Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Snow Beat the Snow-Deniers

Last year, the New York Times predicted the end of snow. This week, its employees had trouble getting to work because of a travel ban caused by the blizzard. And those New Yorkers still subscribing to the print edition of the Old Gray Lady of Eight Avenue were even more out of luck.

Snow wasn’t over, but the New York Times was.

A few days after the New York Times forecast a snowless future in 2014, a major snowstorm (which didn’t read the paper and wasn’t aware of the 97% scientific consensus) hit shutting down airports, causing major accidents and killing dozens of people. Thirteen inches of snow fell over the city.

A week after warning of the end of snow, the New York Times was instead forced to report on “downed power lines, stranded travelers, abandoned vehicles and yet another mess of snow, slush and ice.”

CBS This Morning, which originally broadcast claims that the snow was going away, has now been forced to put its staff up in hotels near the studio and bus them in. Don Dahler, the CBS correspondent involved, was complaining on Twitter about how badly Long Island had been slammed by the blizzard.

Once again the snow beat the snow-deniers.

The snow deniers have been around for a while. Fifteen years ago, Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia, the hub of Warmism, said that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

While it is currently a balmy 43 degrees over in Norwich, home of the University of East Anglia, snow is expected on Sunday. Not only are the children of Norwich entirely familiar with snow, but last year a video of people (some of whom might even work at the University of East Anglia) tripping and falling on snowed out and icy streets even went viral.

Indeed somewhere Dr. David Viner was probably cursing the snow for still being there while small children laughed at him. “Snow is starting to disappear from our lives,” The Independent had asserted then. Instead the UK is headed for a displaced polar vortex bringing with it some of the coldest temperatures on record.

“The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent”, The Independent had claimed. They may not however be nearly as apparent as the delusional state of the Global Warmist.

Instead of preparing for snow-free winters, northern Britain is preparing for “freezing gales” and arctic air. Forecasters are predicting “very severe and extreme weather” early next month.

The snow clearly isn’t going anywhere. But neither are the Warmist weather deniers.

A few days before the blizzard; Al Gore was promoting Live Earth concerts across seven continents, including Antarctica, to push the Warmist wish list of taxes and bans.

Gore, who had been urging a $90 trillion plan to end cars, wants a concert tour across every continent on the planet, including one that isn’t even meant to be inhabited.

These “Climate Action” concerts to save the planet will take plenty of flying, but that never stopped the environmental crusader who flies around the planet as if it really will be destroyed next year.

Gore had predicted in 2008 that the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely free of ice in 2008. Next year he postdated it to 2014. The snow-free apocalypse is always going to happen next year.

Or maybe the year after that,

Pharrell Williams, the latest celebrity partner in Gore’s Green dreams, had flown a private jet to Davos. But his jet was only a tiny dot among the fleet of 1,700 private jets that had descended on Davos to discuss action on Global Warming.


Davos is currently a balmy twenty degrees, about the same as New York, but the cold weather never freezes out the narrative. When it’s warm outside, Global Warming is to blame. When it’s cold out, Bill Nye, a comedian whose claim to fame is wearing a bowtie and hosting a PBS kids show, is invited on to blame Global Warming.

“I just want to introduce the idea that this storm is connected to climate change,” Bill Nye announced on MSNBC; the news network that is to science what Al Sharpton is to teleprompters.

What are Bill Nye’s qualifications for discussing climate change? The same as his qualifications for discussing evolution and football along with any other subject MSNBC will let him spout off on.

Nye graduated in the seventies from Cornell with a BS in mechanical engineering. He kept applying to NASA to become an astronaut to fulfill his lifelong goal of “changing the world”.

But Nye didn’t want to change the world badly enough to actually get a PhD. “I’d love to get a Ph.D in applied physics or fluid mechanics, but that’s a seven- or eight-year commitment.”

No eight-year commitment is required to go on MSNBC and blame a winter storm on Global Warming.

What was Nye’s scientific basis for his conspiracy theory? Much like his PhD, he didn’t have one. Last year during a snowstorm Nye had also been invited on MSNBC to blame Global Warming.

"Cold weather events are difficult to tie to climate change,” he said. “But it’s very reasonable that it’s climate change." You could easily substitute ‘Aliens’ for ‘Climate Change’ with the same exact results. You could also swap in Pee Wee Herman for Bill Nye and get a more fact-based response on virtually any scientific topic.

Since Climate Change, the ambiguously vague successor to Global Warming’s failed promises of a snow-free world, can mean anything, it can also be blamed for anything. It’s reasonable that if it snows tomorrow or if it doesn’t, that the culprit is climate change. After all the weather changed, didn’t it?

Whatever the weather, it’s a crisis.

And the only solution is more concerts in Antarctica, more taxes, more bans, more environmentalist consultants and more appearances by comedians who want to change the world by forcing everyone to commit to poverty and misery, but couldn’t be bothered to make the eight-year commitment to a PhD.

While it’s easy to ridicule the ecovangelists prophesying the end of snow, the celebrities flying private jets to save the world from themselves and the clowns in their bowties blaming the snow on Global Warming, it would be dangerous to lose sight of the wizards behind the curtain.

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works' Minority Staff Report chronicled how a “Billionaire’s Club” runs the environmental movement and the EPA for its own agenda. More recent reports have shown how the Russian government finances environmental groups in the US.

The confrontation in the Ukraine forced the New York Times and Foreign Policy to report on the Russian government’s covert backing for environmentalists in Europe. But the oil-soaked cash flowing to environmentalists in the US is still off limits even with Al Gore collecting $100 million from Qatar.

Eco-doomsday is big business for everyone from foreign energy businesses to domestic billionaires looking for more grants, loans and mandates. Environmentalism stopped being the eccentric cause of technophobic hippies and became big business. And it will take a big shovel to sweep its snow job away.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    60.3 KB · Views: 28
The green Germans.
German coal imports from Russia highest since 2006

Reuters / Ilya Naymushin
Reuters / Ilya Naymushin

Germany imported more than 12 million tons of coal from Russia in 2014 - the biggest volume in 9 years, despite calls for energy independence and a switch to renewables.

Coal imports from Russia increased 6.6 percent in 2014, at 12.6 million metric tons, Germany’s Federal Statistics Office reported Friday. This is about a third of the country’s total coal imports.

At a time when geopolitical relations between the two countries are strained, Germany continues to pump money into a country that the US and other European countries are bent on economically isolating.

Poland, also a Moscow naysayer, is Russia’s second biggest coal importer in the EU. Another country that had sworn off Russian coal, but ended up buying the cheap energy to heat homes and factories, was Ukraine. Kiev bought some 50,000 metric tons in December.

Read more
​50,000 tons of Russian coal enter Ukraine
Russian coal has become even more attractive to Europeans since the ruble depreciated more than 50 percent, which means importers spend less dollars and euro.

“The devaluation of the ruble and the decline in oil prices has placed Russian thermal coal exporters among the most competitive suppliers to both the Atlantic and Pacific markets,” says Diana Bacila, a coal analyst at Oslo-based Nena AS, an independent energy analysis firm.

About 50 percent of German electricity comes from coal, with the rest coming from natural gas and nuclear energy.

Germany is also Russia’s biggest gas client, importing over 25 billion cubic meters per year. The recently completed Nord Stream pipeline, which feeds directly from Russia to Germany, has a capacity to deliver 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas.
 
You guys sure fit this with your posts.

Yup.

Faith.

I think "Eco-socialists" fits well, "Watermelons" has always been a good one.

I'm quite sure when someone put together the idea that you could control the World's primary energy sources through taxation, and get rich off trade schemes monetizing something that people exhale, under the guise of it being a planetary environmental emergency - there was a fair bit of gleeful back-slapping and tented fingers in many boardrooms.

But hey, Apple can post a $19 billion quarter while filling their technology full of mined rare-Earth metals, and be loved - yet those who provide an energy source to light up the dark night (and power those same devices) and keep people from freezing to death in the Northern Hemisphere are evil, capitalist, pigs.

Go figure.

BjM8DkNIMAEMaH8.jpg failed-climate-predictions.jpg

Mann Always.jpg
 
How Temperature Adjustments Have Transformed Arctic Climate History

By Paul Homewood

Scientists, particularly public funded ones, should always be held accountable for their work. And any legitimate concerns must be addressed in an open and transparent manner.

The idea that these concerns should be hidden away from the public is abhorrent.

What nonsense OBD and you should know it.
Shame on you for posting such ********.
Every day you seem to be getting farther away for reality.
Now it seems your new theory is the Arctic is not warming.
It's all a hoax by those people that want to destroy the economy.
Here is the evidence... explain that...
Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png


Here is the information on global temp stations and it's available for all to see.
[_A3X8yRHfPg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A3X8yRHfPg
 
Well that's a bold cover.... wonder why they felt the need to point this out?
Could it be for folks that don't get it yet....

BBW.jpg
 
Really, hoax by whom?



What nonsense OBD and you should know it.
Shame on you for posting such ********.
Every day you seem to be getting farther away for reality.
Now it seems your new theory is the Arctic is not warming.
It's all a hoax by those people that want to destroy the economy.
Here is the evidence... explain that...
Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png


Here is the information on global temp stations and it's available for all to see.
[_A3X8yRHfPg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A3X8yRHfPg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    78.4 KB · Views: 20
Says a lot.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    92.7 KB · Views: 20
Really, hoax by whom?

By this guy.... LOL
Care to explain that?
The caterwauling over climate change has nothing to do with real-world warming, cooling, storms or droughts. It has everything to do with an ideologically driven hatred of hydrocarbons, capitalism and economic development, and a callous disdain for middle class workers and impoverished Third World families that “progressive” activists, politicians and bureaucrats always claim to care so much about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Care to explain this then?
[nuKVk1gMJDg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuKVk1gMJDg
 
While your at it explain this......
[FDRnH48LvhQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDRnH48LvhQ
 
The green Germans.
German coal imports from Russia highest since 2006

Reuters / Ilya Naymushin
Reuters / Ilya Naymushin

Germany imported more than 12 million tons of coal from Russia in 2014 - the biggest volume in 9 years, despite calls for energy independence and a switch to renewables.

Coal imports from Russia increased 6.6 percent in 2014, at 12.6 million metric tons, Germany’s Federal Statistics Office reported Friday. This is about a third of the country’s total coal imports.

At a time when geopolitical relations between the two countries are strained, Germany continues to pump money into a country that the US and other European countries are bent on economically isolating.

Poland, also a Moscow naysayer, is Russia’s second biggest coal importer in the EU. Another country that had sworn off Russian coal, but ended up buying the cheap energy to heat homes and factories, was Ukraine. Kiev bought some 50,000 metric tons in December.

Read more
​50,000 tons of Russian coal enter Ukraine
Russian coal has become even more attractive to Europeans since the ruble depreciated more than 50 percent, which means importers spend less dollars and euro.

“The devaluation of the ruble and the decline in oil prices has placed Russian thermal coal exporters among the most competitive suppliers to both the Atlantic and Pacific markets,” says Diana Bacila, a coal analyst at Oslo-based Nena AS, an independent energy analysis firm.

About 50 percent of German electricity comes from coal, with the rest coming from natural gas and nuclear energy.

Germany is also Russia’s biggest gas client, importing over 25 billion cubic meters per year. The recently completed Nord Stream pipeline, which feeds directly from Russia to Germany, has a capacity to deliver 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

Now your getting your news from "Russia Today"
http://rt.com/business/232135-germany-coal-imports-russia-2014/
Do you really think that is a smart call?
With each passing day you seem to be going further afield from reality.
I'm not the only one here that is worried about you OBD.
 
Dr. Roy Spencer

What to call a NYT reporter of climate science?
February 13th, 2015
Justin-Gillis-Richard-Lindzen
The title of Justin Gillis’ recent NYT article is an excellent tip-off of how bad environmental reporting has gotten:

What to Call a Doubter of Climate Change?

Now, as a skeptical PhD climate scientist who has been working and publishing in the climate field for over a quarter century, I can tell you I don’t know of any other skeptics who even “doubt climate change”.

The mere existence of climate change says nothing about causation. The climate system is always changing, and always will change. Most skeptics believe humans have at least some small role in that change, but tend to believe it might well be more natural than SUV-caused.

So, the title of the NYT article immediately betrays a bias in reporting which has become all too common. “He who frames the question wins the debate.”

What we skeptics are skeptical about is that the science has demonstrated with any level of certainty: (1) how much of recent warming has been manmade versus natural, or (2) whether any observed change in storms/droughts/floods is outside the realm of natural variability, that is, whether it too can be blamed on human activities.

But reporters routinely try to reframe the debate, telling us skeptics what we believe. Actually reporting in an accurate manner what we really believe does not suit their purpose. So (for example) Mr. Gillis did not use any quotes from Dr. John Christy in the above article, even though he was interviewed.

Mr. Gillis instead seems intent on making a story out of whether skeptical climate scientists should be even afforded the dignity of being called a “skeptic”, when what we really should be called is “deniers”.

You know — as evil as those who deny the Holocaust. (Yeah, we get the implication.)

He then goes on to malign the scientific character of Dr. Richard Lindzen (a Jew who is not entirely pleased with misplaced Holocaust imagery) because the majority of scientific opinion runs contrary to Dr. Lindzen, who is also a member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.

Do I need to remind Mr. Gillis that the cause(s) of climate change are much more difficult to establish than, say, the cause of stomach ulcers? There is only one climate system (patient) to study, but many millions of ulcer sufferers walking around.

And yet the medical research community was almost unanimous in their years of condemnation of Marshall and Warren, two Australian researchers who finally received the 2005 Nobel Prize in medicine for establishing the bacterial basis for peptic ulcers, one of the most common diseases in the world.

Does Mr. Gillis really want to be a journalist? Or just impress his NYC friends?

The idea that the causes of climate change are now just as well established as gravity or the non-flatness of the Earth (or that ulcers are caused by too much stress and spicy food, too?) is so ridiculous that only young school children could be indoctrinated with such silly tripe.

Which, I fear, is just what is happening.

Posted in Blog Article | 17 Comments »
 
http://www.pembina.org/blog/climate-action-supports-a-diverse-bc-economy#.VN6LqobHUe0.facebook

Climate action can support a strong economy in B.C.

Published Feb. 13, 2015 by Kevin Sauve

Tuesday’s Throne Speech included a simple and powerful statement from British Columbia’s government: “We will continue to provide a positive example to the world that there is no need to choose between economic growth and fighting climate change.”

As the world turns its attention to the global climate change talks in Paris this December, B.C. is well placed to continue showing that cutting fossil fuel use and creating economic opportunity can go hand-in-hand. To do that, the province needs to write the next chapter in our climate success story.

The first phase of B.C.’s Climate Action Plan has been both an environmental and economic success. Polices such as the carbon tax, clean energy requirements and the low-carbon fuel standard have enabled the province to meet its 2012 interim target to cut carbon pollution. B.C.’s per-capita fossil fuel consumption has dropped relative to the rest of Canada and our economy has outperformed the Canadian average.

That success is being noticed. The president of the World Bank referred to B.C.’s carbon tax as one of the world’s most powerful examples of carbon pricing. Similarly, the secretary general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development described it as the closest thing we have to a textbook example.

Similar climate policies are being introduced in North America and around the world. Since B.C.’s carbon tax was put in place in 2008, 14 new carbon-pricing policies have been implemented around the world. By 2016, a carbon price will apply to almost one-quarter of the world’s carbon pollution, up from 12 per cent today. If jurisdictions like Ontario, Washington and Oregon follow through on their carbon pricing commitments, the percentage will continue to grow.

Oregon and Washington are also following B.C. and California’s lead by implementing standards to reduce carbon pollution from transportation fuels. Step by step, these policies are helping to clean up transportation systems on the west coast — a region that is collectively equivalent to the world’s fifth-largest economy.

There is broad agreement that these types of actions from sub-national governments will be critical to the success of the climate negotiations in Paris. While a global climate agreement is the ultimate goal, smaller successes help to show what’s possible and bring that agreement within reach.

For B.C. to maximize its contribution in the buildup to Paris, it should put in motion the next phase of its Climate Action Plan. This would build on the first round of policies that were implemented in 2007 and 2008 and have since plateaued.

While a full climate plan may take more time, substantive progress can be made this year. When B.C. started to get serious about climate change back in 2007, it was able to introduce multiple pieces of legislation in under a year. Now the legislation is in place and ready to be taken to the next level.

The low-carbon fuel standard could be extended beyond 2020. The Building Code and Clean Energy Act could be used to reduce energy use in homes and buildings throughout the province. The carbon tax could be broadened and increased to further cut carbon pollution and strengthen the incentive to invest in clean energy.

In 2007, these policies were characterized as bold — and sometimes controversial — ideas. Critics warned of impending economic doom. In 2015, we see that the sky hasn’t fallen. The province has a track record of economic and environmental success showing that fortune favours the bold when it comes to climate action.

Whether it’s one of B.C.’s 200 clean technology companies that employ more than 8,000 people, or one of the 133 renewable electricity projects around the province, it takes less and less imagination to picture a successful low-carbon economy. These companies and projects are helping to diversify B.C.’s economy. They’re also positioning the province to take advantage of growing global demand for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

While leadership is still required to capitalize on those opportunities, doing so no longer requires a leap of faith.

Between now and the Paris climate talks in December, B.C. should make substantive progress on its Climate Action Plan. Now’s the time to build on our climate policy successes and lead the way to effective global action on climate change.


Photo: B.C. Lieutenant-Governor Judith Guichon delivers the 2015 Speech from the Throne. Credit: Province of British Columbia, Flickr.

Kevin Sauve is B.C. Communications Lead for the Pembina Institute. Find him on Twitter: @KevinSauve.
 
It is GLOBAL WARMING, not CANADA WARMING.

This makes no sense OBD that's why some of us are getting a little worried about you.
here is what I said about your "news" post..


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by GLG
Now your getting your news from "Russia Today"
http://rt.com/business/232135-german...s-russia-2014/
Do you really think that is a smart call?
With each passing day you seem to be going further afield from reality.
I'm not the only one here that is worried about you OBD.


If you don't understand that then I'll try this.
Don't trust a news site from Russia. Get it?
 
Mike Flynn | February 13, 2015 at 5:26 am | Reply
Rob Ellison,

For anyone interested in averages –

Earth’s temperature over the last 4.5 billion years – cooled. You might have noticed that you are not standing on molten rock – or maybe the rock was never molten, and the Earth was created cold. My assumption is that the surface cooled, but I can’t prove it, of course. I assume you can’t prove anything to the contrary, so I’ll stick with my assumption.

Now, over the last 10 years or so, if a 4.5 billion year average is a bit long for you, the Earth also seems to have warmed not at all. As a matter of fact, I believe it’s cooled a smidgen – according to geophysicists who measure such things – so I believe that over both short and long time scales, the Earth has cooled.

As for anyone who believes the entire Earth magically warms due to changes in atmospheric composition, I say phooey! Parts of the Earth are warmer than others. This proves precisely nothing, except that the laws of physics appear to apply, rather than magic. Thus it has always been, unless you have proof to the contrary.

If you believe that the Earth is warming, good for you! I hope your belief brings solace to you.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.
 
Mike Flynn | February 13, 2015 at 5:26 am | Reply
Rob Ellison,

For anyone interested in averages –

Earth’s temperature over the last 4.5 billion years – cooled. You might have noticed that you are not standing on molten rock – or maybe the rock was never molten, and the Earth was created cold. My assumption is that the surface cooled, but I can’t prove it, of course. I assume you can’t prove anything to the contrary, so I’ll stick with my assumption.

Now, over the last 10 years or so, if a 4.5 billion year average is a bit long for you, the Earth also seems to have warmed not at all. As a matter of fact, I believe it’s cooled a smidgen – according to geophysicists who measure such things – so I believe that over both short and long time scales, the Earth has cooled.

As for anyone who believes the entire Earth magically warms due to changes in atmospheric composition, I say phooey! Parts of the Earth are warmer than others. This proves precisely nothing, except that the laws of physics appear to apply, rather than magic. Thus it has always been, unless you have proof to the contrary.

If you believe that the Earth is warming, good for you! I hope your belief brings solace to you.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

You know what they say "there is no fool like an old fool"
Since when does a geophysicists measure such things?

See OBD you can't seem to spot a fool and that's why were getting worried about you.

What do you make of this news?

Pope Francis: A Christian Who Doesn't Protect Creation Doesn't Care About The Work Of God
Religion News Service | By David Gibson
Posted: 02/09/2015 2:18 pm EST Updated: 02/10/2015 9:59 pm EST
POPE FRANCIS

VATICAN CITY (RNS) If you are a Christian, protecting the environment is part of your identity, not an ideological option, Pope Francis said Monday (Feb. 9).

“When we hear that people have meetings about how to preserve creation, we can say: ‘No, they are the greens!’” Francis said in his homily at morning Mass, using a common name for environmental activists.

“No, they are not the greens! This is the Christian!” he said.

“A Christian who does not protect creation, who does not let it grow, is a Christian who does not care about the work of God; that work that was born from the love of God for us,” Francis continued. “And this is the first response to the first creation: protect creation, make it grow.”

The pope — who took his name from St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of the environment — has made care for the environment a hallmark of his papacy since he was elected nearly two years ago.

In fact, the pontiff is preparing a major document, called an encyclical, on the environment. It is likely to reiterate his frequent calls for governments and individuals to take steps to combat climate change, a phenomenon he attributes in part to human activity.

That conclusion, and his focus on protecting creation, as he calls it, has angered some conservative Catholics in the U.S., who see it as further evidence that Francis is pushing a liberal agenda that slights traditional Catholic talking points on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

The issue is likely to get more heated in the coming months: The encyclical is expected by July, and Francis will be making his first visit to the U.S. in September.

In his homily on Monday in the chapel at his Vatican residence, Francis dwelt on the first reading of the Mass, the passage from Genesis that recounts the creation of the universe.

“In the ‘first creation,’” the pope said, “we must respond with the responsibility that the Lord gives us.”

“Even for us there is a responsibility to nurture the Earth, to nurture creation, to keep it and make it grow according to its laws,” he said. “We are the lords of creation, not its masters.”
 
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quirks-quarks-for-feb-14-2015-1.2956633/future-arctic-1.2956911
Saturday February 14, 2015
Future Arctic

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/future-arctic-2015-02-15-pt-5-1.2956972?autoplay=true
http://mp3juices.se/media/<img widt...3%2Fpodcasts%2Fquirks_20150214_21909.mp3/el/1

From rising sea levels to more extreme weather events, from ocean acidification to melting glaciers, the signs of climate change are all around us – and hard to ignore.

But nowhere is that more true than in the Arctic. The climate in the North is warming twice as fast as anywhere else in the world, and the impact is more widespread and more visible. The sea ice is melting, the glaciers are receding, the permafrost is thawing, and storms are picking up speed. The changes are already having an effect on people, wildlife and ecosystems throughout the region. And in many ways, the Arctic might serve as a warning sign for the changes to come on the rest of the planet.

But for Canadian author and journalist Ed Struzik, http://e360.yale.edu/author/Ed_Struzik/17/ the changes also represent an opportunity – an opportunity to make the right decisions about how to manage those changes, in a way that benefits the people and protects the environment. Ed Struzik has outlined his ideas in a new book, called, Future Arctic – Field Notes From a World on the Edge.

Related Links

- Future Arctic http://islandpress.org/future-arctic
- Struzik interview in Salon magazine http://www.salon.com/2015/02/01/wha...anti_science_leaders_are_wrecking_the_arctic/
- Feature article by Struzik on the future of the Arctic http://ensia.com/features/the-end-and-beginning-of-the-arctic/
 
[h=1]Improving farming practices reduces the carbon footprint of spring wheat production[/h][h=1]Abstract[/h]<nav>
</nav>Wheat is one of the world’s most favoured food sources, reaching millions of people on a daily basis. However, its production has climatic consequences. Fuel, inorganic fertilizers and pesticides used in wheat production emit greenhouse gases that can contribute negatively to climate change. It is unknown whether adopting alternative farming practices will increase crop yield while reducing carbon emissions. Here we quantify the carbon footprint of alternative wheat production systems suited to semiarid environments. We find that integrating improved farming practices (that is, fertilizing crops based on soil tests, reducing summerfallow frequencies and rotating cereals with grain legumes) lowers wheat carbon footprint effectively, averaging −256 kg CO2 eq ha[SUP]−1[/SUP] per year. For each kg of wheat grain produced, a net 0.027–0.377 kg CO2 eq is sequestered into the soil. With the suite of improved farming practices, wheat takes up more CO2from the atmosphere than is actually emitted during its production.

link to open access science paper

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141118/ncomms6012/full/ncomms6012.html

Who would have thought that improving of farm practice we could do this.
One more nail in the coffin of climate change arguments that we can't grow food without CO2 consequences.
Well ... there are consequences and they can be net zero to net negative if we are smart enough.

OBD what do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top