Maybe this should be in Politics. Anyway, I'm sure most of the people on this forum are pretty committed to the idea of saving the world through lower emissions, conservation of energy etc. But I've been reading recently of the impact of agricultural operations on the environment, and just wonder whether we are maybe slightly barking up the wrong tree. I've seen claims that global agriculture is by far the dominant impact on greenhouse gas emissions, dwarfing transport, heating etc. So, maybe what we need in the UK is to build slightly less well put together houses with bigger gardens and more scope for growing our own vegetables. This would be completely at odds with the broad thrust of current UK planning policy, which is higher density developments around centres of facilities.

Just musing really. Any thoughts?

On the other hand I recently saw a video about using grazing animals to fight fight desertification, reverse climate change and restore pastures. https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

IMO it is all about balance. Keeping cattle in feed pens and bringing in grain and silage to feed them, whilst at the same time pouring artificial fertilizers and weed killers on the land to grow the grain/silage is a recipe for disaster, but don't blame the cattle for the ridiculous management system we choose to use, mostly driven by the profit line of large agrochemical companies. A return to less intensive agriculture with less chemicals is IMO the only option that will serve to save the environment currently being destroyed by the agrochemical industry.

Bigger gardens to enable people to grow their own veg would be nice, providing that the bigger plots did not price the homes out of reach of all but the v. well off (what's the price of a house with a 1 acre plot in your area?) and that there was enough time after both partners get home from work following the 2 hour each way commute and of course have the inclination to do the gardening anyway.

Grow your own food, a nice thought and there will always be the intrepid few who do just that, and reap the rewards.
However for the majority, even if they all had a garden sufficient to grow stuff, it would be too much like hard work. Convincing those, who can't be bothered to switch a light off, or turn the heating down a degree or two, or any other of the hundreds of little things that might make a change, is a dream.

There was a methodologists error when measuring water usage for cattle and other grazing livestock. Something to do with assuming all rain water that fell on grazing land went to cattle production, which is not the case.

There was also a thing on the radio this week questioning environmental impact of some farming claims, think it was the Science show on Thursday.

Like most of these things, they do not always transfer between place to place well.

Posted By: Doubting_Thomasalthough it's great to tie individuals to their own energy production so they can manage consumption better, you tend to increase the inefficiencies that drop off once you get to a certain scale

I think that bit of conventional wisdom - tho still true today - is going to change.

The ostensible purpose of IoT (Internet of Things) is to create massive efficiencies through 'intelligent' or algorithmic optimisation informing constant micro-negotiation between all the 'things'. That being the case, it matters not at all whether the 'things' are centralised or completely distributed, or a mix in between.

The present machine-age need to centralise in order to command-control is rapidly coming to an end.

The idea of distributed agriculture immediately raises the image of a reversion to peasant-like subsistence, especially when it's extended to include more and more of the other things and services that we need. But this is not a straight replay of the system that actually worked well in England in late medieval times, dramatically raising standards of prosperity, nutrition and health for a new 'middle class' of independent makers in new independent towns, creating itself and becoming a power-centre in between the two previous classes of aristocracy and peasantry. Until the aristocracy put a stop to that, inventing interest-bearing central currency (usury, as banned by all religions, but on steroids) and granting monopolies to favoured merchants and enclosure rights to favoured aristocrats, who for the privileges would finance the king's wars. Behold the logic that still drives the capitalist system, and which soon crushed that proto-libertarian practical ideal, which has inspired alternatives to capitalism ever since, whose time may at last be imminent.

Because this time, though labour will continue to get more and more into 'unemployed' glut, the distributed maker-economy won't be based on human labour - or needn't be, unless for the fun of getting hands dirty. The present headlong rush to AI-guided robotisation isn't going to stop when and if the present venture-capital driven capitalist economy drowns in its own hyper-productivity.

When messily-arranged intercropping of mutually-protective companion-plants can be managed much more reliably than humans can, by little robots that cost less than a good spade - then society has an opportunity to re-think itself.

Posted By: SteamyTeaWas it worth 5 bucks

It was screened by our local Healthy City Project Environment Committee, so it was free. Definitely worth seeing!

Paul in Montreal.

I can tell you that to milk cows in this country takes about 1 kWh each. There are around 1.2 million cows being milked a day.
So that is 1.2 GWh/day or around 438 GWh/year. in 2014 the UK used around 2249 TWh of electricity.
So getting the milk is about 0.02% of out national electrical usage.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>
So getting the milk is about 0.02% of out national electrical usage.</blockquote>

So are you calling BULLSH*T?!?!? ;-)

(I'll get my coat...)

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>getting the milk is about 0.02% of out national electrical usage</blockquote>

congratulations, ST, on taking the bull by the horns on this sacred-cow issue, you will no doubt separate the sheep from the goats, although it sure is a pig broblem.

gg

Posted By: TimSmallSee also:

There's definitely many criticisms that can be made about Cowspiracy ( for a start, the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is much shorter than CO2, despite its higher warming potential) - but there are many good points - especially the fact that there isn't enough land surface available to raise beef "sustainably" to supply current meat demand ... let alone the dairy industry.

Definitely an eye-opener, as well, for how the environmental lobby is ignoring BigAg - especially Greenpeace.

Paul in Montreal.