|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 14, 2023 17:20:19 GMT
So a reduction of food exports by the second largest agricultural exporter is not going to affect the amount of food in the world? That is a strange outlook. And to clarify, I said that the policies that are in place to combat global warming will exacerbate the problems that an El Nino will bring. If a 'severe' El Nino is on the cards why restrict the amount of food produced in the world before it happens. This makes no sense whatsoever. The laws to stop hedge removal were brought in to combat the EU rules that encouraged hedge removal to increase yield. But they are not to tackle climate change unless you are referring to something else. My last comment on this thread about climate change. The Dutch farm restrictions and compulsory purchasers are to combat climate change. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62335287"This proud farming nation is under immense pressure to make radical changes to cut harmful emissions, and some farmers fear their livelihoods will be obliterated." I am making the point that the increase in food prices is not due solely to the possibility that El Nino will cause problems. The problems are already being caused and El Nino will only make things worse. I am not discussing the rights and wrongs of climate change but the measures being taken will have ramifications in all sorts of ways and one cannot divorce the application of these measures from problems facing the populations of the world. The Big Red Button is ever present and will see immense problems for us in the near future, food price being just a small part. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 14, 2023 17:44:03 GMT
But they are not to tackle climate change unless you are referring to something else. My last comment on this thread about climate change. And again from your article. Dutch government proposals for tackling nitrogen emissions indicate a radical cut in livestock - they estimate 11,200 farms will have to close and another 17,600 farmers will have to significantly reduce their livestock. Nitrogen is not a green house gas. This is not about climate change. I never disputed that. The war in Ukraine also drives up food prices, what I dispute is you trying to label this as something to do with tackling climate change. These changes are about mono culture and the dangers to bio diversity and in particular insects. Not climate change. You're not discussing climate change at all, and if you are talking about feeding the world then growing crops feeds far more people per hectare than rearing animals. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 14, 2023 18:13:25 GMT
And again from your article. Dutch government proposals for tackling nitrogen emissions indicate a radical cut in livestock - they estimate 11,200 farms will have to close and another 17,600 farmers will have to significantly reduce their livestock. Nitrogen is not a green house gas. This is not about climate change. I never disputed that. The war in Ukraine also drives up food prices, what I dispute is you trying to label this as something to do with tackling climate change. These changes are about mono culture and the dangers to bio diversity and in particular insects. Not climate change. You're not discussing climate change at all, and if you are talking about feeding the world then growing crops feeds far more people per hectare than rearing animals. Check Nitrous Oxide. Which is about climate change. Cutting emissions of nitrogen is to do with climate change. The war in Ukraine is beyond the wit of man to control, the emissions are very much in the wit of man to control and the act of controlling them is causing problems with food production. Just have a look at the problems faced by Sri Lanka in terms of food security due to a determination to control fertilisers. What you are now saying is that choice of food is not on the cards for Mr Ordinary he must eat veggie if decreed by those who know better. Herein lies the problem that most people will not be able to do very much but some will be able to do all they currently do, and more, because they in are effective control. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 18:39:19 GMT
The El Nino will cause a loss of crop production. That's what I'm discussing, other factors already exist with or without it. I do not dispute that, what I am saying is other factors make it worse than it otherwise would be. If you apply rules on farmers that lower their yield then whatever effect El Nino has will be an exacerbation, not a cause. The cause is the climate change policies most especially when it is known that El Nino will have an effect on crops. Climate change itself, if allowed to go unchecked, will at some point likely lead to the collapse in global food production. This will lead to mass famine and starvation on a global level, and hugely expensive food for those that can still afford it, or maybe even rationing. And if you think the refugee flow is bad now you aint seen nothing yet if this scenario comes to pass. The science tends to suggest that global warming is a reality. Most scientists, something like 97% of them, believe that anthropomorphic, ie man made, warming is a reality. The global temperature statistics tend to support them, as do measurable rises in sea levels and shrinkage of ice sheets and glaciers. Scientific consensus can be wrong of course. It has been before. But until the evidence clearly demonstrates that we'd be foolish to ignore the consensus. Those who do ignore it are often paying more attention to what they want to believe than to the evidence so far. The internet of course is full of climate change deniers, so those who wish to dispute it will often post links to some dubious "evidence" they find there. But if it were that compelling, it is difficult to explain why most global scientists believe in the reality of man made climate change without invoking some kind of unlikely global conspiracy theory involving world scientists. Of course, there have always been other factors in play, the El Nino effect being one of them. Others can involve such things as volcanic eruptions spewing dust and gasses into the atmosphere, and the solar cycle of the sun itself. But these factors tend either to temporarily exaggerate or temporarily diminish overall warming as a consistent background trend. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 14, 2023 19:10:34 GMT
Check Nitrous Oxide. Which is about climate change. Cutting emissions of nitrogen is to do with climate change. The war in Ukraine is beyond the wit of man to control, the emissions are very much in the wit of man to control and the act of controlling them is causing problems with food production. Just have a look at the problems faced by Sri Lanka in terms of food security due to a determination to control fertilisers. If this was about climate change they would be talking about reducing Methane, by far the largest gas emission from cows. The article you linked clearly state their aims and the reasons and they are not about climate change. I said nothing of the sort. I said "and if you are talking about feeding the world then growing crops feeds far more people per hectare than rearing animals." That is a fact not a demand from me. I said it to demonstrate you are wrong in your assumption that cutting cows cuts food, nothing to do with any personal desire or about climate change I am not going to answer you anymore as you are now twisting my words because you are unable to admit when you've got it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 14, 2023 21:10:34 GMT
Check Nitrous Oxide. Which is about climate change. Cutting emissions of nitrogen is to do with climate change. The war in Ukraine is beyond the wit of man to control, the emissions are very much in the wit of man to control and the act of controlling them is causing problems with food production. Just have a look at the problems faced by Sri Lanka in terms of food security due to a determination to control fertilisers. If this was about climate change they would be talking about reducing Methane, by far the largest gas emission from cows. The article you linked clearly state their aims and the reasons and they are not about climate change. I said nothing of the sort. I said "and if you are talking about feeding the world then growing crops feeds far more people per hectare than rearing animals." That is a fact not a demand from me. I said it to demonstrate you are wrong in your assumption that cutting cows cuts food, nothing to do with any personal desire or about climate change I am not going to answer you anymore as you are now twisting my words because you are unable to admit when you've got it wrong. You better tell them about Methane then. "It is seen as the last chance for an agricultural sector that emits an estimated 45% of greenhouse gases including ammonia and nitrogen-based runoffs from fertiliser." www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/30/peak-polluters-last-chance-close-dutch-governmentI am not talking about feeding the world I am referring to a potential food disaster that you indicate may be on the cards due to El Nino. I am saying that that disaster is made worse by the policies adopted around the world to save the planet. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 14, 2023 21:32:56 GMT
I do not dispute that, what I am saying is other factors make it worse than it otherwise would be. If you apply rules on farmers that lower their yield then whatever effect El Nino has will be an exacerbation, not a cause. The cause is the climate change policies most especially when it is known that El Nino will have an effect on crops. Climate change itself, if allowed to go unchecked, will at some point likely lead to the collapse in global food production. This will lead to mass famine and starvation on a global level, and hugely expensive food for those that can still afford it, or maybe even rationing. And if you think the refugee flow is bad now you aint seen nothing yet if this scenario comes to pass. The science tends to suggest that global warming is a reality. Most scientists, something like 97% of them, believe that anthropomorphic, ie man made, warming is a reality. The global temperature statistics tend to support them, as do measurable rises in sea levels and shrinkage of ice sheets and glaciers. Scientific consensus can be wrong of course. It has been before. But until the evidence clearly demonstrates that we'd be foolish to ignore the consensus. Those who do ignore it are often paying more attention to what they want to believe than to the evidence so far. The internet of course is full of climate change deniers, so those who wish to dispute it will often post links to some dubious "evidence" they find there. But if it were that compelling, it is difficult to explain why most global scientists believe in the reality of man made climate change without invoking some kind of unlikely global conspiracy theory involving world scientists. Of course, there have always been other factors in play, the El Nino effect being one of them. Others can involve such things as volcanic eruptions spewing dust and gasses into the atmosphere, and the solar cycle of the sun itself. But these factors tend either to temporarily exaggerate or temporarily diminish overall warming as a consistent background trend. We have taken on board all the warnings and all the predictions and so far we have been let down by actual events. That is not a settled science assessment, that is based on many studies using the official data used in the models upon which the predictions were based. If the end of the world does not happen at the appointed time, if the planet does not warm despite increasing greenhouse gas emissions and if storms, hurricanes, cyclones, fires, droughts, tornadoes, snowfalls and rainfalls are not becoming on average worse then it does leave a question mark as regards the veracity of their prognosis. However the problem with El Nino is recognised as a historical probability then it also must be recognised that the polices to control climate change may create food production problems that will become worse when El Nino is factored in. It seems that some people are expendable in terms of saving the planet. If we accept that view now, what moral stance will we have when we find that we are the next expendable group and who will try to save us? |
|
