Posted on 04/03/2019 10:02:21 AM PDT by Rocky
The IPCCs AR5 estimated the global warming caused by a tonne of livestock methane would be 28 times that of a tonne of carbon dioxide. New research destroys that estimate.
The war on meat has been gathering pace amongst our Western elites. The Economist makes a detailed case for plant-based food in the interests of quelling climate change
The FAO calculates that cattle generate up to two-thirds of the greenhouse gases from livestock, and are the worlds fifth largest source of methane. If cows were a country, the United Herds of Earth would be the planets third largest greenhouse-gas emitter.
These calculations are based on figures supplied by the IPCCs AR5, which contends that the global warming potential (GWP) of methane over 100 years is no less than 28 times the global warming it expects to be caused by an equivalent weight of carbon dioxide. This estimate is up from the GWP of 21 put forward in the IPCCs previous report.
All this is now challenged by a new and authoritative research paper, Allen et al (2017): A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, under ambitious mitigation. This paper finds that conventional GWPs misrepresent the impact of short-lived gases (such as methane) on global temperature and recommends the adoption of a new metric, denoted as GWP*.
This is a big advance. The abstract observes that, measured by GWP*, implementing the Paris Agreement would reduce the expected rate of warming in 2030 by 28% relative to No Policy. And who would know this better than lead author Myles Allen, who was also a co-author of the IPCCs SR1.5 in 2018.
Currently visiting New Zealand, Professor Allen has recommended that enteric methane be entirely omitted from that countrys cap-and-trade scheme (ETS) because a steady-state herd of cattle can add very little to global warming. Methane has a half-life in the atmosphere of only about six years so that every new molecule added is offset by the expiry of a molecule emitted by that herd a few years earlier.
He says:
Traditional greenhouse gas accounting ignores the impact of changing methane emission rates while grossly exaggerating the impact of steady methane emissions. And
Climate policy the world over has traditionally treated every tonne of methane as supposedly equivalent to 28 tonnes of carbon dioxide It isnt.
To find the carbon dioxide emissions that would actually have a similar impact on global temperature as methane emissions, you need to multiply those methane emissions by seven (not 28), and add the rate of change of methane emissions (measured in tonnes of methane per year per year), multiplied by 2100.
If there is no rate of change (ie the quantity of emissions by weight is constant over time) then there is a one-off impact of only seven times the equivalent weight of CO2. Note that this should only be counted once there is no accumulation as is the case for CO2 and other long-lived gases.
And, if the herds digestive efficiency is improved ever so slightly
Even more strikingly, if an individual herds methane emissions are falling by one third of one percent per year (thats 7/2100, so the two terms cancel out) then that herd is no longer adding to global warming. Yet if methane were included in a European-style Emission Trading System (ETS), the owner of the herd would have to pay just as if it was.
Professor Allen is not beset by doubts regarding the error of the old ways:
That this formula is vastly more accurate than the traditional accounting rule is indisputable.
Not only are steady-state cattle herds climatically harmless, but they have the opportunity to help out the motorists and jet-setters. Professor Allen says in a further speech that if New Zealand reduced methane emissions by 30% over the next 30 years, that would actually contribute to global cooling:
If a farmer is providing a service to the rest of the country by compensating for other peoples global warming, then that farmer might want to make a case that they should be compensated for that.
As a co-author of SR1.5, the professor has a tip for the meat warriors that they should not rely on RCP scenarios:
Those scenarios are based on economic models of the relative cost of different ways of reducing emissions. Some of the inputs to these models, like the estimated cost of a large fraction of the population turning vegetarian, are deeply subjective. The scenarios provide background information, but I would not rely on them as a basis for national policy.
The findings of the Allen et al paper have been implicitly accepted by New Zealands Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton formerly the head of the OECD Environment Directorate. He has this week published a lengthy and detailed report, Farms, Forests and Fossil Fuels, which recommends that the Government develop two separate targets for the second half of the 21st century a zero target for fossil emissions, and a reduction target for biological emissions.
Lets all enjoy a hearty guilt-free steak, served with lashings of cheese and butter!
Out of curiosity I did a search on evidence of rising seas/oceans only to find that sea levels have purportedly risen 1/8 inch since 1993. Each article focused on CO2 emissions. There wasn’t one mention of naturally occurring CO2 or the number one driver of earth’s weather, the sun. This whole thing is a scam.
Thank you. I actually know that. It was just a sloppy mistake on my part.
The vast majority of the methane comes from the rice fields in Southeast Asia.
The cow farts/Methane hoax started about 1977-80 by a Marxist con-artist known as Jeremy Rifkin, an early member of the Hanoi-supporting Citizens Committee of Inquiry into US War Crimes in Vietnam, then the misnamed Maoist/CPUSA mixed “Peoples Bicentennial Commission” (see Sen. Internal Security Subcom. Report, 1976 on that group), then the fake “peoples’ Business Commission”, basically an extortion racket to get big businesses to fund his new PBC operations.
If you look under “Cow-farts” in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture of Rifkin, thewhite equivalent to Al Charlatan Sharpton. Brothers from different Muvaha’s.
killing the cows to save us....
///////////////////////////////////////
Should you have started with “Full disclosure: I am on the board of the American Poultry Farmers Association”? Just askin’./s
I’ll assume that rumor is not true. Good laugh from your post in any event.
I miss seeing Pluto there. Have to watch old Disney cartoons to see Pluto.
The Economist makes a detailed case for plant-based food
Grass is a plant. Cows eat grass.I eat cows. Therefore my diet is plant based.
L
Is it fair that the funniest joke of the day is posted by the founder of this site? LOL
;-)
Rifkin’s “Beyond Beef” campaign promoted this myth, assisted by his 1992 book of the same name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.