|
Post by eclipse on Mar 17, 2013 20:51:06 GMT 9.5
Moving herds of livestock reverse desertification, unlike fenced in livestock that gradually destroy the land. Herd behaviour evolved with predators, so that vast herds afforded more safety for the individual. The side-effect of herding? Completely munched up food sources that have also been trampled and poohed and urinated on. So the herd moves on, leaving behind pre-digested, quickly biodegrading grasslands that help the grasses get fertilised and return more vigorously next year. Moving herds restore soils. This is the message of Joel Salatin from Polyface farms, and Allan Savory who is busy restoring vast tracts of Africa and Australia. www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5LHoh-OKUfU#! 3 minute Allan Savory ad www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=ZOmlw2eiW1I20 minute Allan Savory TED talk in which he shows amazing before and after site transformations around the world. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI Carbon Farming
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enhancing the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere is thought to be the most cost-effective means of reducing atmospheric levels of CO2.
Scientists agree that organic matter in topsoil is on average 50 percent carbon up to one foot in depth, and bumping that upward by as little as 1.6 percent across all the world’s agricultural land could potentially reverse the problem of global warming.
In other words, if we were to restore just some of the organic matter to the Great Plains that we strip-mined over the last 150 years of row-crop monoculture, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be reduced to pre-industrial levels within 10-15 years.
Yes, you read that right. Simply by boosting the organic matter of our depleted industrial soils through returning ruminants to restored pasture ecosystems, we could REVERSE our carbon pollution problem within one generation.
Whether it’s from cattle, gnu, bison, sheep or antelope, grasses require regular destruction of their top leaves to promote root growth. Grassland ecology requires grazers to chomp and stomp down trees and shrubs so it won’t be overshaded, and it further requires significant amounts of their manure to fertilize the soil.
This symbiotic system, which evolved over millions of years, is what sequesters carbon naturally and keeps the planet habitable for all creatures, including us. In fact, destroying grassland ecosystems, and the planetary carbon sequestration cycle they sustain, is arguably as damaging to life on the planet as is clearcutting the Amazon Rainforest. Maybe even worse. www.smallfootprintfamily.com/grass-fed-beef-and-global-warming/
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Mar 17, 2013 22:45:15 GMT 9.5
That seems way too optimistic to me.
Though the idea of rotating livestock through grazing areas does sound like it could have some merit.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Mar 18, 2013 6:26:26 GMT 9.5
That seems way too optimistic to me. Though the idea of rotating livestock through grazing areas does sound like it could have some merit. Watch the 20 minute TED talk and see the BEFORE and AFTER transformations of the landscape. Try to estimate how much carbon was locked up in the vegetation and, more, in the soil. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 18, 2013 12:26:56 GMT 9.5
It seems to be suggesting that "row crop" agriculture be replaced with grassland grazing.
This has serious problems that I hope are obvious.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrussell on Mar 18, 2013 13:00:22 GMT 9.5
Moving herds of livestock reverse desertification, unlike fenced in livestock that gradually destroy the land. Herd behaviour evolved with predators, so that vast herds afforded more safety for the individual. The side-effect of herding? Completely munched up food sources that have also been trampled and poohed and urinated on. So the herd moves on, leaving behind pre-digested, quickly biodegrading grasslands that help the grasses get fertilised and return more vigorously next year. Moving herds restore soils. This is the message of Joel Salatin from Polyface farms, and Allan Savory who is busy restoring vast tracts of Africa and Australia. www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5LHoh-OKUfU#! 3 minute Allan Savory ad www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=ZOmlw2eiW1I20 minute Allan Savory TED talk in which he shows amazing before and after site transformations around the world. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI Carbon Farming
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enhancing the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere is thought to be the most cost-effective means of reducing atmospheric levels of CO2.
Scientists agree that organic matter in topsoil is on average 50 percent carbon up to one foot in depth, and bumping that upward by as little as 1.6 percent across all the world’s agricultural land could potentially reverse the problem of global warming.
In other words, if we were to restore just some of the organic matter to the Great Plains that we strip-mined over the last 150 years of row-crop monoculture, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be reduced to pre-industrial levels within 10-15 years.
Yes, you read that right. Simply by boosting the organic matter of our depleted industrial soils through returning ruminants to restored pasture ecosystems, we could REVERSE our carbon pollution problem within one generation.
Whether it’s from cattle, gnu, bison, sheep or antelope, grasses require regular destruction of their top leaves to promote root growth. Grassland ecology requires grazers to chomp and stomp down trees and shrubs so it won’t be overshaded, and it further requires significant amounts of their manure to fertilize the soil.
This symbiotic system, which evolved over millions of years, is what sequesters carbon naturally and keeps the planet habitable for all creatures, including us. In fact, destroying grassland ecosystems, and the planetary carbon sequestration cycle they sustain, is arguably as damaging to life on the planet as is clearcutting the Amazon Rainforest. Maybe even worse. www.smallfootprintfamily.com/grass-fed-beef-and-global-warming/ Anybody who thinks this all sounds wonderful should think again. Firstly grass fed animals produce MORE methane than grain fed animals, secondly, they provide very little food, certainly not enough to satisfy modern meat demand ... definitely a good thing! Thirdly, reforested land generally stores far more carbon than grazed pastures, see below for article with links to sources. Here's a little about the methane blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/And here's some BNC posts about carbon trading and the like: bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/31/balancing-smoke-mirrors/bravenewclimate.com/2011/01/17/livestock-and-climate-change-status-update/
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 21, 2013 12:54:42 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Mar 23, 2013 16:46:26 GMT 9.5
Geoff, did you even watch the TED video and see the landscapes coming back to life, storing water, and creating fresh water rivers where there is usually dry river beds the very day after rains? The thing we have to ask ourselves is what can happen quickly, and what can have a powerful immediate economic incentive in and of itself? Not just 'preventing global warming' which is too abstract, but something that businesses themselves can make a profit on. The meat market may just qualify in both areas! But that Afforestation paper looks great as well! link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9626-y
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Apr 17, 2013 12:08:02 GMT 9.5
This Afforestation paper actually seems too expensive. From page 416: "To provide a somewhat different, economic perspective, we will examine costs from the frame of reference of the familiar barrel of crude. A barrel of crude oil contains about 110 kg of carbon (0.11 t C per barrel). The current cost of capturing approximately 90% of the CO2 from flue gas of yet-to-be-built, coal-fired, electric power plants, and pumping it underground, or under the ocean, (CCS), is between $100 and $300 per tonne C, (estimated by the CongressionalResearch Service; Folger 2007; 10 to $30 per barrel). This raises the effective cost of burning coal towards about half the present price of oil. British estimates of CCS costs run about twice as high (Gough and Shackley 2005). On the other hand, forest sequestration of the carbon, produced by the burning of a barrel of crude oil, could cost as little as $30 per barrel in desalination costs. Adding distribution pumping costs, that increases to about $43 per barrel. But CCS CO2 is (hopefully) buried ¡®forever¡¯, and represents a total economic loss, whereas that captured by trees is mostly safe and useful, reduced carbon; a valuable product in the bank. Effectively, this doubles the savings for photosynthetic sequestration relative to CCS; and it could capture an amount equal to 100% of all the CO2 currently released. This makes sub-tropical afforestation a more attractive ¡®solution¡¯ to warming. " $43 per 'barrel' of Co2? Co2 to sequester each year = 28 gigatons. * 0.11 (kg per barrel) * $43 = well over 1.3 trillion dollars a year. It's just not going to happen. We'll use the sulfur solar shield instead at about 1% the cost!
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Apr 17, 2013 22:15:52 GMT 9.5
Noone is ever going to approve the use of the sulphur dioxide shield for some very good reasons. (After spending absurd sums of money removing sulphur aerosols from the atmosphere you want to put them back?)
$1.3tn a year really isn't very much when you put it into context. And that estimate assumes zero economic benefit from the giant forest.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Apr 19, 2013 7:24:52 GMT 9.5
Noone is ever going to approve the use of the sulphur dioxide shield for some very good reasons. (After spending absurd sums of money removing sulphur aerosols from the atmosphere you want to put them back?) Really? When the climate starts to spin out of control I think they might have another look at those 'reasons'. Wasn't acid rain a result of much lower emissions of sulfur than 10km or 20km up? Agreed, and I'm not against the idea, I love it. It's just that the realist in me has baulked at the price tag.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Apr 19, 2013 9:05:02 GMT 9.5
While low altitude sulphur emissions were the primary cause of acid rain, it is highly unlikely that the sulphur could be contained above the weather systems in the long term.
It is likely large amounts of sulphur dioxide would have to be added to the upper atmosphere annually, with a similar amount (obviously) being washed out each year.
What goes up, has to go down.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 2, 2013 15:48:59 GMT 9.5
I messed up the calculations by using Co2 rather than C.
From page 416 of the PDF on Afforestation:
It would cost $43 per 'barrel' of Carbon.
A 'barrel' is 0.11 Ton C (Carbon, or 110kg Carbon).
Humans emit 9 billion tons C a year.
9 billion / barrels (0.11 Tons C) = 81.818,181,818 'barrels' of Carbon a year.
At $43 / barrel, that's $3.5 trillion a year!
|
|