to discuss it, but at the same time dismiss it as a capitalist money grab ? Look I know you are pig headed and only want to talk about your take on things, but it's a fact that Climate Change and your baby Desertification are absolutely correlative, and hence emissions, are a significant factor of the equation..

If you think that carbon sequestration is the only thing necessary to slow down or combat climate change, then you need to look beyond your biases. Even people who are fans of Allan Savory's work, don't limit it as the silver bullet. We need a holistic approach and attack it from all angles.

Studying three grazing areas in northern Texas, Richard Teague, Ph.D., a range ecologist at Texas A&M University, found that the soil on the ones managed regeneratively had the greatest water- and nutrient-retaining abilities, as well as the highest concentrations of sequestered carbon. Other research has shown the ability of regeneratively tended land to trap greenhouse gases. A study in the journal Rangeland Ecology & Management found that holistic farming was able to sequester 106 grams of carbon per square meter annually. Other pasture-management approaches released around 200 grams. Project Drawdown, a nonprofit coalition of scientists, policy makers and business leaders aimed at identifying solutions to climate change, believes the potential for carbon sequestration is so great that it ranks farming methods like Savory’s ninth on their list of the 80 most effective things that can be done to counteract methane emissions and sequester carbon—above crop-only regenerative practices where no livestock are involved. They call it a “climatic win-win.”


On Allan Savory, even though he is doing amazing work now a days, as he admits it wasn't always this way. He even admitted in one of his many public speaking presentations that he and his co-scientists fudged some of the science in the analysis report papers that they needed to present to the local Government authorities so as to give them the go ahead to cull the great numbers of animals they believed at the time were causing desertification. Forty thousand elephants alone were culled during this massive killing experiment gone wrong and he says he will go to his grave regretting what he/they did.

Well at least though he is on the right track now, but maybe we should take pause here and digest exactly what he and his learned mates did. They exaggerated and misrepresented the data because they believed they were right even though the data was obviously wrong but they couldn't see past that because they had a pre set belief that didn't allow them to analyze what was going on in the real world correctly.

Hmmm...sound familiar?

Anyway, fine you are right, no need to discuss any further. Carbon bad, even though it is the life source of the planet, up there with water and oxygen and we all need to pull our heads in if we don't agree because there is this thing we need to worry about called global warming, no sorry global freezing, no wait, climate change. There that should cover it and all its contingencies. So lets shut down all fossil fuel power and ruin the first world and starve the 3rd world to save us all and our beautiful planet. Credits on the stock exchanges should do the trick. I'm sure it can cos Al Gore told me and if you don't agree you are a fascist Nazi and we are the warm and caring custodians of the world that know the real science while you are a bunch of dangerous conspiracy loving nutter freak quacks.
 
Last edited:

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
66,435
Anyway, fine you are right, no need to discuss any further. Carbon bad, even though it is the life source of the planet, up there with water and oxygen and we all need to pull our heads in if we don't agree because there is this thing we need to worry about called global warming, no sorry global freezing, no wait, climate change. There that should cover it and all its contingencies. So lets shut down all fossil fuel power and ruin the first world and starve the 3rd world to save us all and our beautiful planet. Credits on the stock exchanges should do the trick. I'm sure it can cos Al Gore told me and if you don't agree you are a fascist Nazi and we are the warm and caring custodians of the world that know the real science while you are a bunch of dangerous conspiracy loving nutter freak quacks.
Sorry but this just boneheaded howling at the moon.
 

TheRam

Coach
Messages
11,648
I think your lot have that covered just nicely.


On this pathetic loser crybaby. She will go down in history as the poster child of how many people felt and their response when the 45th President of the United States was elected. She has guaranteed her immortality in history. When teaches and scholars are looking back at history centuries from now I am sure she will get a look in.

So whether we think positively or negatively about her, she has been immortalised. Maybe not such a loser after all.
 
Messages
41,329
You don't want to discuss it, but at the same time dismiss it as a capitalist money grab ? Look I know you are pig headed and only want to talk about your take on things, but it's a fact that Climate Change and your baby Desertification are absolutely correlative, and hence emissions, are a significant factor of the equation..

If you think that carbon sequestration is the only thing necessary to slow down or combat climate change, then you need to look beyond your biases. Even people who are fans of Allan Savory's work, don't limit it as the silver bullet. We need a holistic approach and attack it from all angles.

Studying three grazing areas in northern Texas, Richard Teague, Ph.D., a range ecologist at Texas A&M University, found that the soil on the ones managed regeneratively had the greatest water- and nutrient-retaining abilities, as well as the highest concentrations of sequestered carbon. Other research has shown the ability of regeneratively tended land to trap greenhouse gases. A study in the journal Rangeland Ecology & Management found that holistic farming was able to sequester 106 grams of carbon per square meter annually. Other pasture-management approaches released around 200 grams. Project Drawdown, a nonprofit coalition of scientists, policy makers and business leaders aimed at identifying solutions to climate change, believes the potential for carbon sequestration is so great that it ranks farming methods like Savory’s ninth on their list of the 80 most effective things that can be done to counteract methane emissions and sequester carbon—above crop-only regenerative practices where no livestock are involved. They call it a “climatic win-win.”

Correlative? Like ice cream sales at the beach and shark attacks? So if we want to reduce shark attacks we should stop selling ice creams at the beach.
 

Latest posts

Top