If the Government were so concerned about global warming surely they would do something about the population, an increase in population would mean that more resources are being used? No matter how much we save, it is no good if people are still having 5 plus children, and immigration is still on the increase.

If global warming is to be believed, I would say that global warming is linked to the rise in population rather than the amount of carbon that we burn. And to say that livestock is contributing to global warming has got to be one of the biggest jokes I have heard in a long time, and to say that livestock flatulence is contributing to global warming what about the 7 billion people fluctuating at this time it's a joke.

herne are you volunteering for the cull? Population is controlled by good governance and education. I have seen first hand the results of other systems. Global Climate change is a massive challenge that we all face but it is not an expensive one. Full implementation of all measures would cost about $30 per head globally. Cheap insurance IMHO. Resource use is something else along with resource distribution. Good governance and science are the best tools to deal with that too and by far the best way to a better future.

 i see they want to cut livestock by 30%.

they have already achieved that since 2000.

if they really want to cut emissions, they should cancel the olympics, the world cup, etc

has anyone calculated these emissions to no purpose?

Who's the mystery "they"?????

Climate change is real, we are contributing to it without a doubt. Climate change is being driven by carbon emissions which in turn is being driven by inefficient systems of production for goods to satisfy growing populations. So the issue really is one of population control, however who will volunteer to their children or themselves for the "cull" (the wife maybe....). So the debate has to be how we reduce global carbon emissions. If we do it right we can still have Olympics and the world cup (as long as it is a rugby world cup - though after wales perfomance today I might not watch)

Inefficient production systems doesn't help.  But an extra problem is that the entire way in wich our prosperity and economic situation is measured depends on over-consumption.  How else can we measure prosperity? The government want people to spend more cash because its the only thing that keeps the economy going.  Primary and secondary industries have been forgotten about.  Our Government have, for to long been depending on the service sector to prop up the economy.  Retailers just want people to spend and the finance sector just wanted people to borrow.  Now look whats happened!! Nobody can afford to do anything.!!!!  exept those who were careful in the first place.

 (There are seven days in a week but most thing are sold in even numbers, so you either have too much or too little.  If you have too much you waste, if you have to little, you buy more, until you have enough to waste.!! Crackers!!!)

  Maybe if we started thinking of ways to measure wealth in ways other than GDP and economic growth, would that go somewhere to help?

 Sometimes the best thing to do is do nothing..... but then someone else would do it and then we would lose out.

 Its a hard one.............I think its best I get a faster milking parlour, therefore I would'nt have time to think so much about these issues, oh and I'll use less electricity aswell.  Bingo!

they ; are the know all politicians.

huckfinn, i am keen to know what are these inefficient systems you talk about?

why do we still have to have olympics while they talk about reducing livestock production?

the building of the olympic village must have a huge carbon footprint, not to mention all the incoming flights from all corners of the world.

as my father says, what is needed is a good dose of hunger

The video "The Energy Independent Farm" on the machinery section here is well worth a look. Deutz have gone the 100% veg oil route I wonder which is best?

Maybe the government knew about this years ago, its the only reason i can think of to account for the current TB policy which manages to slaughter thousands of cattle every year and close down farms etc. Maybe they were trying to be clever and get the cattle numbers down without even mentioning global warming??

 We used home produced sunflower oil in all the diesel engines on the farm through thr 70's, petrol at the pumps was all 50% ethanol from surplus sugar production. We had several bio gas digesters on trial for different uses, domestic, chicken brooders etc, a little hardship soon brings out the creative side of farmers, in our case, the economic sanctions, which led to a period of unparalerelled growth in local industy. Alternative fuels are viable but at about a 20% higher cost than fossil fuels.

someone told me years ago, that every time an jumbo jet takes off the runway drinks enough fuel to fuel an mini for 10 years.

 

Well the worlds atmosphere temperature has dropped 5degrees over the last decade according to the data from our satellites ? So who is right ? The scientists ? or are they telling us porkies in trying to justify there jobs ? Because if we have had a temperature drop surely that means it would be colder ?.

5 degrees? Any idea what measurement system that is? Or is it some special denier system? See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ for some accurate figures. I will be interested to see how 2009 fits in the data.

0.05?

Clear graphical expression here http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/

"Clear graphic expression"???  I believe you, but I think the proverbial "they" do not know what is going to happen in the medium to longer term. I believe my son, an Astrophycist with a more than passing interest in these things, that due to the normal Sun cycle, I can expect it to be slightly warmer here in Portugal over about the next 5 years (he might have said 6 so do not be pedantic about it). He reckoned maybe half to one degree C.  

Ok 2008 was 0.05 degree cooler than the previous 7 years and thats according to NASA giss/temp graph's ? But still not fully convinced as the geologist's have said this is nothing new as the Earth has been a lot hotter than we are seeing now and has had happened several times before, its just a case of us humans of having to adapt.

The reality is that no-one knows what will happen in the future. 

One body of science believes that human activity is causing global warming.  Hitherto they have put their voices behind the prediction that temperatures would continue to rise inexorably until all coal and oil had been consumed and the carbon sinks, represented by the forested areas, cleared.  Anyone who dared to say otherwise has been ridiculed and sidelined.  All of the very considerable scientific research on climate in the past 20 years has been directed with increasing fervour towards proving these doomsday predictions. 

Faced with the undoubted fact that the past ten years actual temperature measurements appear to show that there has been a period of cooling, these scientists have reluctantly admitted this but claim that it is merely a temporary blip and that they never said the temperature graph would only move in an upward direction (which if true was certainly not how the case has been presented to the non-scientific community).  The reluctance they have shown is partly because if they now admit that temporary downward blips are possible, their argument that the previous rise could not be a temporary blip upwards is weakened.  In addition if, as they now claim, temporary downwards blips are what they expected all along, doubt is cast on their predicted temperature rise timescale which was definitely based on continuous rises.

Those scientists with contrary views now find that their arguments are at least being heard with more frequency and some of the research findings which are coming to light seem to cast some doubt on the overwhelming body of data in support of the established case. 

There seems to be one point on which both camps agree.  That is that if the principal cause of global warming is human activity then our current puny proposals for GHG reduction are far too little to have any meaningful effect. 

Whatever the direction the global temperature graph moves in the next few years I expect that the controversy will continue for the rest of my lifetime and I shall probably never know the outcome.  In the meantime, if  the doomsday scenario is found to be false, the only consolation is that a lot of the effort to divert energy generation towards renewables will at least have the side effect of extending the life of the earth's fossil fuel resources.

'07,'08 and '09 have all been cool and wet for my location.  In fact, '09 has been so cool it delayed our crops maturity to the point soybean harvest is just now wrapping up easily one month late.  Our location at least is not getting warmer.

I don't have an issue so much with the idea mankind might be impacting the climate, I do have an issue with alot of the suggestions of how to correct the situation because most of them seem far fetched to me.  One idea I have commented on several times is the entire issue of raising livestock, I really question how culling animals that have been around for centuries will have much impact, it smacks of another agenda to me.  Many of the ideas to correct global warming always seem to mostly involve someone besides the originator of the idea changing their lives drastically, I rather expect all of us will have to change to do any real good.  I have noticed how often it is suggested we in the USA have such a higher carbon footprint than our European and British cousins.  I find that baffling.  The one time I left this country and came to yours, I noticed you live much the way we do.  Your houses are about the same size as ours(actually, many I was in were markedly larger it seems to me than the average over here, but that isn't a scientific study), your roads were filled with cars(even in the very rural areas the traffic was much heavier than I am use to) and most striking was nearly everyone we encountered had been to the USA at least once, most folks you would encounter in my community have not been across the big water, unless a war was involved. 

When I read all that agriculture is supposed to do to help combat "climate change" I never see any mention of how the already struggling worldwide farming brotherhood is supposed to pay for these changes.  If the government wants me to return to farming 320 acres with horses and milking 12 cows by hand, like my great grandparents did, I guess I can do that, but I don't care to live like a peasant while my city cousins do as they like, I especially don't care to farm with and care for 16 workhorses like my family did 100 years ago, and have those who decreed it change nothing.

I am not sure what camp I am in with regard to climate change, maybe the camp that shrugs and says, "I'll just have to deal with it as it comes". 30 years ago I well remember them trying to scare us with predictions of a coming ice age, 30 years from now it will be something different.  I am certain that the climate change scenario will NOT unfold the way any of the popular forecasts predict, because so far weather forecasts are accurate for about a 3 day span.  We may indeed have some pretty huge changes, but I bet alot of them will not have been predicted accurately.  In the meantime, we are insulating our house and putting in a more efficient furnace and windows, try to use lower wattage lightbulbs, and don't travel much, but that isn't by choice.  Short of moving into a cave and going to bed when the sun sets, I don't know what else to do.

I totally agree with Kansasfarmer.  Everybody should do their bit not just us.  I laugh when everybody looks at the US as one big gas drinker, but the truth of the matter is, you are way ahead of Europe in many area's not to mention the rest of the World.  While the EU ponders over the GM issue, you guy's are simplifiying farming systems to grow more food and energy crops, yet many Europeans travel to the states and don't think twice about eating food out there.  I'll never forget having an argument in Uni with a person who was dead against anything from the US whilst he was sipping  a can of Diet Coke. .... Idiot.!!

   Over half of World trade goes through the US so your bound to have a bit of a carbon footprint.  Our Government can claim to be green because they've forced business to go East, and now have the cheek to tell China to clean up its act. Tut Tut.!!!!!!.

And its not just farming.  In the US, Boeing biulds the 747 in one factory in the state of Washington with small bits coming in from everywhere, yet Airbus gets EU funding so that inefficient production systems can continue. ie wings built in Wales, tail wings from spain, cockpit from Holland and main body from Germany, all have to be moved by air and water to be assembled in the South of France.  MAD!!!!

 

KF says .."it smacks of another agenda to me". I am certain you are correct, and it is the VA - Vegetarian Army. They have an orchestrated mechanism to invade websites and forums wherever they think they can pick up a few recruits. CAT was one of their targets earlier this year. There was a sudden surge of vegans joining the forums, but they point blank refused to join the organisation itself. That costs money. I have no objection to their lifestyle, but they certainly object to ours. Unfortunately I do believe they have won a few battles, but until they kill me off they will not win the war.

jdd you clearly do not understand aircraft manufacture. Both Airbus and Boeing outsource large parts of the manufacturing process.(all sorts of parts wings tail sections etc etc engines too) This occurs in plants worldwide (Japan Europe USA) only assembly is carried out in the final plants. Airbus is unsubsidised as launch aid has to be repaid unlike Boeing which has fat US military contracts to support it.

I think that this whole silly talking shop is at the mercy of something bigger than Mankind itself :Planet Earth.This Planet has evolved over something like four and a half Billion Years.Christ was on Earth two thousand years ago just look at the timescales of both.When Christ was on Earth or just after the Romans were growing Grapes on quite a large scale in Gloucestershire.There is now a couple of Vinyards again in the County.The Met Office here gives Statistics for the past three hundred years and attempts to draw conclusions from these for the near future.A most insignificant figure to try and predict on even compared to the Climate since Christ.

   The Gases in the Atmosphere must have been changing since Earth evolved as well as from Physical changes from the Planet itself.Even relatively recent events like Krakatoa and Vesuvius have affected the climate. The reading and plotting of Gases in the Atmosphere is a relatively new science and the main bodies involved all add riders to their Research saying that their accuracy is not guaranteed at the moment.A point not usually given from the Doomsters.We do not know why the Ozone congregates at the Poles at certain times of the year and at other times it is scarce.Ozone we know is made by low frequency UV Light changing Oxygen into Ozone in the Stratosphere,this also protects Animals and Man from this frequency of UV that is harmfull.There must follow the scenario that the more production of Oxygen on Earth by Plants and decomposing gases or Methane itself that more Ozone will be produced which itself breaks Methane down so the whole cycle must be a continuous one that has prevailed here for millions if not Billions of years.

I'm a bit surprised that no-one seems to have commented in the forum on the controversy regarding the leaked emails from the climate scientists at the University of East Anglia.  I think it was on Newsnight on Friday there was an interesting interview with a colleague of the scientists in the beleaguered department.  Although he is not part of the team he seemed quite convinced that they would be exonerated from any blame in attempting to shield their data and methods of manipulating different source data to fit - sorry I mean to accurately reflect the various sources.

He said he thought the greatest controversy impacted on tree ring data going back several hundred years before there were any actual temperature recordings.  Apparently the team had developed formulae and procedures to marry up the tree ring data where there have been actual measurements and to use this to interpret the older tree-ring data.  As all good scientists should, they have continued to obtain samples of tree rings up to date to ensure that their interpretation was being maintained.  All was fine, apparently until the 1980's when using the protocols they had developed, the tree ring data no longer matched the temperature record.

Now I am not a scientist, although I did get Maths, Physics and Chemistry A levels and studied Engineering at university, so I have some inkling of the scientific approach to these problems.  The normal action when testing a hypothesis and your test results do not match the hypothesis would be to first check your methodology and if this was OK then to re-examine and refine your hypothesis. 

Is this what our climatologists in Norwich have done - apparently not.  They believe they are right and the trees are wrong - or at least that is what their colleague implied!

I suppose with the Copenhagen carbon fest about to get under way, the subject is high in the news stakes at the moment.  The latest wheeze from Ed Milliband in his attempts to get the rest of the great British public on-side is to refer to doubters, whether couch potatoes or sceptical scientists as 'flat earthers'.

Interviewed on the Today programme this morning he was quizzed by John Humphries who suggested that insulting doubters was perhaps not the best tactic to persuade then to change their minds.  Of course, as  Minister for Saving us all from Global Warming, young Ed was not about to admit to any personal doubts as 100% espousal of the faith is presumably a sine qua non of his job.  He might however consider whether his insult is quite as apt as he thinks.  If memory serves it was the religious and scientific establishment that believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.  It was the sceptical scientists who faced ridicule and excommunication for expressing a contrary view.  As we all now know it was the establishment which was wrong and the renegades who were right.

The ridicule they get is well deserved in most cases. We are getting a lot of rubbish spouted by bandwagon climbers using Copenhagen to push their pet prejudice. Farmers can power a real green economy, sustainable affordable and deliverable with no loss in living standard. Get the politicians and planners out of our way.