Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 481 posts

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#311

Post by shafyy »

blitzar wrote: post #309
shafyy wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read about the Biogenic Carbon Cycle on the UC Davis website: " As a by-product of consuming cellulose, cattle belch out methane, there-by returning that carbon sequestered by plants back into the atmosphere. After about ten years, that methane is broken down and converted back to CO2. Once converted to CO2, plants can again perform photosynthesis and fix that carbon back into cellulose. From here, cattle can eat t…

Unfortunately powerplants dont graze on a field of grass

A few of things:

1) Even if cows would only eat the grass that was there (and we would not have converted any forest or other vegetation into grazing lands), the methane and CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time before being used by plants again, contributing to the greenhouse effect in that time. The reality is, we can only cover a very small percentage of the demand with this "3 happy cows on a vast pasture" phantasy. Most cow feed is planted additionally, often in countries like Brazil, and then fed to the cows.

2) The carbon impact is not the only negative impact of the scale of livestock agriculture we run these days. As it says in the article, another big impact is eutrophication of water bodies.

3) Just basic physics: Livestock agriculture, especially beef, is a very inefficient way of producing protein and calories. Have a look at this data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore

So, please don't come at me with your cute comments. The reality is that we have too much livestock agriculture. It's not sustainable to feed 8 billion people like this. The scientific consesus is clear on this.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#312

Post by pjc50 »

madmask wrote: post #293
perlgeek wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... unless the "meat" being grass-fed is actually cows, which produce lots of methane. Not so good for climate change, at least if done at scale. It's never that easy as "Meat is great".

I can’t believe this is a real problem. Refineries are bombed and stay on fire for days, some places in the world light on fire rubbish all the time, plenty of inefficiencies in heating, transportation, etc.. and the problem is.. cow farts.. yes sure

If you actually measure it, then yes.

https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/492...

"Total GHG emissions from livestock supply chains are estimated at 7.1 gigatonnes CO2 -eq per annum for the 2005 reference period. They repre- sent 14.5 percent of all human-induced emissions using the most recent IPCC estimates for total an- thropogenic emissions (49 gigatonnes CO 2 -eq for the year 2004; IPCC, 2007)"

Surprisingly there are fewer cows than people, but there's still a billion cows, and a billion of anything adds up quickly.

That's not to say that the other things aren't important as well. Gas flaring from refineries is a pure waste that should be drastically curtailed.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#313

Post by pjc50 »

shafyy wrote: post #294
valval wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cow farts being harmful for the environment is the silliest hoax I see repeated over and over. Spending two minutes reading about the biogenic carbon cycle destroys this misconception.

I read about the Biogenic Carbon Cycle on the UC Davis website: " As a by-product of consuming cellulose, cattle belch out methane, there-by returning that carbon sequestered by plants back into the atmosphere. After about ten years, that methane is broken down and converted back to CO2. Once converted to CO2, plants can again perform photosynthesis and fix that carbon back into cellulose. From here, cattle can eat t…

This also ignores the different GHG effects of methane vs CO2.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#314

Post by pjc50 »

chgs wrote: post #281
Scoundreller wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is going to sidle a cost to an industry of razor thin margins. Will it or will farmland value take a dump but remain unchanged in use? I always thought of farmland these days as a use of last resort and if it could be marketable for buildings, it’s already not economically worth it as a farm except speculatively

In the U.K. farmland has a rental value of about £100 an acre but a purchase price over £10k an acre. The value in the land isn’t in its use (which is getting 1% ROI), but in speculation it may be granted permission to be converted to housing, or because of tax loopholes.

Yes, this came up in the recently closed inheritance tax loophole; people were buying "family farms" purely to leave to their children while doing the minimum of farming.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#315

Post by panick21_ »

darkwater wrote: post #135
panick21_ wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can write all they want. The fact is, the countries wouldn't cant get rid of their farm policies because of voting. And the EU, is an outgrowth of those already existing countries. EU policy is not handed down from a white tower. Of course you can't actually say that.

Farmers and people supporting farmers are still a small minority and while they can probably swing some election in some country if they were to massively support only one party or coalition, the money comes for the strategic importance. It would be naive to think it's just "for the votes".

It was a long time ago that I have looked into this. My understanding from the political science is that countries where farmers votes aren't as important, also have far less subsidizes.

Groups that already have subsidizes are better at defending them. Even if in absolute terms their numbers aren't as big.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#316

Post by panick21_ »

mmooss wrote: post #201
panick21_ wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In New Zealand the believe that if they removed farm subsidizes, their farmers would quite. Now they are a massive farm product exporter.

So the public gives them their hard-earned money via taxes, and the farmers reap more money from exporting?

No, the public gives them no money and they make money for the country by exporting.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#317

Post by panick21_ »

geoffmunn wrote: post #210
panick21_ wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In New Zealand the believe that if they removed farm subsidizes, their farmers would quite. Now they are a massive farm product exporter.

To be more accurate - by removing subsidies, NZ farmers became more efficient and sell their products at the world price, which is quite often overseas. Subsidies and/or tarrifs always distort the market and have unintended consequences.

Not sure why you say 'more accurate'. What you state is what I implied. I hope this was clear.

What removing subsidies do is unleash the potential. Lots of farming communities that live with subsidies are convinced that removing them is a dooms day scenario.

However evidence often doesn't support this. Japan used to protect its market for beef. Then this was forced to be opened by the US. Japan farmer then realized that their specialization was high quality beef. And now Japan is globally famous and exports lots of high quality beef.

Removing subsidies can lead to structural changes and consolidation, but it can also have lots of positive effects.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#318

Post by valval »

shafyy wrote: post #311
blitzar wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately powerplants dont graze on a field of grass

A few of things: 1) Even if cows would only eat the grass that was there (and we would not have converted any forest or other vegetation into grazing lands), the methane and CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time before being used by plants again, contributing to the greenhouse effect in that time. The reality is, we can only cover a very small percentage of the demand with this "3 happy cows on a vast pasture"…

The data you present again doesn't take the lifecycle into account. Also worth pointing out that protein bioavailability and amino acid profiles are ignored.

Unrelated but since you brought the topic up, it would of course make sense that releasing vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that took millions of years to bind into the earth in mere decades might be a bad idea. Then again, we're only guessing there as well. We have no clue if the world will be better or worse for us to live in 50 years, and how much of it will be attributable to CO2.

But I digress -- this comment thread was about cow farts and the utter silliness of grasping at such straws when speaking about an otherwise serious subject like the futures of our children.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#319

Post by shafyy »

valval wrote: post #318
shafyy wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few of things: 1) Even if cows would only eat the grass that was there (and we would not have converted any forest or other vegetation into grazing lands), the methane and CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time before being used by plants again, contributing to the greenhouse effect in that time. The reality is, we can only cover a very small percentage of the demand with this "3 happy cows on a vast pasture"…

The data you present again doesn't take the lifecycle into account. Also worth pointing out that protein bioavailability and amino acid profiles are ignored. Unrelated but since you brought the topic up, it would of course make sense that releasing vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that took millions of years to bind into the earth in mere decades might be a bad idea. Then again, we're only guessing there as we…

> Then again, we're only guessing there as well.

Umm, no, we are not guessing. But I see where this will end, so let's stop this discussion right here.

Re: Denmark will plant 1B trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest

#320

Post by wqaatwt »

manvillej wrote: post #204
mmooss wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently the public subsidizes the agriculture industry by paying for the consequences of the industry's carbon emissions. Also, that subsidy distorts industry choices in favor of carbon. The industry might be accustomed to profiting from the subsidy, but that doesn't make them entitled to it! And certainly the industry has had plenty of time to anticipate and adjust to the problems of carbon emissions.

Governments pay to keep food at the cheapest point possible to ensure stability. a fed population doesn't kill their governments. Agriculture is not a regular industry; its a national security issue Farming is not a profitable endeavor. There would be a lot less financial advisors in the world otherwise. A carbon tax will either drive up prices or reduce suppliers, increasing prices. Reducing farmland will require mo…

> A carbon tax will either drive up prices or reduce suppliers, increasing prices

Of if there is an equivalent subsidy (i.e. the tax is basically redistributed) it would encourage to produce less carbon/methane intensive production

Post reply on HN