Pirate's Cove

The obvious solution here is that Mankind needs to drastically reduce the amount of food we produce, which means we need to kill off a goodly chunk of the world’s population, and, either figure out a way to recycle the people without producing GHGs, or launch them into the Sun

Food production generates more than 1/3 of manmade greenhouse gas emissions – a new framework tells us how much comes from crops, countries and regions

Producing enough food for a growing world population is an urgent global challenge. And it’s complicated by the fact that climate change is warming the Earth and making farming harder in many places.

Food production is a big contributor to climate change, so it’s critically important to be able to measure greenhouse gas emissions from the food sector accurately. In a new study, we show that the food system generates about 35% of total global man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Breaking down this share, production of animal-based foods – meat, poultry and dairy products, including growing crops to feed livestock and pastures for grazing – contributes 57% of emissions linked to the food system. Raising plant-based foods for human consumption contributes 29%. The other 14% of agricultural emissions come from products not used as food or feed, such as cotton and rubber.

This is nothing new. Way back in the day the UN IPCC’s first report said that the majority of GHGs from Mankind came from agriculture and landfills. And it was more about methane than CO2. We’ve done a good job with landfills, better recycling, better management, reduce the GHGs produced. Agriculture? What do they want us to do? But, the study itself?

To fill those gaps, we have developed a comprehensive framework that combines modeling and various databases. It enables us to estimate average yearly global emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide from the production and consumption of plant- and animal-based human food. Currently, our study covers the years 2007-2013. Here are some of the insights it offers, using data that represents an average of those years.

So, mostly a computer model, and it is more about methane and nitrous oxide. And it only covers 6 years. So, a rather weak study. Though probably correct. Even though there are a lot of estimates, rather than hard figures. And Blamestorms a lot of areas like SE Asia, India, and China.

Based on these results, governments, researchers and individuals can take actions to reduce emissions from high-emitting food commodities in different places. As U.N. leaders have stated, making food production more climate-friendly is essential to reduce hunger in a warming world.

And there we go, a study meant to give government some data so that government can look to take more control of the agriculture sector. Surprise?

Climate alarmism is the real threat to public health

So climate change is now a ‘health emergency’ is it?

That was certainly the message from US president Joe Biden last week, after he launched the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity. It will reportedly explore how a warming, changing climate poses an immediate, existential threat to people’s health. As Gina McCarthy, the White House national climate-change adviser, put it: ‘Climate change is fundamentally a health threat.’ (snip)

It’s scary, portentous stuff. But this rather desperate presentation of climate change as a public-health emergency is hardly a surprise. Policies and measures to tackle everything from knife crime to racism are now often framed in terms of public health. It has become the catch-all justification for policymakers – a source of authority and legitimacy for technocrats. And this tendency to justify just about anything in terms of protecting citizens’ health has been supercharged by the response to the pandemic, where all sorts of measures, from school closures to bans on protests, have been imposed in the name of health and safety.

I’ve been sitting on that one in the GetPocket account, worth a full read.

Read: Bummer: Agriculture Produces About A Third Of Greenhouse Gases »

This doesn’t sound threatening in the least

‘We will have a really long, long memory’: Greens calling businesses’ bluff on climate change

Green groups backing the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion spending package are aiming their fury at one of the bill’s most powerful opponents: corporate business lobbies that claim to support action on climate change.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers all support the much smaller bipartisan infrastructure bill championed by the Biden White House, which includes tens of billions of dollars for responding to climate disasters and promoting green power. They also backed billions in new spending last year for wind, solar and renewable energy.

But the same business groups have taken a hard line against the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion plan, which would raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations while tackling causes such as health care, child care and racial equity in addition to climate change. The groups are sticking with that position even as some of their own members, such as Pfizer, Microsoft and Bank of America, have criticized them for doing too little on climate. (snip)

“It’s a really hard test for corporations: Was it all bullshit?” said Lori Lodes, executive director of Climate Power, a group whose leaders include veterans of Hillary Clinton’s and Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaigns. “There’s one train and you’re either getting on it or we will have a really long, long memory.”

We could ask the same of Warmists: if you won’t practice what you preach in your own lives, is it all bullshit? Well, yeah. It is. It’s a scam. Cultists are very good in attempting to force Other People to comply, not so good when it applies to themselves.

Norway sees final day of voting in election fought on oil

Voters in Norway head to the polls Monday, the last day to cast ballots in the country’s parliamentary elections.

The issues of climate change and economic inequality have dominated campaigning and the outcome could influence oil activities in Western Europe’s largest producer.

It is expected that the center-left opposition headed by the Labor Party will topple Prime Minister Erna Solberg’s Conservative Party, which has governed for the past eight years. (snip)

Norway is an affluent, oil-rich country that is not an EU member state. It has the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, thanks in no small part to the financial windfalls brought about by the country’s significant fossil fuels sector since the 1960s.

GDP from the sector is at 14% and 40% of all exports are oil and gas. Petroleum accounts for 160,000 jobs.

Stoere’s (who is projected to become the next Prime Minister) Labour Party wants a gradual, rather than immediate, reduction in the Norwegian economy’s reliance on oil and gas sector, unlike parties further to the left that may form part of a ruling coalition.

Either way, this will be great to see if they win and start knocking oil down, creating havoc in the economy. Will the same people who voted for the Leftists bitch and moan? Will they turn around and vote them all out in the next election?

Read: Climate Cult Today: Warmists Threaten Businesses, Norway Votes »