What can individual people do about global warming?

Brainster said:
Try not to breathe so much. Oh, and turn off the internet.
Click to expand...

a the old breathing myth. Human respiration does not ad to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

if you wonder why, ask it in the appropriate thread.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
This planet will be uninhabitable eventually, no matter what we do.
The human race as we know it, is likely to become extinct for one reason or another on this planet, before this planet becomes uninhabitable, no matter what we do.

If the human race is going to ultimately survive, our resources would be best spent preparing to leave this planet.
Click to expand...

Ultimately we're not going to survive, as the Universe (we're told) will fizzle out in a heat death. All life will end.

Meanwhile The Earth is eminently habitable, seriously hospitable in fact, and circumstances that might or might not occur millions of years in the future is not a good reason to devote resources to that eventuality rather than sort out the mess we're making right now.

To put it a different way (one that seems closer to your apparent perspective) - how can we hope to build interstellar generation ships down the line if we're totally shagging The Earth's environment today?
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
Good points. However, I'm not the most convincing person, and I don't know how well I'd be able to persuade someone who doesn't believe AGW is real. What are the best venues for holding these conversations, and how do you go about engaging these people?
Click to expand...
My experience is that objections to AGW are seldom sophisticated arguments, rather just silly "why's it so cold today then?" type stuff.

I meet often with old amateur radio friends from a large local club, mostly retired and mostly right wing, for lunch. I am the token "liberal" and a curiosity to them. Some are hopelessly and openly racist, homophobic, religious, AGW denying, Limbaugh, Drudge or Fox News fans. Logical fallacies abound, the favorites are tu quoque and ad hominem, poisoning the well, etc. Their arguments often take the form of "he/she is stupid" therefore wrong. All are deeply committed to hating Obama, but not all Tea Party types. So many stories I could tell.:D

They are quick to believe the lies that Fox and other echo chamber sources spout, and I just point out the facts, and then email them the often incontrovertible truth. Examples, Obama phones, Nancy Pelosi "pass ACA before you know what's in it", trans genders getting sex change on birth certificate to avoid the law, and on and on.

One guy, over 90, told me the other day that he couldn't sleep last night because he is rethinking his whole political philosophy after one of our conversations. He hates MSNBC, but had never heard of Rachel Maddow. :rolleyes:I asked him what sources inform his opinions, and he admitted that all he listens to is Fox. I recommended trying Politico, and one guy grunted, "...not conservative...etc."

My technique is just to listen and ask simple honest questions generally trying hard to avoid snark. Don't criticize their sacred cows. I stop short at withholding my disdain of Cheney, though. I'm discovering that some of these people value the truth. Some don't. I'm often surprised how much we can actually agree on.

Also, I belong to some gardening clubs, tagging along with my wife, with mostly retirees, and I meet many people at OLLI classes. Most neighbors are conservative, generally poorly informed on most issues.
 
I'm not worried. Long before Global Warming becomes a problem, Jesus will come back and take his people up to heaven. Then...everything will be fine because Heaven has good Air Conditioning.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
I wasn't aware that aging it reduced its effectiveness. I thought it was necessary to neutralize the pH before using it on plants. Why is aging it a bad idea? Are you saying that it works best when fresh?
Click to expand...
The bad thing about aging urine then applying it to soil is that it has a high ammonia component (that's what causes the noxious odor). CO(NH2)2 -> NH3 + various carbon compounds. Like everything else, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Ammonia is an irritant to some soil biology if too concentrated, particularly earthworms. Killing or driving off earthworms from your garden would negate much of the benefit of adding nitrogen. The Ph thing can be neutralised if you are a coffee drinker by simply dumping in whatever leftover coffee you have instead of pouring it down the drain. The smell if you want to age it is easily neutralised by adding the coffee/urine to AACT, because properly made AACT does not have the foul smell. The safest thing by far though is simply putting it in the compost pile and keeping your compost pile regularly turned. The compost will heat up killing any harmful bacteria, and the carbon will adsorb and lock excess salts as well as the beneficial nutrients (mostly nitrogen).

PS There are regulations against selling any food products fertilised by human waste in the USA (animal waste too for that matter). Local laws may vary. Most of these laws are reasonable precautions, some are not. While urine is pretty benign generally, be sure you don't break any laws or regulations.
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
Cattle belching methane are the real culprit. Eat more possum.
Click to expand...
You do realise that is complete woo right? Not much different than what another said about stopping to breathe because of CO2. The problem of emissions from cattle isn't their belches. The problem is how their food is raised. If it is grasses and forbs from pasture, then the grassland biosystem contains photosynthesis that removes CO2 from the air, and the soil contains methanotrophs which remove methane. It isn't that CO2 or methane aren't greenhouse gasses, or that breathing and belching emit them. What matters is the net carbon footprint of the whole system.

CAFO livestock is largely supplied by soy and corn and other foods raised in conventional methods largely. The system as a whole is a huge emissions source. Every part of the system is a net emissions source. Grassfed livestock on the other hand actually emits slightly more methane in those belches, but the system as a whole is a net carbon sink. ie.. More is sequestered than emitted. So you can't blame the cow. The problem is us putting them in the stockyards instead of on pasture where they belong.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
Are you sure?
Is there some kind of selective killing going on, because I thought bacterial action was an essential part of the composting process?
Click to expand...
Yes. That's exactly it. 99% of bacteria and fungus are beneficial. But each microorganism, beneficial or not, has a range of temps and environments that it can survive under. As a general rule, pathogens don't do well at all in an active compost pile.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
You do realise that is complete woo right? Not much different than what another said about stopping to breathe because of CO2. The problem of emissions from cattle isn't their belches. The problem is how their food is raised. If it is grasses and forbs from pasture, then the grassland biosystem contains photosynthesis that removes CO2 from the air, and the soil contains methanotrophs which remove methane. It isn't that CO2 or methane aren't greenhouse gasses, or that breathing and belching emit them. What matters is the net carbon footprint of the whole system.

CAFO livestock is largely supplied by soy and corn and other foods raised in conventional methods largely. The system as a whole is a huge emissions source. Every part of the system is a net emissions source. Grassfed livestock on the other hand actually emits slightly more methane in those belches, but the system as a whole is a net carbon sink. ie.. More is sequestered than emitted. So you can't blame the cow. The problem is us putting them in the stockyards instead of on pasture where they belong.
Click to expand...

I have heard this from so many sources, I actually did believe it. I've even heard deniers claim it, IIRC. I better do some more digging. Your input is appreciated. Finding the facts is why I am here.

This is what EPA says.


  • Livestock, especially cattle, produce methane (CH4) as part of their digestion. This process is called enteric fermentation, and it represents almost one third of the emissions from the Agriculture sector.
  • The way in which manure from livestock is managed also contributes to CH4 and N2O emissions. Manure storage methods and the amount of exposure to oxygen and moisture can affect how these greenhouse gases are produced. Manure management accounts for about 13% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the Agriculture sector in the United States.
  • Smaller sources of emissions include rice cultivation, which produces CH4, and burning crop residues, which produce CH4 and N2O.
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
I have heard this from so many sources, I actually did believe it. I've even heard deniers claim it, IIRC. I better do some more digging. Your input is appreciated. Finding the facts is why I am here.

This is what EPA says.


  • Livestock, especially cattle, produce methane (CH4) as part of their digestion. This process is called enteric fermentation, and it represents almost one third of the emissions from the Agriculture sector.
  • The way in which manure from livestock is managed also contributes to CH4 and N2O emissions. Manure storage methods and the amount of exposure to oxygen and moisture can affect how these greenhouse gases are produced. Manure management accounts for about 13% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the Agriculture sector in the United States.
  • Smaller sources of emissions include rice cultivation, which produces CH4, and burning crop residues, which produce CH4 and N2O.
Click to expand...
This may help explain both what we know and don't know. link


Most oxic soils are a net sink for methane, and these soils consume approximately 20 to 60 Tg of methane per year. The soil sink for atmospheric methane is microbially mediated and sensitive to disturbance.
Click to expand...

Key things to understand are NET sink, and sensitive to disturbance. So once you start plowing those fields, you can lose the capability to be a net methane sink.

You often also lose the CO2 sink as well. Growing the corn and soy turn a net soil sink into an additional emissions source. That's not all. Haber process nitrogen is also a net emissions source of CO2 from fossil fuels. Then the net emissions source from planting, harvesting, drying, storing, and transporting the grains. All that before it even reaches the stockyards or meets a cow.

So yes. The way most livestock is raised now is a huge problem for AGW. The EPA is not wrong. We turned a net sink into a net emissions source. But again, don't blame the cow. Blame the CAFOs. That's why I said before. The most important thing any individual can do to help mitigate AGW is to refuse to eat any CAFO product.

Now us farmers? We can tweak the pasture system even further to increase the sequestration sink of the soil. But the consumer has little control over that. You can boycott CAFO raised animal products though.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
This planet will be uninhabitable eventually, no matter what we do.
The human race as we know it, is likely to become extinct for one reason or another on this planet, before this planet becomes uninhabitable, no matter what we do.

If the human race is going to ultimately survive, our resources would be best spent preparing to leave this planet.
Click to expand...

While I agree that one day humans will have to leave Earth, that won't happen until several million years down the line. In the meantime, AGW is causing real problems here and now, will cause even more problems in the coming century, and is killing people as we speak. It's a more immediate problem, as far as I'm concerned, and terraforming other planets is out of the question if we can't even manage our climate and resources on our homeworld. Besides, initially it will only be the rich who can afford to leave the planet, and who's to say humans won't simply junk up whatever planets we colonize next?
 
From my perspective, I think it accomplishes very little to live a low carbon lifestyle and to try to attempt other people to do the same. I think it is a waste of time frankly. I think the best way individuals can make a difference, is to promote public policy that will make a difference. Instead of riding your bike and not having a car or buying a hybrid or electric vehicle, we should look at these things from a public policy standpoint:
-Sensible urban planning and prevention of urban sprawl that requires people to commute long distances to get to work and buy groceries.
-Invest in public transportation: light rail, subways, buses, etc
-Invest in bike lanes and bike friendly ways to get around town
-R and D investment in electric cars and so on
For electricity, instead of telling people to live an austere lifestyle and make austere choices, instead do things such as:
-phase out coal power via taxes or other clean air regulations
-oppose the proposed export of coal and oppose the Alberta tar sands
-promote a system such as a carbon fee and dividend http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend-faq/
-Promote nuclear, and if you are against nuclear, other alternatives to fossil and support R&D for power storage to make wind and solar more useful technologies

I don't want to argue about any of the above suggestions, they may be poor suggestions; but my point is that we should focus on public policy and not individual behavior. I just think its a losing battle and I think it has nearly religious overtones of the more you suffer and give up, the better person you are from an environmentalist perspective and that is the wrong approach IMHO. I don't give a moments thought to my individual carbon footprint, it doesn't matter what I do in the big picture. On the other hand, I am extremely conscientious about what I through into the trash and make sure that I save batteries, oil, paint, house hold chemicals, CFLs and so on and take them to hazardous waste sites and I am grateful that this is subsidized by the tax payer so I have no financial incentive to sneak it in regular garbage as I am not charged for bringing it to them and its only a mild inconvenience.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
You do realise that is complete woo right? Not much different than what another said about stopping to breathe because of CO2. The problem of emissions from cattle isn't their belches. The problem is how their food is raised. If it is grasses and forbs from pasture, then the grassland biosystem contains photosynthesis that removes CO2 from the air, and the soil contains methanotrophs which remove methane. It isn't that CO2 or methane aren't greenhouse gasses, or that breathing and belching emit them. What matters is the net carbon footprint of the whole system.

CAFO livestock is largely supplied by soy and corn and other foods raised in conventional methods largely. The system as a whole is a huge emissions source. Every part of the system is a net emissions source. Grassfed livestock on the other hand actually emits slightly more methane in those belches, but the system as a whole is a net carbon sink. ie.. More is sequestered than emitted. So you can't blame the cow. The problem is us putting them in the stockyards instead of on pasture where they belong.
Click to expand...

Red Baron Farms said:
This may help explain both what we know and don't know. link




Key things to understand are NET sink, and sensitive to disturbance. So once you start plowing those fields, you can lose the capability to be a net methane sink.

You often also lose the CO2 sink as well. Growing the corn and soy turn a net soil sink into an additional emissions source. That's not all. Haber process nitrogen is also a net emissions source of CO2 from fossil fuels. Then the net emissions source from planting, harvesting, drying, storing, and transporting the grains. All that before it even reaches the stockyards or meets a cow.

So yes. The way most livestock is raised now is a huge problem for AGW. The EPA is not wrong. We turned a net sink into a net emissions source. But again, don't blame the cow. Blame the CAFOs. That's why I said before. The most important thing any individual can do to help mitigate AGW is to refuse to eat any CAFO product.

Now us farmers? We can tweak the pasture system even further to increase the sequestration sink of the soil. But the consumer has little control over that. You can boycott CAFO raised animal products though.
Click to expand...

Notice how you provided no evidence that you or any other farmers actually can tweak a system that is NET sequestering (really net, not just counting soil CO2 like you tried before). You were unable to in the previous thread as well. This is what we call woo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom