No. Cutting down forests only contributes a minor amount of emissions from the machinery used to do the cutting and the trucks used to haul it off. The problem occurs because those forests are then not there to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and emit oxygen. Sounds like there has already been a major agreement on deforestation already at COP26 but will be interesting to see if that translates into action on the ground. From what I have seen here big timber and palm oil businesses generally don't listen to the governments and go ahead with major forest clearing with few penalties imposed. While palm oil is replacing the forest with plants they often using slash and burn clearing methods, which also lead to significant CO2 emissions.
I actually had a bit of a deeper read into this after I read your comment and the below is quoted. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.[2]
Per capita it may be but in terms of absolute volumes its pretty low down on the list (about 1%) of global emissions. However it is the 4th biggest coal producer, but most of that is exported to China, where it adds to the Chinese emissions total. The only reasons oil, gas and coal companies produce is because there is a demand, from us, the consumers, for their products. Take away that demand and it won't be profitable to do it and they will stop. The last year or so of reduced fossil fuel demand due to the pandemic, resulted in a price crash, that meant that energy companies stopped investing in exploration, bringing new production online, and carrying out new projects to increase production from aging fields. This lack of investment has resulted in the sharp increase in oil, gas and coal prices as demand outstrips supply. Its noticeable that its three of the four biggest coal producers (China, India, Australia) who are indicating that they don't want to take coal off the menu. When you look at CO2 emissions per energy unit gained coal is much higher than oil with gas the cleanest.
Just watch this. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8618654/ Ploughing releases carbon into the atmosphere and depletes the micro-organisms which enrich the soil. ... “When a farmer ploughs and cultivates a paddock it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The vast majority (95 percent) is released from soil with the other five percent coming from tractor exhausts,” Dr Baker says.15 Jan 2014 This is a well known fact. I've only ever once seen drilling a new crop directly into a field that has not been ploughed. This was done by a farmer that has recently planted trees and wild flowers on his land.
The reactions going on in the first few cm of the soil are critical to the fixation of organic matter in the soil. They occur far better if the ground is not subject to oxidation (so not ploughed and preferably wet). As long as they stay in a low oxygen or reducing condition they can form complex organic molecules that are buried with the soil and can eventually go on to become fixed in rocks etc. While ploughing can add as much as 3tonnes CO2 per hectare to the atmosphere actually growing wheat for 1 year would remove around 14tonnes per hectare. So by not ploughing and assuming the same plant yield you can go from 11tonnes CO2 removed per hectare to 17. I read somewhere that farmers are being encouraged by the government to plant trees on unused land and add to hedges to help with the issue.
Doesn't seem to be the case. Big business certainly cares. I am amazed at how fast the energy transition is occurring. Its hard to see how its going to get to net zero globally any time soon, but industries have certainly spotted the market for renewable energy development. You are right. The poor will always be most disadvantaged by anything that happens on a global scale. But the developing nations have to be brought on board with the plans, as they are the ones who have the most to lose from decarbonisation, in terms of reduction in economic growth, and so they will need to be compensated for that by the developed countries. Thing about these greenhouse gases is that they cause a problem for everyone not just the country emitting them so there has to be a global agreement on the solution.
Too many daft claims and the language used silly really. They claim to be correct and dismiss any scientist with an alternative viewpoint (there are tens of thousands of reputable scientists worldwide who disagree on this subject). There is not a single person on this planet can claim to be correct or incorrect about climate change. It just shows the arrogance of humans really. Humans have only been around 300,000 years. Our climate data started in 1880. 141 years ago. If you think about this in the context that the planet is 4.5 billion years old (approx), you quickly realise this is very much wild guess work and assumptions. To suggest that 141 years of data is an effective measurement of what a 4.5 billion year old planet is doing and what's going to happen to it in the future, would be in any normal circumstance be laughed at heartily. Of course we have found ways to study the earth and its history so that needs factored in, but again the accuracy of that is clearly questionable. Someone used the analogy above of using 1 game in 38 to predict who will win the league. But its actually like using 1 game to predict who will be top after 31,914,893.617 games. Let that sink in. I think the same person made a very salient point. If you look at how they all travel there etc, they aren't exactly convincing when they could have done the exact same thing without the travel and impact. I saw little Greta with her disposable mask on...there looks to be a lot of virtue signaling taking place. I am open minded on the whole subject. I think we undoubtedly do impact the planet and our environment. I also think we should be doing things to look after it and protect nature. However I think we need to get a bit more realistic about how important we are. There are forces at play here far beyond our comprehension or impact.
So effectively if a significant number of leading scientists believe we should be doing something urgently to protect the environment/planet then we should simply ignore them as they weren't collecting data 250 years ago or more? Doesn't sound a very convincing arguement to me. You're right that nobody really 100% knows but all we can do is base our actions on what we do know and/or believe.To do nothing would be criminal and I would rather we did too much than too little. If you accept, which you do, that we are adversely impacting the Planet, then the only debate is about how much we should be doing rather than attempting to belittle people who are attempting to provoke the World into action.
No I think you are trying to put words in my mouth. I haven't suggested ignoring them at all. I think I've suggested we need more open discussion, like many things in life. Indeed I've said quite the opposite and said we should be listening to ALL scientific opinions on the matter instead of deriding those who choose not to agree with the majority or narrative. This is what happens via education, the media etc. Those who hold an opinion that veers from the narrative of us being in a climate crisis are labelled as nutcases or conspiracy theorists or some other label designed to silence them. We teach opinions as fact. The average Joe is easily led of course so it takes hold and I actually think its detrimental. Its the climate 'emergency' element of it, the cause and effect element of it, which is unsubstantiated when you put it in context. This being presented as fact and saying this person or that person is incorrect is ridiculous and arrogant. Its further exasperated by the actions of those being charged with leading on the subject being a direct contradiction to the very thing they are supposed to be helping.
Progress on face value being made to the pleasant surprise of some (me). It’s a small step but a positive step and in the right direction. Russia and China missing and its voluntary with no sanctions but nonetheless progress. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59137828
While I agree you should listen to all sides of a scientific argument if you have 100 peer reviewed published papers showing evidence of human affect on climate and one published scientist saying there is no impact from humans then I for one am naturally going to believe that the combined knowledge of the author and reviewer is more likely to be accurate. Also just because there is a lack of data on the history of the climate for all the Earth's existence, it does not mean that we should disregard 141 years of data. The sensible option in that case is to work off the data that we do have to mitigate climate change to prevent severe hardship and climate migration in Equatorial regions, severe adverse weather in temperate regions and melting ice at the poles. Ignoring that data will lead to 0 action being taken on the off chance that Earth's temperature rise runs in 160 year cycles. At that point we're likely to be ****ed
That first paragraph sums up how far they’ve got into peoples psyche for me. On one hand you say we should listen, but quickly you’re dismissing them with the peer review system (which let’s face it is not what it was because of corruption). This isn’t one guy being silenced. It’s tens of thousands of scientists, some of them climatologists who’ve devoted an entire life to a subject. I myself probably fall more in the category of we are having a detrimental impact and should do something about it. Unfortunately though it’s high jacked by those with a narrative to push so we don’t get all the information. They aren’t all saying humans have no impact. Indeed very few are. It’s the extent that they justifiably question. I wouldn’t dismiss the data at all. You do have to consider the context though. People aren’t all stupid and can fully see how much guesswork is involved so why not present it from that angle. Optics and wanting to control the narrative. All other opinions must be crushed or we won’t control this is the attitude - like most things. We shouldn’t be ignoring anything. If we are (which we are), we are doing ourselves and the planet a disservice. It’s laughable really that people can’t see how badly it’s high jacked. We had Jeff ****ing Bezos lecturing all and sundry at COP26. Sorry I’m out if that’s the craic. Absolutely ridiculous. The man has no interest in ours or the planets well being, he can **** off trying to con everyone with Climate Pledge. Actions speak louder than words and the actions to involve and allow particular people to lead tell me this isn’t for real at all. When it’s meaningful people will engage better. So I question why they appear determined to involve such disingenuous people under the ruse of “well they have the ability to make a massive impact, it’s better to keep them onside”
I think part of the issue is that we have suspected that enhanced levels of carbon dioxide, methane and lesser greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use and agricultural sources are impacting atmospheric composition, causing increases in temperature and causing climate change, for some time and the original lack of agreement on the links, effects and future consequences from scientists has meant that very little has been done about this. I think though that a consensus is gradually being reached, particularly if you take out those with occupational bias. It is clear that the Oil & Gas Majors are of the opinion that the writing is on the wall for fossil fuels, as they have cut investment on exploration and diverted it towards renewables and hydrogen. These open and frank discussions have been going on in academic circles for years and there are now thousands of publications on the science. Nobody on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc wants an open discussion, they just want to express their views and find people with like minded views, often with little insight, and an inability to understand the topic, but feeling they need to be heard. As a geologist/geochemist who spends a large amount of my time studying palaeogeographies, palaeoclimate and palaeo-flora/fauna I know that there are a lot of anomalies out there (there are times in the past where we have had much higher carbon dioxide levels, due to volcanic activity, but temperatures were not much hotter than today). However there is plenty of empirical evidence that climate change is occurring and the argument that this is just another global warming cycle doesn't really hold up. You may want an open discussion but with whom? If governments and big business have decided the transition is happening then you might as well get on board. Fossil fuels are being used up anyway so, even if it doesn't necessarily stop climate change, then why not go ahead now? Actually do something that will benefit future generations rather than leave it until we run out of oil, gas and coal. It will inevitably occur at a slower rate than COP26 and the UK Government would like, as countries that have huge amounts invested in the fossil fuel industry, and desperately need energy to support economic development (like Brazil, Indonesia, Russia) make the most of their remaining resources, However Peak Hydrocarbon Demand has already come down from 2050 to 2030 and that's now driven by the energy transition rather than resource depletion. The good thing about the current climate panic is that it is driving major investment in research on alternative energy sources and bringing down the cost of the energy supplied so making it more economic to implement them. None of this will happen if the impact on individuals or countries is too great, in terms of loss of way of life, loss of income and reduction in economic development. I was listening to a webinar on Energy Transition the other day which showed that one of the things we will need to consider in the future is that farming, and particularly cattle farming, is a particularly wasteful use of land and a significant contributor to methane in the atmosphere. The land would be far better used for solar power plants or wind farms and beef/lamb growing restricted to laboratory environments (again another area of growing research with very encouraging results). It will be interesting to see how long that takes for people to accept that will be how their meat will be produced in future. I have worked in the fossil fuel industry all my working life. However I am pragmatic. I can see that the lack of future investment in the exploration part of the business, where I work, means that its not a career I would recommend to my kids or future grandkids (not that they are interested). I am also happy that there is a lot more concern for the impact of all our actions on the environment - it bodes well for the future.
And there it is. The old "ah its just facebook and twitter people". I refer this back to the original point I made about language and attitudes. Hence they have people convinced its just a load of facebookers. Its funny every controversial subject of division, sees this rhetoric appear. I wonder why that is. Its also disingenuous to suggest an 'open' debate among academics has taken place for years. It has never been anything but a subject of polar opposites, derision and controversy. Its the human way. We don't discuss and agree, we look to destroy the other viewpoint so only ours stands. We try but the scientists now have merely ended up pawns to use to support a narrative. Otherwise why do we present things as fact that we know are not. Or maybe I'm just getting too cynical. You are correct though. Once big business decides on a path, everyone might as well get on board. It will happen regardless of what's right or wrong. That's why they are high jacking this process to lead it. They should be involved, but they should certainly not be leading. Conflict of interest doesn't quite cover it afterall. That's why we are where we are today funnily enough. So my lack of interest of "getting on board" is because we have people saying that to us while allowing the process to be led by people not fit or motivated correctly to lead it. I do agree that we should be developing alternative energy sources, and its an area we should be investing in and diversifying to. Regardless of any debate on climate change, that's just being smart and progressive. Its a finite area fossil fuel afterall, that isn't up for debate. We also know that industrial processes we use have damaging impacts on the environment (again ignoring the climate debate). So it makes sense to grow and develop as a civilisation, hence even people who sit on the other side of the climate debate, still believe in some sustainable energy developments. I also don't think anybody wants to see damage to our habitats and environment (bar big business who just don't care) so positive steps in that direction should be backed by all regardless where you stand on that extent of climate change - its just good sense generally from our understanding of how we interact with our environment and all other animals etc that inhabit it. There is also no debate that there is narrative pushed on us all through media sources and education etc. People would have to be completely ignorant to not see that nowadays. We should fight that as humans too. We should not be so stupid to allow those with zero interest in our well being, or the planets, to lead on these matters. If we do then we will only have ourselves to blame - as we do now.
