global warming is guff

Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
It's official: global warming is guff

BRIAN BRADY

WESTMINSTER EDITOR - The Scotsman

AT LAST, evidence that global warming is a load of hot air. Cow flatulence has attracted the attention of ministers after emerging as an environmental menace to rival factory chimneys, Chelsea tractors and cheap air travel.

Bovine emissions account for around one million tonnes of methane a year in the UK and now the government wants farmers to change what they feed the animals to cut down greenhouse gases.

Scientists have already conducted experiments on different cattle feed to determine which one best cuts down gaseous after-effects, and ministers have not ruled out action to force farmers to change their cows' diet.

Officials have worked out that agriculture contributes 7% of all the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. The sector accounts for 36% of Britain's emissions of methane, and farm animals - chiefly cows - contribute the vast majority of it.

The problem is worse in Scotland, which has a higher concentration of agriculture, meaning farm animals produce 46% of methane emissions.

Methane has been described by the United Nations as 23 times more "warming" than carbon dioxide. A UN report reveals that: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems."

The answer, according to scientists at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), is for farmers to alter what they are piling into their cows' front ends.

A Defra spokeswoman said:

"We do encourage farmers to look at this research and consider acting on it. There is no regulation [saying] they will have to change fodder, although that may be something we will have to look into in the future."

Britain's attempts to get to grips with the issue are in line with a growing trend in research into cows' digestive systems around the world. Scientists at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen have recorded impressive reductions by introducing a mixture of organic sugars and a special bacterium into the animals' diet.

Belgian researchers have found that adding fish oil to fodder reduced methane emissions in cattle by up to 80%, while the Australians are even experimenting with a flatulence-reducing vaccine.

And the UK, too, is finally falling into line. In a parliamentary answer politely entitled "Bovine Emissions" last week, farming minister Ian Pearson said "recent research suggests that substantial methane reductions could be achieved by changes to feed regimes".
 
Nov 6, 2005
8,894
3,348
30,935
How old is your newspaper extract?

The volume of bovine methane, and it's effect on the climate, has been public knowledge for years.

Try telling polar bears that climate change isn't happening! Even US scientists now fully accept the projected effects of climate change even if US politicians don't.
 
G

Guest

Try talking to a cute cuddly wuddly Poly Bear yourself John, they are not exactly user friendly pets.

As for Bovine emmissions no doubt they left many off the research Prgramme.

I bet my last Euro that the research didn't include the mad Cows in Westminster, London Assembly, Transport for London etc or the Veggies in the Green party, a diet of sprouts, rocket and nut cutlets must do wonders for Global warming.
 
Jul 4, 2006
79
0
0
"Try talking to a cute cuddly wuddly Poly Bear yourself John, they are not exactly user friendly pets."

What a short sighted attitude

The fact is that the sea ice is melting fast depriving Polar bears of their food source, mainly seals.

If the ice continues to melt the Polar bears will become extinct

This is just one consequence of global warming

But hey bury your heads in the sand, carry on driving your gas guzzlers, who cares

Well I do
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
RogerL The Scotsman reported this on the 9th December. A bit more research led me to this:-

http://www.u-landsnyt.dk/nyheder.asp?ID=10699
Which was published on the 29th November 2006 - i.e. just 12 days ago.

The report makes interesting reading - especially as the chief author of the report, Henning Steinfeld, is Chief of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAOs) Livestock Information and Policy Branch.

What I find interesting is that this is truly POWERFULL STUFF! (and I am not talking about the cows farts!)

But what do we get from the Guardianistas at the same time as this information is published?????

PATHETIC BLEATING HEADLINES STATING THAT THERE IS A "BACKLASH" AGAINST 4X4'S AND A "SALES SLUMP" WHICH IS GOING TO GO A LONG WAY TO SAVE THE PLANET.

Sorry for "shouting" one and all but the pathetic emphasis on a particular vehicle type because it has more than one axle is not just STUPID! - it is incredibly STUPID when the real problem requires real solutions. As this interesting report ably points out.

What is not helpful in my view is overly emotional twaddle from people who seem to be unable to read and correctly digest even simple stuff like a month's car sales data without getting their knickers in a twist and misinterpreting the data!
 
G

Guest

Please NOTE.

The words above are from the man driving the gas guzzling anti social space taking speedy 140mph + Jaguar. I'ts OK though because he has clients that expect/demand such waste.
 
G

Guest

Please NOTE.

The words above are from the man driving the gas guzzling anti social space taking speedy 140mph + Jaguar. I'ts OK though because he has clients that expect/demand such waste.
Re Ricky's words
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
"Try talking to a cute cuddly wuddly Poly Bear yourself John, they are not exactly user friendly pets."

What a short sighted attitude

The fact is that the sea ice is melting fast depriving Polar bears of their food source, mainly seals.

If the ice continues to melt the Polar bears will become extinct

This is just one consequence of global warming

But hey bury your heads in the sand, carry on driving your gas guzzlers, who cares

Well I do
So do I Ricky - So do I.

The difference between me and you tho' is that you deal in conjecture and emotional twaddle whereas some of us actually can see the bigger picture.

You have to admit that if you drive ANY car whatsoever you will be a polluter.

The data available from many many sources proves categorically that the number of drive wheels a car has no bearing whatsoever on its ecological footprint.

So why do you keep saying what you say in light of the true facts.

Or are you an Arthur Scargill "Type" - Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up?
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
WOOPS! posted as a comment by mistake.

So do I Ricky - So do I.

The difference between me and you tho' is that you deal in conjecture and emotional twaddle whereas some of us actually can see the bigger picture.

You have to admit that if you drive ANY car whatsoever you will be a polluter.

The data available from many many sources proves categorically that the number of drive wheels a car has no bearing whatsoever on its ecological footprint.

So why do you keep saying what you say in light of the true facts.

Or are you an Arthur Scargill "Type" - Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up?
 
Jul 3, 2006
581
0
0
Anti flatulence vaccine!!! don't tell the wife, --she'll have me booked in for it!, The comparison between the jag and the freelander sums up why I would never buy a 4x4, 140mph, corners like on rails, cheaper and probably still uses less fuel than any 4x4 cruising at 70, I've just bought an S-max, 125 mph 40+ mpg cruising at 80, 0-60 in 10 secs, 7seats or 5 plus huge amount of luggage, corners like an mpv shouldn't and less than
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Until you try to tow off wet grass!

Please do not start a "my car is better than your car" nonsence Gary.

You choice of car seems great to me. As will the Freelander (any 4x4) to many others.

What gets me is the silliness of some trying so desperatly to make out that an AWD vehicle will destroy the planet (but my choice of car will not!
 
G

Guest

The performance quoted for the s max is slower than my daughters RAV 4. Ok its a more exepsive car but then again it's considered a better quality car and she doesn't need 7 seat capacity but does need all weather traction and if anything its proabaly more economic than the Ford but you buy for you own reasons.
 
Jul 3, 2006
581
0
0
I actually don't care whether 4x4s do wreck the planet or not, I just don't like them, but if I had a use for one, I would buy one. I dont need a 4x4 to tow my 20' ta caravan and as for towing off wet grass, my snow chains may be a pain to fit but they cost me less than running a 4wd transmission. I'm not sure myself why I dislike 4x4's, perhaps being a farmer's son I'm naturally tight fisted and won't waste anything, I think it's mainly because I dislike anything that's trendy which I guess is unfair on those who really need a 4x4
 
Sep 14, 2006
264
0
0
Tell you what is wrecking the planet, all the emissions from power stations generating all the extra electric so that we can sit in front of the computer all day raging on about who has got the best 4x4...........
 
May 4, 2005
2,622
0
0
What the designer environmentalists forget is we live in a world which has more people on it than ever before. The demand for power for the "essentials" is at an all time high. This alone will have an effect on the environment.

To blame global warming on one small group in the uk is obviously nonsensical as after all ,this is a global problem but here we have a government that puts the blame squarely on the backs of the "larger car owner." the reason of course easy money, the real solution is to tackle the real polluters in the USA and China but lets face it that will never happen.
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Certainly it will not all the time we have a vocal minority blaming just one vehicle type as you say Brian.

But what is worse is that by shifting the emphasis on what is a very real problem, to something that if we stopped driving ALL cars tomorrow, the effect on greenhouse gas emissions would not make one iota of difference (for all the reasons you state) means that the real problem goes on unchecked.

If these silly numpties put their efforts into tackling the real issues and not the belligerent side-show they focus on regarding AWD cars, the real polluters you correctly identify would come under more pressure to change.

But at the moment the US and China get away with it because the Anti's have allowed the focus to be led up a dead end.

I do wonder what future generations will make of their antics when the problem is worse than today and all they can say is:-

"Ah! But, No, but, - We tried to ban 4x4's"
 
Jul 3, 2006
581
0
0
The performance quoted for the s max is slower than my daughters RAV 4. Ok its a more exepsive car but then again it's considered a better quality car and she doesn't need 7 seat capacity but does need all weather traction and if anything its proabaly more economic than the Ford but you buy for you own reasons.
Sorry euro but even the 177hp rav 4 is less than a second quicker 0-60 than the 2.0tdci smax and no faster top speed but does use 10% more fuel and carries a lot less kit
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts