jsasker007
5 year old buck +
It's ok though---the big guys doing most of the polluting have to buy pollution credits so at least someone somewhere is making money from it(money makes it alright).
Global warming
- Thread starter jsasker007
- Start date
4wanderingeyes
5 year old buck +
I know a farmer that bought into the hype. He bought and installed 10 of them. He was told 10 years to pay for themselves, with a 20 year expectancy. He paid $1 million each. The problem with the math is that doesnt count for the upkeep, maintenance, insurance for these things. After about 5 years they start costing about $100,000 per year average to keep working.
I havent talked to him in about 5 years, but at that point he had them up for about 10 years, and all he did was complain about them. He said 4 of them are permanently down, and he was lucky to have 2-4 of them running at any given time. He said he will make his money back, and a small profit, but he could have made more by leaving his money in farming the fields they were installed in. I know this is just one persons experience, but it is the one person I know, and I trust what he says.
I havent talked to him in about 5 years, but at that point he had them up for about 10 years, and all he did was complain about them. He said 4 of them are permanently down, and he was lucky to have 2-4 of them running at any given time. He said he will make his money back, and a small profit, but he could have made more by leaving his money in farming the fields they were installed in. I know this is just one persons experience, but it is the one person I know, and I trust what he says.
S.T.Fanatic
5 year old buck +
BS!!!!!!
Not BS... you can calculate the energy and materials invested into a system, and the carbon dioxide emitted from those processes, and compare them to the energy delivered by that system once operational. Whether a leprechaun or a lottery winning hobo is paying for it has no impact on the energy in / energy out calculations.
How are all those windmills working out for Texas now? Most arent working out there now because of the cold. Read about the problem Germany is having with solar and wind energy - the supposed leader. I am in AR and we are supposed to be going under rolling blackouts. What do you think it would be like if everyone was charging their cars every night, too. I am not saying green energy doesnt have its place now and may well be a big player in the future - but it is not there now. These green promoters are blinded from seeing true reality because of their so very narrow focus.
S.T.Fanatic
5 year old buck +
You're right about the energy in/out I'll give you that, but at what expense and who foots the bill.
Its totally frozen outside with nothing I can do.
I'm restless
I'm tired of being saturated with all the Covid stuff.
So, what the hell, I'll jump into a climate change discussion
Irrespective of my beliefs on climate change I feel an obligation to be aware and thoughtful about my impact on the environment and what I can do within my sphere of influence. That said, I'm not giving up my pick up and I have a penchant for airplanes I'll not relinquish. So I'm conflicted and compromised from the start. But I am taking a deep dive with my farm into regenerative agriculture which I believe has deep tentacles into the solution.
A major problem I see with many solutions being pursued is they are driven by the need to monetize the process. Big thinking is great but most big thinkers in govt or even corporations are thinking how to make big bucks off the 'product'. Thus little attention is given to practical ideas or solutions that yield little opportunity for profit on a large scale.
I've read in multiple sources that tillage agriculture releases approximately 30% of the annual carbon emitted into the atmosphere. Coupled with that is how much carbon is sequestered into the soil out of the atmosphere with every 1% increase in OM.{ I don't know that number but I think it is material } Over simplified no till agriculture couple with cover cropping assuring soil is armored year round would have an immediate significant impact reducing atmospheric carbon and actually putting it where it increases soil fertility, hence food stuff nutrient density hence positively impacting human and animal health. SO what is the problem with that??? How does big govt, or big corp monetize it? Could that be the problem?
Being a hopeless optimist though here is where i see the change coming from. Not from Govt. Not from Monsanto . But from the bottom up. Farmers will realize they can increase profit by reducing inputs. Farmers will use nature to increase soil fertility vs. using synthetic inputs and tillage which are proven detriments to long term soil viability. Consumers will increasingly question their food sources, how they are grown, the ethical impacts on soil and animal and the impact it has on their health . Said more simply the demand for clean nutrient dense food will increase as people take their health into their own hands. All this driving a shift in farming that profoundly impacts the soil and ecosystem.
I see the shift in this social paradigm already happening. Not surprisingly it will be the focus on constantly improving rich, fertile soil, the very basis of life, that will properly calibrate natural climatic responses, reverse the deleterious declining health of western civilization and its incalculable impact on the economy , all thus improving the standard of living for a growing world population. Concerns about solutions to energy will fade into the background as we learn to harness the limitless energy that all around us. So much more could be said about all this.....
Yep, hopeless optimist believing we are living in the most exciting time in history!
I'm restless
I'm tired of being saturated with all the Covid stuff.
So, what the hell, I'll jump into a climate change discussion
Irrespective of my beliefs on climate change I feel an obligation to be aware and thoughtful about my impact on the environment and what I can do within my sphere of influence. That said, I'm not giving up my pick up and I have a penchant for airplanes I'll not relinquish. So I'm conflicted and compromised from the start. But I am taking a deep dive with my farm into regenerative agriculture which I believe has deep tentacles into the solution.
A major problem I see with many solutions being pursued is they are driven by the need to monetize the process. Big thinking is great but most big thinkers in govt or even corporations are thinking how to make big bucks off the 'product'. Thus little attention is given to practical ideas or solutions that yield little opportunity for profit on a large scale.
I've read in multiple sources that tillage agriculture releases approximately 30% of the annual carbon emitted into the atmosphere. Coupled with that is how much carbon is sequestered into the soil out of the atmosphere with every 1% increase in OM.{ I don't know that number but I think it is material } Over simplified no till agriculture couple with cover cropping assuring soil is armored year round would have an immediate significant impact reducing atmospheric carbon and actually putting it where it increases soil fertility, hence food stuff nutrient density hence positively impacting human and animal health. SO what is the problem with that??? How does big govt, or big corp monetize it? Could that be the problem?
Being a hopeless optimist though here is where i see the change coming from. Not from Govt. Not from Monsanto . But from the bottom up. Farmers will realize they can increase profit by reducing inputs. Farmers will use nature to increase soil fertility vs. using synthetic inputs and tillage which are proven detriments to long term soil viability. Consumers will increasingly question their food sources, how they are grown, the ethical impacts on soil and animal and the impact it has on their health . Said more simply the demand for clean nutrient dense food will increase as people take their health into their own hands. All this driving a shift in farming that profoundly impacts the soil and ecosystem.
I see the shift in this social paradigm already happening. Not surprisingly it will be the focus on constantly improving rich, fertile soil, the very basis of life, that will properly calibrate natural climatic responses, reverse the deleterious declining health of western civilization and its incalculable impact on the economy , all thus improving the standard of living for a growing world population. Concerns about solutions to energy will fade into the background as we learn to harness the limitless energy that all around us. So much more could be said about all this.....
Yep, hopeless optimist believing we are living in the most exciting time in history!
jsasker007
5 year old buck +
I for one would love to see private jets and their use limited greatly. That would be a good start. Common sense is helpful but rare these days.
Careful now... Lets keep the focus on what soil fertility can do for us
roymunson
5 year old buck +
while we're at it, why not get rid of private vehicles. There's no reason you can't hope a bus around town to run errands. No one needs to have private vehicles.
See how you don't get to pick and choose?
jsasker007
5 year old buck +
Would like to see a comparison on that(pollution wise). You are right that we don't get to pick and choose--only important people get to do that. Where i live there are no buses.
Private aviation is far more important than those stupid masks for corona avoidance and has a trifling impact on overall worldwide carbon emissions. Bus service won't get me to the Bahamas next week and us important people would never fly commercial. Just kidding of course though I am a fan of private jets.
My point is the win win on a very large scale lies with the world wide food production model. Lets compare that to the emissions by ALL forms of transportation in total.
My point is the win win on a very large scale lies with the world wide food production model. Lets compare that to the emissions by ALL forms of transportation in total.
Mortenson
5 year old buck +
Regenerative ag kinda seems like a good thing, when you're rich. How are the poor people going to eat? Seems prohibitive from a cost and logistics standpoint. Is there enough cover crop seed available to carpet the nation's farmland? Or world's for that matter? This reeks of communism a little. Or are we supposed to trade our organic steer for next year's bag of cover crops? The Tier 4 engines we're forced to buy now burn so clean that the manufacturer's interval for oil changes is at 600 hours. The air is clean enough now that we add sulfur to our crops. I do think that fertilizers need to be used responsibly.
jsasker007
5 year old buck +
How much pollution is created every year when California has major forest fires? Maintaining those forests might help to prevent the fires that are happening on a yearly basis. Hard to believe they have any trees left.
Interesting response. I see it just the opposite but I need to ask questions to better understand your point of view. If regenerative ag reduces inputs increasing profitability even on a smaller scale how does that effect the worlds poor and their ability to eat? More than enough food today is produced to feed the entire world. A significant problem IS the current distribution model. Regenerative ag would allow smaller scale farms utilizing direct to consumer models to flourish and in fact during the current pandemic that is exactly what is happening. So curious your thinking why reduced costs increase cost and logistics?
I struggle correlating the use of cover crops with communism??? No idea how to respond. But as an aside look at the current U.S. Farm Bill. Most farmers in the U.S today cannot survive without the taxpayer welfare subsidy provided by the Farm Bill. Extend that to the fact that the Farm Bill dictates not only what can be subsidized but even ag practices that do or do not qualify. Currently in the U.S. approximately 80% [ I might be off on this number a bit but close enough for argument ] of crops grown are used for animal consumption. Imagine if you will how shifts in that paradigm could effect the cost and availability of food worldwide. I'm not saying the Farm Bill is communism but it is a far cry from free market.
I have no concerns that markets can provide a wealth of diverse functional seed groups to meet all ag needs....and your steer will be able to graze them as part of the regenerative process. Good news on the Tier 4 engines
Troubles Trees
5 year old buck +
I have done a lot of looking into "man made climate change", I went in with an open mind and no opinion either way. The further I dug into their research the more disgusted I was with the lack of transparency from the "settled science" community.
One of the more interesting things I found, I had a NASA article bookmarked and had the article dated in my notes as September 2018. When I went to show a friend the article the date in the article now read November 2015. For some reason it got stuck in my brain why I couldn't figure how (or why) they would change the date of publication, I mean it's NASA right? I dwelled on it for a month or so digging for reasons, I even looked up my original Farcebook post and sure enough the date of my post was September 2018 and despite the many comments debating the information that the post generated, none of my friends had pointed out that it was a 3 year old article while I was claiming it was brand new information at the time of the post. It was roughly a year after I noticed the date change I was looking up similar information and came across the likely reason. Anyone know what major Climate agreement was adopted (one month after the new date of the article, November 2015) on December 12th 2115? The Paris Accord... Yes I know I sound crazy, yes I felt like everyone was going to view it as a conspiracy theory and I was one of "those guys" but the only thing that makes sense is to release the article in September 2018 then back date it to the original time it was supposed to be released. Why? Because you can't sell Man Made Climate Change at a Global Summit if there is direct scientific evidence contrary to what you are claiming. The information in the NASA publication directly disputes the glaciers melting argument and the data they provide goes back to 1992.
You just can't have NASA claiming the Antarctic ice sheet making a net gain of Ice over the last 25 years (at the end of a 10,000 year run of gains) and a month later sell the Man Made Climate Change agenda at the Paris Accord when part of that claim is that we are losing Glacial Ice.
This is the NASA article I am talking about.
climate.nasa.gov
One of the more interesting things I found, I had a NASA article bookmarked and had the article dated in my notes as September 2018. When I went to show a friend the article the date in the article now read November 2015. For some reason it got stuck in my brain why I couldn't figure how (or why) they would change the date of publication, I mean it's NASA right? I dwelled on it for a month or so digging for reasons, I even looked up my original Farcebook post and sure enough the date of my post was September 2018 and despite the many comments debating the information that the post generated, none of my friends had pointed out that it was a 3 year old article while I was claiming it was brand new information at the time of the post. It was roughly a year after I noticed the date change I was looking up similar information and came across the likely reason. Anyone know what major Climate agreement was adopted (one month after the new date of the article, November 2015) on December 12th 2115? The Paris Accord... Yes I know I sound crazy, yes I felt like everyone was going to view it as a conspiracy theory and I was one of "those guys" but the only thing that makes sense is to release the article in September 2018 then back date it to the original time it was supposed to be released. Why? Because you can't sell Man Made Climate Change at a Global Summit if there is direct scientific evidence contrary to what you are claiming. The information in the NASA publication directly disputes the glaciers melting argument and the data they provide goes back to 1992.
You just can't have NASA claiming the Antarctic ice sheet making a net gain of Ice over the last 25 years (at the end of a 10,000 year run of gains) and a month later sell the Man Made Climate Change agenda at the Paris Accord when part of that claim is that we are losing Glacial Ice.
This is the NASA article I am talking about.
Study: Mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet greater than losses - NASA Science
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
climate.nasa.gov
jsasker007
5 year old buck +
Farmers are getting the short end no doubt. More efficient practices make sense to pay the farmers more for their part. Milk prices are a good example---what you pay for a gallon of milk at the store is ridiculous compared to what the farmer makes. Organic is the big thing for many right now and lots of gray areas as to what constitutes "organic". I have no problem paying more for a better product that won't cause cancer or other illnesses because the growers tried to maximize profit by injecting things for quicker growth. Like to buy beef from a known source also. Things like tier 4 emissions won't solve any problems if only some countries are participating(just cost those countries more money).
dogghr
5 year old buck +
Make it clear, I've always loved solar and wind power on a small scale. And the peformace of electrics like Tesla 0-60 is mind boggling. Faster than most crotch rockets I've ridden.
Now, as for these things saving the world, bull crap. There is science that the media and Gore lovers subvert. Global warming talk is like talking to a non hunter that will wear leather shoes and a leather coat from a tricked cow, but no way would they allow a big browned eyed sexy deer be slayed for its healthy meat.
People see the steam rolling from the power plant cooling towers resulting from the scrubbing process of electric generation. And they panic. Its causing the demise of everything from dinosaurs on you would think . But they fail to embrace the issues of nuclear meltdowns, or the disposal of its contaminated wastes. They close their eyes to what it takes environmentally to produce large magnitudes of batteries to power all things, and how said batteries can be deposed of when their relatively short lifespan is reached. And how wind power is very finicky limited in production and longevity. We certainly have plenty of mass solar and wind farms in this state to observe.
And while they blame those stacks on all that is evil of global warming, they continue to build 3000-6000 sq ft houses with 4 cars in their driveway , and pave hundreds of acres in asphalt for their shopping, and light every path from here to Alaska for their fear of the dark , so they can commute in comfort the 1+ hours to their job so they can live in the " country" . Does no one even think why cities are always 5-20 degrees warmer than the surrounding country??
Now I'm all for environmental control to extents. I grew up at times when major changes were made and I've seen the results of clean air and water. But even in those days common sense had to prevail.
And maybe I'm paranoid, but I think the impetus of many in this country is to drive out any occupation that requires hands on, manual, sometimes dangerous , work. It is the working class of this country that has made her as great as she is. And don't be surprised if certain entities do away with such as coal and gas and oil, that they won't next want to control the very tree you choose to cut. Certainly embrace tomorrow but do so very cautiously, sometimes the wolf is in sheeps clothing. Peace.
Now, as for these things saving the world, bull crap. There is science that the media and Gore lovers subvert. Global warming talk is like talking to a non hunter that will wear leather shoes and a leather coat from a tricked cow, but no way would they allow a big browned eyed sexy deer be slayed for its healthy meat.
People see the steam rolling from the power plant cooling towers resulting from the scrubbing process of electric generation. And they panic. Its causing the demise of everything from dinosaurs on you would think . But they fail to embrace the issues of nuclear meltdowns, or the disposal of its contaminated wastes. They close their eyes to what it takes environmentally to produce large magnitudes of batteries to power all things, and how said batteries can be deposed of when their relatively short lifespan is reached. And how wind power is very finicky limited in production and longevity. We certainly have plenty of mass solar and wind farms in this state to observe.
And while they blame those stacks on all that is evil of global warming, they continue to build 3000-6000 sq ft houses with 4 cars in their driveway , and pave hundreds of acres in asphalt for their shopping, and light every path from here to Alaska for their fear of the dark , so they can commute in comfort the 1+ hours to their job so they can live in the " country" . Does no one even think why cities are always 5-20 degrees warmer than the surrounding country??
Now I'm all for environmental control to extents. I grew up at times when major changes were made and I've seen the results of clean air and water. But even in those days common sense had to prevail.
And maybe I'm paranoid, but I think the impetus of many in this country is to drive out any occupation that requires hands on, manual, sometimes dangerous , work. It is the working class of this country that has made her as great as she is. And don't be surprised if certain entities do away with such as coal and gas and oil, that they won't next want to control the very tree you choose to cut. Certainly embrace tomorrow but do so very cautiously, sometimes the wolf is in sheeps clothing. Peace.
