A new take on global warming

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tomdavis, Mar 18, 2013.

  1. Instead of the same old broken-record global warming posts we've all seen a million times before, here's a new take on the subject --at least it's new to me.

    This guy says that at least 50% of global warming is cause by "desertification" of the earth, not from burning fosil fuels.

    The video is 22 minutes long, but worth watching only because it's different.

    I have no idea if he's right or not, but at least it's not the same boring arguments over and over and over and over and over and over again.

  2. pspr


    Sorry, I had to quit listening when he got to the part where he killed 40,000 elephants in order to save the land and it didn't help.

    If he is saying the destruction of the rain forests and other forests are damaging the earth and the climate much more than the burning of fossil fuels, I think he is right. As they clear and burn, they are putting all of that carbon back into the atmosphere. I don't know the numbers but it probably rivals the burning of fossil fuels.
  3. You should have kept watching to the part where he shows how putting tens of thousands of cattle and sheep on the land will save the planet. That part of the presentation starts at about the half way point.

    That's the twist. We need more cattle ranches to save the planet. I'm not kidding. That's what he not onlys says, but proves with over 30 years of research and millions of reclaimed acres. We need more cows and sheep. (Which I suppose will also increase the demand for cowboys and sheepdogs.)

    It's actually worth watching to the end. It starts out like a typical global warming politically-correct agenda, then takes a surprising turn in the middle of the presentation.

    I send this to my vegan friends when I want to drive them crazy.
  4. I take exception to his declaration that his idea is the only option left to prevent catastrophic climate change. And I question how effective his idea would be but the concept is interesting and can be one of the geoengineering tools that may have to be used.
  5. Before you "take exception" you should read the research supporting his hypothesis.




    The evidence is piling up in his favor.

    O’Mara, F.P. 2012. The Role of Grasslands in Food Security and Climate Change. Annals of Botony. 110:

    Follett, R.F., and Debbie A. Reed, 2010. Soil Carbon Sequestration in Grazing Lands: Societal
    Benefits and Policy Implications. Rangeland Ecology Management. 63. 4-15.

    Conant, R.T., 2010. Challenges and Opportunities for Carbon Sequestration in Grassland Systems: A
    Technical Report on Grassland Management and Climate Change Mitigation.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Vol. 9. 1-67

    Fynn, A.J., P. Alvarez, J.R. Brown, M.R. George, C. Kustin, E.A. Laca, J.T. Oldfield, T. Schohr,
    C.L. Neely, and C.P. Wong. 2009. Soil Carbon Sequestration in U.S. Rangelands Issues
    Paper for Protocol Development. Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY, USA. 1-47

    Follett, R.F., Kimble, J.M., Lal, R., 2001. The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands to Sequester
    Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press LLC. 1-457.

    Pinjuv, G., 2011. Gigaton Analysis of the Livestock Industry: The Case for Adoption of a Moderate
    Intensification Model. The Carbon War Room. 1-17.

    Gurian-Sherman D., 2011. Raising the Steaks: Global Warming and Pasture-Raised Beef
    Production in the United States. Union of Concerned Scientists. 1-56.
  6. pspr


    Don't confuse futurecurrents with facts. He abhors real factual data and analysis.
  7. In 2003, the New Zealand government proposed a tax on the flatulence emitted by sheep, cattle, and deer. Scientists estimated that methane emitted by belching livestock accounts for more than half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. The tax would have been used to fund research on agricultural emissions. It would have amounted to about NZ $0.10 per head. The New Zealand government abandoned the idea after farmers protested.

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed an idea to to charge livestock producers for the greenhouse gas (methane) their livestock emit when they perform normal bodily functions. If implemented, it would be devasting to the agricultural sector, especially dairy farms, as profit margins are already slim. The end result would simply be more food coming from overseas, less-regulated markets.
  8. Ricter


    The beauty of this discussion is that it's way beyond "is there any warming", and beyond "is CO2 the cause", those are understood as givens.
  9. pspr


    Why do you always couch your statements in false information? I think you revel in wrapping your controversial beliefs in innocuous comments.
  10. Those greenhouse gas numbers are true if you assume a static model. However, (according to Allan Savory) if you include the positive effects of land reclamation and reversing desertification, there's a large net positive contribution to reducing global warming when you increase cattle and sheep herds.
    #10     Mar 19, 2013