Skip to main content

View Diary: UN chief scientist urges action on climate: 'We have five minutes before midnight' (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here is what EPA states as the sector contribution (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pescadero Bill, DawnN, Sarenth

    to emissions of greenhouse gases here in the United States from agriculture:

    http://www.epa.gov/...

    The entire agriculture sector contributes 8% of United States greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalents.  

    Of all of the economic sectors of electricity production, industrial production, residential and commercial and transportation, the entire agriculture sector produces the least greenhouse gas emissions of all United States economic sectors show.   Transportation and electricity produce far more CO2 equivalents than agriculture does.....and this is a result that contradicts the conclusions of the UN report, at least for purposes of agriculture in the United States.

    •  So your rebuttal to the UN Report is a pie chart? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VL Baker, julesrules39

      If what VL Baker is asserting is so far out of the scientific mainstream there should be a mountain of evidence refuting her rather than a mountain of evidence support her, right? You can do better than that, can't you?

      "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

      by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:04:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The pie chart showing all of agriculture as only (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pescadero Bill

        contributing only 8% of all emissions of greenhouse gas CO2 equivalents is summary information from the final EPA emission inventory for the United States published in 2013.

        When confronted with EPA's depiction of the present reality of what United States agriculture sector emissions are, you're proclivity is to engage in an act of science denial in rejecting the final findings of the primary U.S. Government agency responsible for tracking CO2e emission inventories in the United States.

        You make this rejection without any ability to cite a valid reason for your rejection, which is solely motivated by your political/ideological view against meat and not as a scientific finding of emissions determination.

        This is the best data available describing the actual physical reality of emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States from human-caused sources.  

        At a very minimum, use of a 2013 U.S. greenhouse gas emission inventory is preferable to using a 2006 emission inventory and calculation for decisionmaking purposes.   If you have a reason that a 2006 emission inventory is preferable to using a 2013 emission inventory, I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for that, if you have one.

         

        •  Apples v. Oranges comparison (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          julesrules39

          Did you even read the UN report or are you just content to regurgitate industry press releases? You're comparing US numbers with worldwide numbers by the UN. When did the EPA do a study of global greenhouse gas emissions and the associating factors? Show me that and you have a valid comparison. Until then you're just doing what you've always done: sewing the seeds of doubt about climate change facts.

          "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

          by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:01:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please see my downthread comment about (0+ / 0-)

            the UN report using an inflated value for energy per kg of body weight at sale for beef...compared to actual data recorded at the US Department of Agriculture Agriculture Research Service facility in Nebraska explicitly tasked with determining the energy impacts of typical animal agriculture systems carried out under USDA NRCS standards and practices.   In addition, the UN data is not for the most recent emission inventory year.

            Agricultural research carried out by the USDA and published by that agency are not industry press releases and are valid agronomy scientific work products.   Of course that won't mean anything to you if you're a denier of agricultural science.

            •  Have to disagree with you again. You are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VL Baker

              stating that the research published is not done so with any influence from the industries and is totally unbiased?  In reality, part of the government's job is to weigh the public good along with the economic impact.  BigAg is a huge factor in the US economy.

              The US industrialized food systems were developed for mass production, not from a sustainability perspective.  They are in many ways influenced by the industries that make monies from livestock production.  For example, 80% of the antibiotics sold in the US are for animals raised for livestock.  About 40% of the corn grown in the US is for livestock feed.

              Here's what Wikipedia says about Michael Taylor (Deputy Commissioner of the FDA:

              "Taylor is featured in the documentaries The Future of Food and The World According to Monsanto[23] as a pertinent example of revolving door since he is a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA."

            •  The UN report was written by scientists (0+ / 0-)

              so how does using it to prove my point make me a “science denier”? Show me where I even "denied" the data you’ve provided? You have failed to show how the USDA’s controlled study and the EPA’s assessment of greenhouse gasses apply worldwide. I’ve questioned that and you haven’t provided any additional data in response or any further rebuttal to the findings of the UN Report. The only person denying science here is you with your denial that the UN Report is valid, and you’ve attempted to do so with invalid comparisons and assertions not backed up by evidence (links). For some reason you have a strong bias to believe that everything in the report is false even though you have no scientific reason to believe that is the case. In fact, you have no way of proving that the UN Report is invalid since there isn’t another study of its scope that disputes its findings. Admit it and move on.

              And, yes, you did provide a meat industry website as part of your evidence against the UN Report. Probably since they're the only other entity that reached the same mistaken conclusions you did. Did you forget that inconvenient fact?

              "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

              by Jason Hackman on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:38:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  If the EPA did a study, it would probably be done (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VL Baker

            by a consultant to a chemical/GMO company or a meat integrator.  

        •  You're totally wrong on this, Lake Superior. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VL Baker

          for reasons that the EPA's website partially states.  Their number is totally understated as I've described above.

          •  Your position that the EPA greenhouse gas (0+ / 0-)

            emission inventory is wrong does not have any basis.   You are not stating why the EPA emission inventory is wrong.

            All of your objections to the EPA emission inventory and the 8% share of greenhouse gases generated by agriculture in the United States are without any specifically stated objection to the methods and data published in that report.

            In declaring the EPA emission inventory to be wrong, you are engaging in politics and ideology....not science.

            If it were science, they you would be able to say why the EPA emission inventory is wrong as published.

    •  Come on, Lake Superior. You're not that stupid. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VL Baker, sillia, Jason Hackman

      The EPA website you reference provides a totally understated number for agricultural GHG emissions, by their own admission.  If you look below the pie chart to the detail, next to the Agricultural data, the site clearly states:

      Addresses anthropogenic emissions from agricultural activities (not including fuel combustion and sewage emissions, which are addressed in the Energy and Waste chapters).
      Not including fuel combustion and sewage emissions??? Pretty huge oversight.  That's like saying we can grow corn without using a tractor or any mechanized equipment.  We can move a couple billion cattle without any trucks.  We'll just herd them across the country ... We can call Scotty and beam that meat up to market in China or the EU.  We know that we don't do that;  but, we'll just pretend that we do.  Do you know how many times GMO fields have to be irrigated to ensure that all those lovely chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers) get into the practically dead soil and into the roots of that corn?

      By the way, land clearing for crops (deforestation) is another huge gap in their numbers.

      Why is that number produced to look smaller?  Hmmm ... how much lobbying monies are spent from the pharmaceutical, chemical companies and meat integrators?  How many subsidies and tax shelters are utilized in those industries.

      I do agree with you that the number one thing from a policy perspective that must change is energy, not the total consumption, they type of energy.  Fossil fuels should be way more expensive reflecting the harm that they cause to property, health and the planetary systems.  Using sustainable energy should be the norm, not the exception.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site