Phil Clarke reports that hundreds of farmers in Britain are signing up to supply wheat to a new bio ethanol plant.
Presumably they are responding to market signals and getting a better price for their crop than they would if they were selling it for milling or stock feed.
However, given the shortage of wheat internationally it’s difficult to understand how that can be.
The drought in Russia last northern summer, China, the United States and drought and floods in Australia will all put pressure on supply which ought to result in better prices.
Something must be out of kilter if farmers get more for selling crops for fuel when there’s a growing shortage of food.
Could it be a Green plot to reduce world population by starving people to death by eco-extremists who have talked about population control as a planet-saving measure?
Diverting productive capacity from food to fuel has been contributing to food shortages for a little while now and is nearly always the result of legislative interference in the market place in response to the doubtful science behind “peak oil”.
Thankfully the starving mostly die well away from the glaring eye of the media so politically it is less of a problem than some talking head being quoted in the media about the coming armageddon when the pumps go dry. Don’t even consider when the economics of rising oil prices cause substitution with Hydrogen, fuel from coal or some as yet undiscovered propulsion system,
So much easier for the producer to respond to the artificial market signal and reduce the sum of the food available worldwide.
Another aspect of using grain for fuel is that nobody seems to have concerns about the methane emissions reulting from this use.
Nobody that is except our own Dr Nick Smith and his fellow incompetents.
The people having all the say seem incapable of understanding 3rd form science which shows that animal methane emmissions are not a problem.
Politicans,Bureaucrats and members of the general public seeking edification on this subject could do so by visiting the websites of Pastural Farming http://www.farm carbon.co.nz and http://www.climaterealsts.org.nz
Hey there Tired Farmer,
I suspect you’ve had this one run past you before, but here goes…
The methane emitted by cows really is a problem, because even though it’s the same amount of carbon in and out, different carbon compounds have different effects on climate. Methane does only have a short life in the atmosphere, but in that time it trhaps a lot of heat (it’s about 70x powerful than CO2) hi and heat is here to stay because it takes a while for the atmosphere to get into balance. I see in one your sites you claim cows don’t make new methane.
Now, I’m sure you don’t believe me. But do you really think that you’ve found a flaw in the most basic models of climate that no scientist in the field noticed? That none of politicians and bureaucratics trying desperately to discount their kyoto liabilities picked up on? Seems unlikely to me…
David, you could not be more wrong. Methane is only 20 times more potent than CO2, and animal methane exists in a fairly steady state. Ruminants have roamed this planet in vast numbers for 20 million years. CH4 from pastural farming has nothing to do with AGW but discounting it would INCREASE NZ’s Kyoto liability for reasons I can’t be bothered explaining. All you need to know is farmers have not the least intention of paying that that damn tax!
Good contributons to the the debate David. I’ll sit up late to make some comments.”Different carbon compounds have different effects on climate”.
If methane traps a lot of heat would it be correct to assume that burning the ethanol in fuel injected motors (along with the different types of carbon produced)could possibly produce hotter methane etc than a bovine animal?
Not to mention the effects that ethanol production is having on world food production and its attendant financial, social and political effects.
Even the International Panel for Climate Change never seemed to be concernd about the massive number of cows in countries such as India although they have recently decided that the Sun could be responsible for 4O% of any climate change that is occuring.
While scientific research will undoubtly enligten us on many facets of life so far I have to be convinced that our “polticans and bureacrats are trying desperately to reduce our Kyoto liabilties”.Hard for them to give up such an easily milked cash cow,while they are under going theraputic massaage in the new BMW’s which hopefully(this time)meet NZ’s emmision standards.
Hey Wildwan,
I think I could… The 20x figure is the contribution of methane released today over the next 100 years, it’s about 70x more powerful than CO2 while it’s around, but has a shorter half life. Ruminants have been around for more like 45 million years, but never in the massive numbers they are now and would just love to hear why cow’s CH4 doesn’t warm the planet.
TF,
Ethanol doesn’t produce methane when it burns, just water and CO2. The Kyoto liability isn’t making anyone any money, in fact, since the Nats weakened the ETS they’ve offloaded a lot of the money we’ll owe to general taxation.
(FWIW, ethanol subsidies are a bad idea for the reasons you state)
How do they tell cow’s methane from that of billions of other mammals? Even termites release quite significant amounts from their activities (yes, there’s been a study).
Do they even know how many mammals there are on Earth and can they quantify their emissions and whether these numbers by species have changed over time? Take American bison, 60 million in the 17th century, 1000 left by the 19th.. thats a big methane minus!
JC
Hey JC,
The bison were replaced by 100 million cattle. So the net effect has been a rise. And cattle foraging in the wild produce less methane that cattle eating (near) monocultures on farms.
But that doesn’t really matter, it’s anthropogenic changes that have pushed the various sources and sinks of greenhouse gases so far out of whack, and it’s just bleading obvious that adding more anthropogenic emissions will make it worse.
Methane levels remain static. But try telling that to Nick Smith, the myopic minister for the environment and selective interpreter of science. His blind obeisance to global “warming”, & climate “change” theory will in time blight the reputation of the present government. Quite apart from his contradictory utterances and 180 degree position shifts. But then he is a politician.
“it’s just bleading obvious that adding more anthropogenic emissions will make it worse.”
Why? The plants are loving it and responding with extra health and growth.. which indicates the CO2 levels are well within their evolutionary range. Mammals aren’t suffering, indicating the same thing.
As for changes to the climate, the seas and the atmosphere, well, there’s a better correlation with US debt over the decades than CO2.
JC
JC,
I really don’t know what to say, except that none of those things are true, and, in fact they’re such tired old saws that all explained here (1,2,3).
I’m not interested in a comment for comment fight on this, but I would encourage you to at least better understand the science you stand opposed to.
Hi there David,
Time is marching on again tonight so here is a link to keep the debate going.
Cars,Cattle & the Ethanol Con
http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/node/674
Global methane levels are monitored by a satellite network. The last time I read an article by someone with a sprinkling of expertise in methane “politics” they pointed out that the worlds forests produce the bulk of the planet’s low-atmosphere methane.
I’m assuming that his professorship is probably well earned, so I’m thinking he’s correct.
I thought that earth’s temperature had been steady for more than ten years now? and that co2 and ch4 levels continue to change, hence, the relationship to temperature is falsified.
Hello again David.
There is an interesting article on the website of Pastural Farming http://www.farmcarbon.co.nz entitled ”
Climatologist wrong about meat” 21/2/11
David I hope you arestill watching this post. It has just come to my attention.
1. Yes, there are more mammals now than there were. But farmers have also drained vast areas of swamps to create grazing for them. Swamps produce marsh gas, also known as methane. It is estimated (yes estimated because no one thought to do any measurements first) that swamps drained by farmers in NZ would have produced more methane per year than all our farmed livestock do now. Further, does Kyoto give us credits for draining more swamps to save the planet? Quit joking. The Greenies are down on us like a ton of bricks for plundering the planet!
2. I have spoken to a number of National Party MPs. Most are well aware that taxing animal methane is unjust. They excuse it because it is in Kyoto and/or that it is needed to protect our trade image. When asked why they are not ensuring it is not in any post Kyoto agreement they say they believe it is in the too hard basket. What has happened to our rugged fighting spirit that saw off the US nuclear frigates? The trade issue is dead. Keith Cooper. CEO of Silver Fern Farms says our overseas markets don’t know what an ETS is and don’t care. Research by Otago University shows British consumers don’t take notice of carbon footprints.
It is time the population of the world woke to the fact that the whole AGW thing is about transfer of wealth away from the Western World. Many of us mere mortals have worked this out a long time ago. Ottmar Edenhofer, a lead author for the IPCC has now said as much on the eve of Cancun.