You reckon most of the methane from cows comes from farting rather than bubbling out of their poos on the ground?
That's a pity because Nightwalkery's post gave the idea of doing something with the manuer to prevent the methane release.
....
Heh, well I've been off the forum for 2 weeks so I think I deserve a good rant :P
Don't you think things would be a lot better if we managed the waste biomass that the planet produces each year? Several of the comments you make bring up that point about managing our biomass better. After all, that is a major part of the carbon cycle, with which we are increasingly having so many problems (resources, CO2, acidification).
You mentioned the whales eating plankton, but that is just the part of the carbon cycle that sequesters CO2 from the air. We need to grow more whales; to eat the plankton before the plankton can die, decompose, and return directly to the atmosphere as methane or carbon dioxide. Gigatonnes of whales equals gigatonnes of CO2 not in the air.
...
Haha that rice production thing sticks it to the greenies
Maybe it's just me but I seem to notice that environmentalists are always wanting to make changes that end up backfiring:
In a similar way, rice production can be net carbon negative (sequestering) if you manage the biomass properly. The methane production is only one part of the yearly carbon cycle for rice and rice-growing soils.
...
No nuclear - oh wait but now it might reduce global warming.
I'm not too sure about nuclear because it costs sooo much money--it needs to be constantly subsidized--and the construction, support, and decommissioning activities generate almost as much CO2 as the plant is supposed to prevent.
...
Biofuel - oops, many killed by 2008 food price problem.
Now biofuels are a lot cheaper and employ a lot more people, but I agree that they shouldn't be made from food crops. That's why the focus on "waste" biomass is so critical to managing the carbon cycle more effectively.
...
Light a candle on Earth hour - even tho candles burn more fossil fuel than electric generators.
"Lighting a candle..." might not be the least fossil-fuel intensive way to light a room. But if that is accompanied by also turning off the computer/TV/etc. stuff, then a candle might represent a difference in behaviour. As with so many of your points, it depends more on context as to whether or not any given activity is carbon negative or wasteful of carbon.
...
Don't buy imported food - but locally produced food can be worse for the environment due to unsuitable local climate.
Well, growing food and climate problems are at the root of our sustainability issues, so that comment deserves its own topic/thread.... But let me point out that the more we are dependant on foreign-produced food and energy, the more we are less secure....
...
Save the whales - even tho whales eat plankton, one of the major sources of oxygen in the air. Hehe well that's probably a neglible effect, but it's the principle!
The whales--already mentioned--represent gigatonnes of CO2 that could be converted back into biomass, as they were once converted into whale oil to burn and decaying (CO2-producing) flesh.
...
Car emissions controls - reduce toxic emissions at the expense of more greenhouse gasses.
Automotive emission controls reduce gas milage? Is that your point? We should have electric cars for most short-range activities, so more toxic emissions wouldn't be a problem.... Emission controls should be at the point of generation (such as coal-fired power) for better control of the carbon cycle.
...Stop clubbing baby seals - and save the polar bears too.
...and baby seals and polar bears don't really matter in the big picture, except as benchmarks of all-critical biodiversity, and that their habitat needs to be preserved if we want to avoid a major climate-mode shift. The Arctic is the planet's air-conditioner (at least in our current climate mode) and if that function changes drastically, then our planet's current climate mode will also change to some other mode with its own drastically unfamiliar weather patterns.
===
...
Organic farming - except the world is running out of arable land and organic farming has lower yield than traditional farming.
But as to the myth that corporatized, industrial-scale agriculture is the only way to feed billions of people.... Well, we won't last for long as a civilization if it is... because that style of agriculture is causing unsustainable problems with the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, and various socio-economic cycles, as well as our nutritional and health status as a species.
There are ways to make "organic farming" less resource intensive and also more productive, but your point about arable land is the most important. "Larding the Lean Earth" is a book describing how civilization's quest for arable lands has driven much of our history. The grass is always greener on the other side, eh? ...and now we've filled our niche as a species and we are rapidly destroying our remaining arable lands and productive waters. Problems abound with our resources... and these are even affecting the global climate and planetary homeostasis.
Restoring those waters, and regenerating our arable lands, would be the most significant control of the carbon cycle that we could hope to achieve. Suddenly the true, new value of arable land comes into focus, eh? Think of the new jobs and industries that will be generated by creating new arable lands and restoring our waters and old arable lands (managing the carbon cycle).
===
Biodiversity is here to feed and sustain us, not to profit individuals while making us poorer as a species.
Promoting biodiversity and more effective management of the carbon cycle means:
More education, less imported energy, more economic benefits, and less environmental problems. What could be better?
