High-yield agriculture slows pace of global warming, say FSE researchers
Louis Bergeron - Stanford News Service
Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere - the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide - according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.
The yield improvements reduced the need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The researchers estimate that if not for increased yields, additional greenhouse gas emissions from clearing land for farming would have been equal to as much as a third of the world's total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.
The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide - were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide - a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.
"Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more 'old-fashioned' way of doing things," said Jennifer Burney, lead author of a paper describing the study that will be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read More
This study is pretty clear. Modern agriculture has saved billions of tons of greenhouse gasses from escaping into the atmosphere. When we invest in agriculture and implement modern practices, not only do we keep mass starvation from occurring, but it’s also beneficial for the environment. When we see people like Michael Pollan urging us to support an agricultural system that denounces modern technology, you need to realize everything they are asking for. What sounds romantic on the surface doesn’t hold water in reality.
Showing posts with label carbon dioxide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon dioxide. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
EPA Disapproval Vote Tomorrow
Rockefeller Backs Murkowski's EPA Resolution in Senate
By ROBIN BRAVENDER of ClimateWire
Published: June 9, 2010
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) will vote for a resolution to hamstring U.S. EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, he said yesterday.
"I intend to vote for Senator Murkowski's Resolution of Disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said in a statement.
The Senate will vote tomorrow on a disapproval resolution (S.J.Res. 26 (pdf)) from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would essentially veto EPA's "endangerment" finding, a scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The finding is the basis for EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, which are set to take effect next year.
Asked yesterday whether she thought she could muster the votes needed for passage, Murkowski said, "It really is dependent on many of our colleagues on the other side, who have said they agree that the EPA moving forward is the worst option. So now they've got an opportunity to really back that statement by supporting this resolution of disapproval."
Read More
This vote is still on schedule for tomorrow. Please contact your Senators and urge their support for this resolution. The endangerment finding by the unelected officials at the EPA will drive up the cost of everything from food to energy with no foreseeable benefits. In order to get this done though everyone need to let their opinion be heard. Take a couple minutes right now to do it.
By ROBIN BRAVENDER of ClimateWire
Published: June 9, 2010
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) will vote for a resolution to hamstring U.S. EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, he said yesterday.
"I intend to vote for Senator Murkowski's Resolution of Disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said in a statement.
The Senate will vote tomorrow on a disapproval resolution (S.J.Res. 26 (pdf)) from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would essentially veto EPA's "endangerment" finding, a scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The finding is the basis for EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, which are set to take effect next year.
Asked yesterday whether she thought she could muster the votes needed for passage, Murkowski said, "It really is dependent on many of our colleagues on the other side, who have said they agree that the EPA moving forward is the worst option. So now they've got an opportunity to really back that statement by supporting this resolution of disapproval."
Read More
This vote is still on schedule for tomorrow. Please contact your Senators and urge their support for this resolution. The endangerment finding by the unelected officials at the EPA will drive up the cost of everything from food to energy with no foreseeable benefits. In order to get this done though everyone need to let their opinion be heard. Take a couple minutes right now to do it.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
EPA Ruling Could Devastate Ag
NCBA: EPA Greenhouse Gas Ruling Could Be Devastating To Agriculture
12/08/2009 01:59PM
CattleNetwork.com
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is extremely concerned about the potential impacts that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent greenhouse gas (GHG) ruling could have on agriculture operations. EPA’s decision, announced yesterday, claims that GHG emissions are an endangerment to public health and the environment. This sets the stage for greenhouse regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and would give the EPA unprecedented control over every sector of the U.S. economy.
“It’s premature to issue this kind of finding, especially given the recent controversy surrounding the scientific validity of alleged human contributions to climate change,” said Tamara Thies, NCBA chief environmental counsel. “Regulation of greenhouse gases should be based on science, and it should be thoughtfully considered and voted on by Congress through a democratic process, not dictated by the EPA.”
The endangerment finding does not itself regulate GHGs; but unless Congress acts, it sets in motion EPA regulation of GHGs from stationary sources and the setting of new source performance standards for GHGs. On October 27, 2009, EPA proposed a rule designed to regulate GHG emissions from sources that emit 25,000 tons per year or more, instead of the statutory 250 tons per year threshold for pollutants which is included in the Clean Air Act. The extent to which EPA can change statutory permitting requirements, however, is unclear. Only time will tell how our federal courts will address citizen suits to force regulation of all sources that emit GHGs in excess of the statutory thresholds. EPA indicated that it also would be developing an approach to regulate GHGs from hundreds of thousands of small operations, including farms and buildings. Read More
The regulation of greenhouse gasses and specifically carbon dioxide, could deal a devastating blow to American agriculture. And for what benefit?? Not only would it affect our ability to grow our food, it would unfairly target rural Americans who depend on affordable energy for transportation. If you have never been involved in the political process before, now is the time to start. Everyone needs to let their elected officials know that we aren’t willing to give away our sovereignty for a plan that won’t solve a problem that might not even exist.
12/08/2009 01:59PM
CattleNetwork.com
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is extremely concerned about the potential impacts that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent greenhouse gas (GHG) ruling could have on agriculture operations. EPA’s decision, announced yesterday, claims that GHG emissions are an endangerment to public health and the environment. This sets the stage for greenhouse regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and would give the EPA unprecedented control over every sector of the U.S. economy.
“It’s premature to issue this kind of finding, especially given the recent controversy surrounding the scientific validity of alleged human contributions to climate change,” said Tamara Thies, NCBA chief environmental counsel. “Regulation of greenhouse gases should be based on science, and it should be thoughtfully considered and voted on by Congress through a democratic process, not dictated by the EPA.”
The endangerment finding does not itself regulate GHGs; but unless Congress acts, it sets in motion EPA regulation of GHGs from stationary sources and the setting of new source performance standards for GHGs. On October 27, 2009, EPA proposed a rule designed to regulate GHG emissions from sources that emit 25,000 tons per year or more, instead of the statutory 250 tons per year threshold for pollutants which is included in the Clean Air Act. The extent to which EPA can change statutory permitting requirements, however, is unclear. Only time will tell how our federal courts will address citizen suits to force regulation of all sources that emit GHGs in excess of the statutory thresholds. EPA indicated that it also would be developing an approach to regulate GHGs from hundreds of thousands of small operations, including farms and buildings. Read More
The regulation of greenhouse gasses and specifically carbon dioxide, could deal a devastating blow to American agriculture. And for what benefit?? Not only would it affect our ability to grow our food, it would unfairly target rural Americans who depend on affordable energy for transportation. If you have never been involved in the political process before, now is the time to start. Everyone needs to let their elected officials know that we aren’t willing to give away our sovereignty for a plan that won’t solve a problem that might not even exist.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Is The Planet Actually Cooling??
The global warming consensus cools
Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"What happened to global warming?" read the headline - on BBC News on Oct. 9, no less. Consider it a cataclysmic event: Mainstream news organizations have begun reporting on scientific research that suggests that global warming may not be caused by man and may not be as dire and imminent as alarmists suggest.
Indeed, as the BBC's climate correspondent Paul Hudson reported, the warmest year recorded globally "was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998." It's true, he continued, "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."
At a London conference later this month, Hudson reported, solar scientist Piers Corbyn will present evidence that solar-charged particles have a big impact on global temperatures.
Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook presented research last year that suggests that the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) caused warmer temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s. With Pacific sea surface temperatures cooling, Easterbrook expects 30 years of global cooling.
EPA analyst Alan Carlin - an MIT-trained economist with a degree in physics - referred to "solar variability" and Easterbrook's work in a document that warned that politics had prompted the Environmental Protection Agency and countries to pay "too little attention to the science of global warming" as partisans ignored the lack of global warming over the past 10 years. At first the EPA buried the paper, then it permitted Carlin to post it on his personal Web site.
Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated nonbelievers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray. Read More
Any conversation about climate change that our elected officials are having should first focus on if the climate is really changing due to human activity and if it is, will this legislation reverse it. Before we spend trillions of dollars we should find out what our return on this investment will be.
Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"What happened to global warming?" read the headline - on BBC News on Oct. 9, no less. Consider it a cataclysmic event: Mainstream news organizations have begun reporting on scientific research that suggests that global warming may not be caused by man and may not be as dire and imminent as alarmists suggest.
Indeed, as the BBC's climate correspondent Paul Hudson reported, the warmest year recorded globally "was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998." It's true, he continued, "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."
At a London conference later this month, Hudson reported, solar scientist Piers Corbyn will present evidence that solar-charged particles have a big impact on global temperatures.
Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook presented research last year that suggests that the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) caused warmer temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s. With Pacific sea surface temperatures cooling, Easterbrook expects 30 years of global cooling.
EPA analyst Alan Carlin - an MIT-trained economist with a degree in physics - referred to "solar variability" and Easterbrook's work in a document that warned that politics had prompted the Environmental Protection Agency and countries to pay "too little attention to the science of global warming" as partisans ignored the lack of global warming over the past 10 years. At first the EPA buried the paper, then it permitted Carlin to post it on his personal Web site.
Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated nonbelievers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray. Read More
Any conversation about climate change that our elected officials are having should first focus on if the climate is really changing due to human activity and if it is, will this legislation reverse it. Before we spend trillions of dollars we should find out what our return on this investment will be.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
EPA May Bypass Congress
EPA could create U.S. CO2 cap-and-trade: Sierra
Tue Sep 8, 2009 6:45pm EDT
By Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would step in and regulate carbon dioxide emissions by creating a cap-and-trade system or take other measures if Congress fails, but is likely to wait for 2010 elections, the head of the Sierra Club said on Tuesday.
The possibility of an end-run around Congress makes the prospect of U.S. carbon emission regulation likely despite current legislative debate, although President Barack Obama would prefer Congress lead the way, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope told the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San Francisco.
"I would guess that between now and the (2010) midterms, you will see two things happen. One, EPA will begin actively regulating all of the other kinds of problems with coal fired power plants," Pope said, naming mercury emissions, particulate matter and mountaintop removal mining as examples.
"They will begin to create a context in which all the clunkers (coal plants) are going to get retired anyway. And they will lay the ground work for establishing carbon emissions standards for all large sources of carbon dioxide," he said. Read More
There is a very simple solution to all of the problems surrounding climate change legislation and that is for Congress to pass a one sentence bill that states carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. That would make this whole thing disappear and it would be in line with the original intent of the Clean Air Act. Even the original writers of that legislation said that they never intended for carbon dioxide to be regulated. Regardless of all that, it appears that the EPA will try to go around Congress and decide for themselves how to do this if the current legislation doesn’t go anywhere in the Senate. It’s obvious that people do not want cap and trade because if they did the free market system would already be meeting that demand.
Tue Sep 8, 2009 6:45pm EDT
By Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would step in and regulate carbon dioxide emissions by creating a cap-and-trade system or take other measures if Congress fails, but is likely to wait for 2010 elections, the head of the Sierra Club said on Tuesday.
The possibility of an end-run around Congress makes the prospect of U.S. carbon emission regulation likely despite current legislative debate, although President Barack Obama would prefer Congress lead the way, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope told the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San Francisco.
"I would guess that between now and the (2010) midterms, you will see two things happen. One, EPA will begin actively regulating all of the other kinds of problems with coal fired power plants," Pope said, naming mercury emissions, particulate matter and mountaintop removal mining as examples.
"They will begin to create a context in which all the clunkers (coal plants) are going to get retired anyway. And they will lay the ground work for establishing carbon emissions standards for all large sources of carbon dioxide," he said. Read More
There is a very simple solution to all of the problems surrounding climate change legislation and that is for Congress to pass a one sentence bill that states carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. That would make this whole thing disappear and it would be in line with the original intent of the Clean Air Act. Even the original writers of that legislation said that they never intended for carbon dioxide to be regulated. Regardless of all that, it appears that the EPA will try to go around Congress and decide for themselves how to do this if the current legislation doesn’t go anywhere in the Senate. It’s obvious that people do not want cap and trade because if they did the free market system would already be meeting that demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)