******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I'm not a scientist so I'm dependent on the expertise of others to understand the science around this, but I do want to know what is really going on. So I'm a bit confused. On this list I've read that the decimation of the native American population through disease etc resulted in arable land being abandoned and returning to woodlands. This is supposed to have led to so much carbon sequestration through the return of forest that it brought on a mini-ice age, that froze the Thames over. I've also read that in the US, lawns are a huge but inefficient form of planted land use, because they don't sequester much carbon. Then I read this, that argues that regenerative farming is far more efficient that trees as a form of carbon sequestration. I get that the lawn article can be qualified by the fact that people fertilizing their lawns reduces the benefits, as this article suggests for contemporary industrialised farming. But I would imagine that the native American farming methods would have been largely regenerative and low intensity by today's standards. So which is correct? That switching from regenerative farming to wilderness and woodland massively absorbed carbon to the point of Northern hemispheric cooling due to the expansion of forest (trees) or that regenerative farming is more efficient than tree planting as a solution to current climate woes. Obviously there is some overlap - the story about the Portuguese regenerative farming experiment posted here included trees as part of the picture. But there does seem to be two competing claims - one arguing that well managed pasture is better, the other that reforestation (and rewilding) is better. I'm also aware that arguments for depopulation could be drawn from the example of rewilding and I am clearly not some kind of racist misanthrope so I don't need that to be explained to me. I know there are neo-Malthusians around that want to just get rid of people; I'n not one of those. I'd really appreciate an informed layperson's perspective on this. On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:13 PM Ratbag Media via Marxism < [email protected]> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > This is no minor point, given the obscurantism being engineered about the > role of livestock in agriculture -- a distraction that suits the fossil > fuel corps and undermines the impetus of the movement against climate > change by exaggerating consumption politics and blaming family farmers. > > > https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/are-cow-farts-really-driving-climate-change > > "The debate about agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse gases has been > perverted. Methane is not the important issue — nitrate fertilisers and > soil carbon loss are the important issues." > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/johnedmundson4%40gmail.com -- The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common But leaves the greater villain loose Who steals the common from the goose _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
