16 Oct 19
@Metal-Brain
How about this:
Solar energy 500 million years ago was 4% lower than today:
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm
16 Oct 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidLand use and agriculture are somewhat interchangeable here. It is a critical piece to the puzzle. You're already being taxed to support agriculture. We are subsidizing methane emissions from inefficient land use (agriculture) to the tune of $867 billion. Our farming depends on this subsidy for profit. Since the gov't subsidizes specific types of farming practices, we could dramatically lower methane and CO2 emissions via removing subsidies from farming practices which are economic losers and high polluters (thus saving money) and changing what we subsidize without spending any money at all. If only we had a gov't who trusted their own scientists.
"What causes man-made methane emissions are the same things that cause CO2 emissions."
Are you sure? What about agriculture? Are you going to tax farms and golf courses for using artificial fertilizers? What is your methane plan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_bill
16 Oct 19
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThen farmers will stop farming. How good are you at growing your own food?
Land use and agriculture are somewhat interchangeable here. It is a critical piece to the puzzle. You're already being taxed to support agriculture. We are subsidizing methane emissions from inefficient land use (agriculture) to the tune of $867 billion. Our farming depends on this subsidy for profit. Since the gov't subsidizes specific types of farming practices, we could ...[text shortened]... d a gov't who trusted their own scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_bill
" If only we had a gov't who trusted their own scientists."
They don't even know what their scientists are saying. Stop repeating myths!
16 Oct 19
@sonhouse saidThat doesn't explain the warming.
@Metal-Brain
How about this:
Solar energy 500 million years ago was 4% lower than today:
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241263777_Late_Ordovician_global_warming---The_Boda_event
16 Oct 19
@metal-brain saidNonsense. Farmers don't grow corn because it makes a profit. They grow corn because that's what the government subsidizes. Just change what farmers are subsidized for growing and they'll grow that other thing.
Then farmers will stop farming. How good are you at growing your own food?
" If only we had a gov't who trusted their own scientists."
They don't even know what their scientists are saying. Stop repeating myths!
16 Oct 19
2 edits
@metal-brain said
Then farmers will stop farming. How good are you at growing your own food?
" If only we had a gov't who trusted their own scientists."
They don't even know what their scientists are saying. Stop repeating myths!
... the vast majority [of federal subsidies] goes to the capital-intensive production of field crops such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. By contrast, the agricultural industries that are more dependent on low-skill labor — such as fruits and vegetables — receive virtually no federal subsidies.
So, currrent subsidies do not provide any incentive to grow anything other than corn/soybeans (which is clear to anyone who's driven through Iowa) and have stifled any innovations. These subsidies are IN ADDITION to favorable taxation.
Instead of propping up farming practices that are losing money, many have proposed supporting farmers who manage their lands sustainably. Rotational grazing and rotational crops, improved fertilizer maintenance, less tillage. These changes aren't all that expensive but they require initiative and incentive. It seems clear that small changes to existing practices would maintain yields, improve farm profitability and reduce methane emissions, but farmers are following their golden parachute.
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies
16 Oct 19
@wildgrass saidWhat other thing?
Nonsense. Farmers don't grow corn because it makes a profit. They grow corn because that's what the government subsidizes. Just change what farmers are subsidized for growing and they'll grow that other thing.
17 Oct 19
@metal-brain saidOut of all the crops that farmers grow, the government only subsidizes five of them. They are corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. That other thing would be anything other than that.
What other thing?
18 Oct 19
@wildgrass saidHow would that help?
Out of all the crops that farmers grow, the government only subsidizes five of them. They are corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. That other thing would be anything other than that.
18 Oct 19
@wildgrass saidWhat? You are saying government subsidizes not actually being able to make a living is why farmers do what they do?
Nonsense. Farmers don't grow corn because it makes a profit. They grow corn because that's what the government subsidizes. Just change what farmers are subsidized for growing and they'll grow that other thing.
19 Oct 19
@kellyjay saidYes? I think? Your sentence structure is painful to read. This would (probably) be better: Corn and soybean farmers only make a profit when the government sends them a check. Many of these farmers are multi-millionaires. So, they're doing it to make money, even though their product sells for less than it costs to produce. There are lots of economic reasons why this exists.
What? You are saying government subsidizes not actually being able to make a living is why farmers do what they do?
My interest is based on land use policy, not subsidies per se. Since the government is already providing massive subsidies to farms for producing food, supporting better farming practices seems like a good way to reduce emissions. Climate experts have shown data that incremental changes in land use policy - less tilling, improved fertilizer usage, rotational crops, avoidance of monoculture, rotational grazing etc. - can reduce methane emissions. We should do this, but we don't because politicians have to win in Iowa before they can be President.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15693430500370423
19 Oct 19
@wildgrass saidGlobal warming is your end goal, okay, no longer care.
Yes? I think? Your sentence structure is painful to read. This would (probably) be better: Corn and soybean farmers only make a profit when the government sends them a check. Many of these farmers are multi-millionaires. So, they're doing it to make money, even though their product sells for less than it costs to produce. There are lots of economic reasons why this exists. ...[text shortened]... Iowa before they can be President.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15693430500370423