http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/videos/clips-season-23/its-getting-hot-out-there

Canada has the right answer again!

---

Canada has the right answer again!

Least it's not a lie .......:-)

---

KLiK...

Any thoughts regarding the Numbers and Science, of needed Agricultural Production, significantly destroying our Climate?

If you believe The Numbers and The Science to be incorrect: Why?

CLYDE, it was mentioned in those texts impact of climate change on agriculture...but you have to click on it & read it! ;)

as for a situation in US...yes, it's going to be worse than in EU...
but hey guys, you walked out of Kyoto agreement in 1997....all by yourself!
& why? economical reasons!
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

KLiK...

Any thoughts regarding the Numbers and Science, of needed Agricultural Production, significantly destroying our Climate?

If you believe The Numbers and The Science to be incorrect: Why?

CLYDE, it was mentioned in those texts impact of climate change on agriculture...but you have to click on it & read it! ;)

as for a situation in US...yes, it's going to be worse than in EU...
but hey guys, you walked out of Kyoto agreement in 1997....all by yourself!
& why? economical reasons!
;)

KLiK,

You are totally NOT understanding this.

We are NOT talking about Climate Change's impact on Agriculture...

We ARE talking about Agriculture's impact on Climate Change...

I repeat... Agriculture CAUSES Climate Change.

Remember, per the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group 3, 5th Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, in Figure SPM.2 on Page 9...

http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/resources/htmlpdf/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers/

Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use is the 2nd highest producer of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions at 24% of the total, behind ONLY electricity and heating at 25% of the total.

Let me just list all the sectors by direct GHG emissions from that graph, in order.

Electricity and Heat Production = 25% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use = 24% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Industry = 21% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Transportation = 14% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Other Energy = 9.6% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Buildings = 6.4% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.

Understand yet?

Any possible solution to Anthropogenic GHG-related Climate Change is going to have to involve a VAST reduction in Agriculture in addition to vast reductions in essentially all other human activity.

KLiK...

Any thoughts regarding the Numbers and Science, of needed Agricultural Production, significantly destroying our Climate?

If you believe The Numbers and The Science to be incorrect: Why?

CLYDE, it was mentioned in those texts impact of climate change on agriculture...but you have to click on it & read it! ;)

as for a situation in US...yes, it's going to be worse than in EU...
but hey guys, you walked out of Kyoto agreement in 1997....all by yourself!
& why? economical reasons!
;)

KLiK,

You are totally NOT understanding this.

We are NOT talking about Climate Change's impact on Agriculture...

We ARE talking about Agriculture's impact on Climate Change...

I repeat... Agriculture CAUSES Climate Change.

Remember, per the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group 3, 5th Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, in Figure SPM.2 on Page 9...

http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/resources/htmlpdf/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers/

Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use is the 2nd highest producer of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions at 24% of the total, behind ONLY electricity and heating at 25% of the total.

Let me just list all the sectors by direct GHG emissions from that graph, in order.

Electricity and Heat Production = 25% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use = 24% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Industry = 21% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Transportation = 14% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Other Energy = 9.6% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Buildings = 6.4% of direct anthropogenic GHG emissions.

Understand yet?

Any possible solution to Anthropogenic GHG-related Climate Change is going to have to involve a VAST reduction in Agriculture in addition to vast reductions in essentially all other human activity.

well, for sure industry of:
- live stock & birds makes extra CH4 which impact on climate
- even making green compost will release a CH4, as it's a "normal natural process"
- using industry machines will have impact on GHG emissions, especially 'cause they are not so regulated as other vehicles (cars, buses, trucks) are!
- using fertilization on land, natural or synthesized...will increase in CH4, but NOx emissions are not so relevant in GHG emissions...

Also, notice that:
- deforesting is a bad process, with lots of rotten material...but seeding new forests will rectify a part of the problem!
- deforesting to make agriculture land is bad, but it will also make room for some cultures...
So there are some positive impacts on climate, not only negative!

Expecting natural processes to stop just 'cause we have GHG is stupid & impossible...it's like advocating against use of dams making clean electricity, 'cause of CH4 emissions form rotten material when the lake is formed!!! :/

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

You need to realise that as far as the Earth is concerned farming is not a natural process.

That farming at the moment can only feed the world because of industrial machinery and artificial fertilisers so that land doesn't have to lie fallow every few years so it can recover naturally, frequently of ground only made suitable for large crops by artificial irrigation.

Farming to feed the world has also relied on man's artificial evolution of the domesticated animals. Which in many cases are only in some parts of the world because man took them there, along with the immigrant crops. In the UK horses and chickens are not indigenous species.

Interesting article on economic growth sustainability.Consume more, conserve more: sorry, but we just can’t do both

One of his papers reveals that while the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions officially fell by 194 million tonnes between 1990 and 2012, this apparent reduction is more than cancelled out by the CO2 we commission through buying stuff from abroad. This rose by 280m tonnes in the same period.

The links in the article are also worth a read, if you have time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America - The material footprint of nations

You need to realise that as far as the Earth is concerned farming is not a natural process.

Absolutely correct.

The Rise of Agriculture and Domestication of Animals, perhaps 10,000 years ago. Is The Problem

It resulted in Civilization. Which led to The Bronze Age, Iron Age, and recently: The Industrial Revolution.

Destroying all animals, fertilizers, etc. Will not provide necessary subsistance for 7,000,000,000 Humans on this Planet.

Returning to a Pre Neolithic Age, Pre Iron Age, Pre Industrial Age. Will not support 7,000,000,000 Humans on this Planet.

Any attempt to support 7,000,000,000 Humans, above the level of Somalia. Is doomed to failure.

The amount of Humans on this Planet. Is the problem.

Just an 'Inconvenient Fact'.

More 'Inconvenient Facts'.
Ecological Debt Day (EDD), also known as Earth Overshoot Day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Debt_Day
By the early 1970s, that critical threshold had been crossed!

In planetary terms, the costs of our ecological overspending are becoming more evident by the day. Climate change—a result of greenhouse gases being emitted faster than they can be absorbed by forests and oceans—is the most obvious and arguably pressing result. But there are others—shrinking forests, species loss, fisheries collapse, higher commodity prices and civil unrest, to name a few.[1]

Our earth can only sustain 4.5 billion people living like we do today.

You need to realise that as far as the Earth is concerned farming is not a natural process.

That farming at the moment can only feed the world because of industrial machinery and artificial fertilisers so that land doesn't have to lie fallow every few years so it can recover naturally, frequently of ground only made suitable for large crops by artificial irrigation.

Farming to feed the world has also relied on man's artificial evolution of the domesticated animals. Which in many cases are only in some parts of the world because man took them there, along with the immigrant crops. In the UK horses and chickens are not indigenous species.

I know...but, do you suggest we start picking up some fruits & live without irrigation & farming?

& abandoning a "fertilization companies" is not good idea...they are part of the "evil oil empire"! you just don't mess with an Evil oil empire!
;)

You need to realise that as far as the Earth is concerned farming is not a natural process.

Absolutely correct.

The Rise of Agriculture and Domestication of Animals, perhaps 10,000 years ago. Is The Problem

It resulted in Civilization. Which led to The Bronze Age, Iron Age, and recently: The Industrial Revolution.

Destroying all animals, fertilizers, etc. Will not provide necessary subsistance for 7,000,000,000 Humans on this Planet.

Returning to a Pre Neolithic Age, Pre Iron Age, Pre Industrial Age. Will not support 7,000,000,000 Humans on this Planet.

Any attempt to support 7,000,000,000 Humans, above the level of Somalia. Is doomed to failure.

The amount of Humans on this Planet. Is the problem.

Just an 'Inconvenient Fact'.

& when you made a conclusion like than, then you really spoke like R&R...they have the same "dogma"!

btw, more of a problem is a:

(yes, I also speak German! enough to understand this...)


eat meat, while you can eat it cheap...it will go up very soon! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

You need to go beyond the simple pictures produced by people wishing to promote only one side of the story.

How many calories, vitamins and minerals are in each type of food etc.?
If you don't eat meat, what are the requirements for growing replacement high protein foods?
Are all land types suitable for all types of farming?
Are there any other useful products also produced? (leather/wool/feathers etc.)

Can a small group, lets say a family, with sufficient land and water, by hand grow, harvest and process enough food to survive on without farming any animals?
You can assume there are a few berry or nut bushes in the hedgerows and one or two fruit trees.

Can a small group, lets say a family, with sufficient land and water, by hand grow, harvest and process enough food to survive on without farming any animals?
You can assume there are a few berry or nut bushes in the hedgerows and one or two fruit trees.

But that's parts of Africa and parts of Asia.
Those farmers have a very low carbon footprint compared to the western world, farming animals or not.
Then we eat a LOT more meat then they do.

The United States is the country where you consume the most meat, about 124 kilograms per person. In India 4 kg and in China 58 kg. The calculated weight include bone.
Average for meat consumption in the world is 42 kg, roughly half of the EU average, which is 86 kg.
Looking at parts of the world consumed at least meat in Africa, 18 kg. Then comes Asia with 31, Europe and South America by 77 kg, Australia with 113 and North America with 118 kg, according to statistics from the Swedish Board of Agriculture.

https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Fnyheter%2Fsverige%2Fklimatforandringen-ger-fler-skyfall-i-sverige%2F&edit-text=

You need to go beyond the simple pictures produced by people wishing to promote only one side of the story.

How many calories, vitamins and minerals are in each type of food etc.?
If you don't eat meat, what are the requirements for growing replacement high protein foods?
Are all land types suitable for all types of farming?
Are there any other useful products also produced? (leather/wool/feathers etc.)

Can a small group, lets say a family, with sufficient land and water, by hand grow, harvest and process enough food to survive on without farming any animals?
You can assume there are a few berry or nut bushes in the hedgerows and one or two fruit trees.

to answer your Q:
1. yes, there are tables & some filling up data-sheets which can show you all of kcal intake...as well as vitamins! ;)
2. there are many replacements...even some herb products have more proteins par 100g than meat...just that you don't think about them, but usually eat them! ;)
also, having that said to someone who uses "meal replacement shakes" 1-2 per day, with all vitamins & minerals...as well as proteins, CH & healthy fats...& do take conservative way of eating...it's more a lifestyle, than a pure eating habits! ;)
3. no...so that's why people with degree in agriculture should have a saying...& that's why I've posted some links to their congresses with conclusions... ;)
4. well, some end up in "pink-slime" McDonalds way! :D :P

in western world we eat meat 7/7 days...
but if you ask people who lived before WWII, they'll say that they ate meat 1-3/7 days per week...
& actually WHO also suggests that! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Can a small group, lets say a family, with sufficient land and water, by hand grow, harvest and process enough food to survive on without farming any animals?
You can assume there are a few berry or nut bushes in the hedgerows and one or two fruit trees.

But that's parts of Africa and parts of Asia.
Those farmers have a very low carbon footprint compared to the western world, farming animals or not.
Then we eat a LOT more meat then they do.

The United States is the country where you consume the most meat, about 124 kilograms per person. In India 4 kg and in China 58 kg. The calculated weight include bone.
Average for meat consumption in the world is 42 kg, roughly half of the EU average, which is 86 kg.
Looking at parts of the world consumed at least meat in Africa, 18 kg. Then comes Asia with 31, Europe and South America by 77 kg, Australia with 113 and North America with 118 kg, according to statistics from the Swedish Board of Agriculture.

https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Fnyheter%2Fsverige%2Fklimatforandringen-ger-fler-skyfall-i-sverige%2F&edit-text=

How many Humans on this Planet can we support, if we revert to:
"Those farmers have a very low carbon footprint compared to the western world, farming animals or not."
How many Humans in Large Cities, whose food is produced elsewhere, can we support?
How many Humans, in Nonagricultural areas, can we support?
Subsistence Farming will not support 7,000,000,000 Humans.
This is the problem.

What problem?
Farmers are already supporting 9 Bn humans and agriculture can support many more.
In Scandinavia there are plenty of good farmlands not used because of economical reasons. In 2050 there are probably no farmers left here.
Subsistence Farming is something from past and in Europe I think that disappered more than 50 years ago.

However. How big impact will more agriculture be to the climate?
We know the answer...

What level of Subsistence, would the Peoples of Scandinavia, have to revert to. In order to support their present population.

We have more then enough farmlands to support us.
But our farmers have very hard to make a living from farming because of the global prices.
So we import instead.

Paris meeting on climate issues starts on monday when 137 countries are going to agree on a 47 pages document with a lot of question marks and that have to be clarified before next monday when negotiations start...

So we import instead.

And in the future?

If climate warming is as bad as some predict, will the countries that you import from still be growing crops?

Or if climate prediction is not so bad will these countries start needing the crops they grow for their own rapidly increasing population?

So we import instead.

And in the future?
If climate warming is as bad as some predict, will the countries that you import from still be growing crops?
Or if climate prediction is not so bad will these countries start needing the crops they grow for their own rapidly increasing population?

We and other countries in Europe are mostly sharing agriculture products from each other.
That agriculture would collapse in Europe because of the climate is not in the near future. Perhaps in more than 100 years we would see problem if we continue to manage agriculture like we do today.

Throwing between 40% and 50% of food produced in Europe is not a good thing.

It isn't a question if they can produce food in a technical sense. It doesn't matter if farmers can grow food for 500Billion. The question is should they be allowed to. As farming, produces huge amounts of CO2, it must be cut. Cut it and it can't support the number of humans it does today. Ergo the populations of humans must decline. Either we do it or Darwin will do it to us.

Oh and I'm sure you can draw a chart that shows technical progress by humans measured by space programs is correlated to the amount of meat eaten by the culture.

---

So we import instead.

And in the future?
If climate warming is as bad as some predict, will the countries that you import from still be growing crops?
Or if climate prediction is not so bad will these countries start needing the crops they grow for their own rapidly increasing population?

We and other countries in Europe are mostly sharing agriculture products from each other.
That agriculture would collapse in Europe because of the climate is not in the near future. Perhaps in more than 100 years we would see problem if we continue to manage agriculture like we do today.

Throwing between 40% and 50% of food produced in Europe is not a good thing.

Are you also including the Maunder Minimum (Mini-Ice Age) predicted to start about 15 years from now?

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-in-the-next-15-years

Yes.

"It turns out this would be a very minor impact on the climate, even if we were to return to Maunder Minimum conditions," climate scientist Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience. "That would only lead to a decrease in about 0.2 watts of power per square meter of the Earth's surface — that compared to greenhouse forcing, which is more than 2 watts per meter squared. That's a factor of 10 larger."

http://www.livescience.com/14693-climate-change-sun-magnetic-minimum.html

Regarding the Maunder Minimum predicted by Zharkova, Feulner said, "The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030," Feulner told the Post. Furthermore, this isn't the first time research has predicted waning heat from the sun, to which experts also said that man-made global warming won't be trumped.

Guys, lets stop about agriculture, 'cause we all have to eat!

Let's instead of talk about "addictions"...making one addiction less in a World, would make a big impact of 22 billion net t of CO2!!!
So, give people enough food...but ban cigarettes all together!
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-06/does-smoking-contribute-global-warming
http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/abcs-of-shs/the-cigarette-is-a-major-source-of-pollution
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Umm Klik there talking in a enclosed area . Agriculture is far , far worse .

Yep we need food but seeing as a lot of land is not even being farmed , but cleared one way to at least lessen the effects is the plant more trees, bushes not just slash and burn or leave the paddocks empty .

And then there's the waste and Fast food joints asking us all to eat more than we need .

Lets hope we react ZERO emissions by 2050 and I do believe it's possible

---