• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
The real cows of climate change? Would we be Friesian if this plan works?

New Zealand has unveiled a plan to tax sheep and cattle burps in a bid to tackle one of the country's biggest sources of greenhouse gases.

It would make it the first nation to charge farmers for the methane emissions from the animals they keep. New Zealand is home to just over five million people, along with around 10 million cattle and 26 million sheep. Almost half the country's total greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, mainly methane.

However, agricultural emissions have previously not been included in New Zealand's emissions trading scheme, which has been criticised by those calling for the government to do more to stop global warming.

"There is no question that we need to cut the amount of methane we are putting into the atmosphere, and an effective emissions pricing system for agriculture will play a key part in how we achieve that," New Zealand's climate change minister James Shaw said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61741352
It won't fix anything.
It will rake in tax money and force farmers to put up prices.
 
What's the real cows of this protest?
.
Charitable trusts, that run cattle shelters in the western Indian state of Gujarat, have set free thousands of cows in protest against the lack of promised government aid.

Videos of cows walking through government buildings have gone viral.

Protesters have threatened to boycott the upcoming state election if the government fails to release funds. Gujarat is among several Indian states reeling from a lumpy skin disease outbreak, leading to cattle losses. The state has reported more than 5,800 cattle deaths, while nearly 170,000 are estimated to have been affected by the disease.

Cows are sacred animals for India's majority Hindu community, and slaughtering them is illegal in 18 states, including Gujarat.

In 2017, Gujarat tightened its cow protection laws by notifying that those slaughtering a cow could be punished with a life sentence. An unintended consequence has been a large number of cattle roaming the streets, causing traffic snarls, or landing up at shelters.

In its budget for this year, the Gujarat government had allocated 5bn rupees ($61m; £57m) to maintain shelters for cows and other old animals in the state.

Shelter managers, however, said they had not received any money under the scheme and felt "cheated" by the government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-63043405
 
What's the real cows of this protest?
.
Charitable trusts, that run cattle shelters in the western Indian state of Gujarat, have set free thousands of cows in protest against the lack of promised government aid.

Videos of cows walking through government buildings have gone viral.

Protesters have threatened to boycott the upcoming state election if the government fails to release funds. Gujarat is among several Indian states reeling from a lumpy skin disease outbreak, leading to cattle losses. The state has reported more than 5,800 cattle deaths, while nearly 170,000 are estimated to have been affected by the disease.

Cows are sacred animals for India's majority Hindu community, and slaughtering them is illegal in 18 states, including Gujarat.

In 2017, Gujarat tightened its cow protection laws by notifying that those slaughtering a cow could be punished with a life sentence. An unintended consequence has been a large number of cattle roaming the streets, causing traffic snarls, or landing up at shelters.

In its budget for this year, the Gujarat government had allocated 5bn rupees ($61m; £57m) to maintain shelters for cows and other old animals in the state.

Shelter managers, however, said they had not received any money under the scheme and felt "cheated" by the government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-63043405
Here's what lumpy skin disease is:
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/lumpy-skin-disease
 
What's the real cows of this protest?
.
Charitable trusts, that run cattle shelters in the western Indian state of Gujarat, have set free thousands of cows in protest against the lack of promised government aid.

Videos of cows walking through government buildings have gone viral.

Protesters have threatened to boycott the upcoming state election if the government fails to release funds. Gujarat is among several Indian states reeling from a lumpy skin disease outbreak, leading to cattle losses. The state has reported more than 5,800 cattle deaths, while nearly 170,000 are estimated to have been affected by the disease.

Cows are sacred animals for India's majority Hindu community, and slaughtering them is illegal in 18 states, including Gujarat.

In 2017, Gujarat tightened its cow protection laws by notifying that those slaughtering a cow could be punished with a life sentence. An unintended consequence has been a large number of cattle roaming the streets, causing traffic snarls, or landing up at shelters.

In its budget for this year, the Gujarat government had allocated 5bn rupees ($61m; £57m) to maintain shelters for cows and other old animals in the state.

Shelter managers, however, said they had not received any money under the scheme and felt "cheated" by the government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-63043405
I suppose you could say "Cows that" you're out?
 
It won't fix anything.
It will rake in tax money and force farmers to put up prices.

The plan is back, tax farmers farts instead!

New Zealand has proposed taxing the greenhouse gasses that farm animals produce from burping and urinating in a bid to tackle climate change.

The world-first scheme will see farmers paying for agricultural emissions in some form by 2025.
The country's farming industry accounts for about half of its emissions.
But farmers have been quick to criticise the plan, with one lobby group saying it would "rip the guts out of small-town New Zealand".
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said money raised from the proposed levy will be pumped back into the industry to finance new technologies, research and incentive payments for farmers.
"New Zealand's farmers are set to be the first in the world to reduce agricultural emissions, positioning our biggest export market for the competitive advantage that brings in a world increasingly discerning about the provenance of their food," she told reporters while announcing the proposals from a farm in Wairarapa.

The pricing has not yet been decided on, but the government says that farmers should be able to make up the cost of the levy by charging more for climate-friendly produce.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-63211506
 
The real cows of climate change? Would we be Friesian if this plan works?

New Zealand has unveiled a plan to tax sheep and cattle burps in a bid to tackle one of the country's biggest sources of greenhouse gases.

It would make it the first nation to charge farmers for the methane emissions from the animals they keep. New Zealand is home to just over five million people, along with around 10 million cattle and 26 million sheep. Almost half the country's total greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, mainly methane.

However, agricultural emissions have previously not been included in New Zealand's emissions trading scheme, which has been criticised by those calling for the government to do more to stop global warming.

"There is no question that we need to cut the amount of methane we are putting into the atmosphere, and an effective emissions pricing system for agriculture will play a key part in how we achieve that," New Zealand's climate change minister James Shaw said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61741352
Interesting thing about methane in the atmosphere is that it only has a ten year life before breaking down.

So unless those animals flocks are increasing, the methane build-up won't change...you can reduce the overall levels by shrinking the size of the herds, but if you're not increasing numbers, then sheep/cow methane emissions are not adding to any greenhouse effect. :hoff:
 
Interesting thing about methane in the atmosphere is that it only has a ten year life before breaking down.

So unless those animals flocks are increasing, the methane build-up won't change...you can reduce the overall levels by shrinking the size of the herds, but if you're not increasing numbers, then sheep/cow methane emissions are not adding to any greenhouse effect. :hoff:

In 60 years, global beef production has increased over 6 times - that is, over 600%
1961: 50 million tonnes
2020: about 325 million tonnes

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-meat-production?tab=table

You can look up the equivalent numbers for pigs, sheep, poultry, etc. yourself.

I thought New Zealand was concerned with its contribution to the total global increase. So, yes, the global herds are increasing greatly. Unlimited human population growth in not sustainable on earth, and our eating meat from farting, belching animals is part of it, as is clearing forests for agriculture.

moo.

Edit:
PS - as a child, I wondered why England and Ireland did not have many trees. I thought it was somehow natural that those places had mainly grass. It was years before I realized most of the forests had been cut down to make grasslands for meat animals and tilled soil for silage and vegetables.

I read somewhere that meat consumption had increased about 200% average per capita worldwide over the last 50 years; mainly in the developing countries. Of course I can't find the source.
 
Last edited:
In 60 years, global beef production has increased over 6 times - that is, over 600%
1961: 50 million tonnes
2020: about 325 million tonnes

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-meat-production?tab=table

You can look up the equivalent numbers for pigs, sheep, poultry, etc. yourself.

I thought New Zealand was concerned with its contribution to the total global increase. So, yes, the global herds are increasing greatly. Unlimited human population growth in not sustainable on earth, and our eating meat from farting, belching animals is part of it, as is clearing forests for agriculture.

moo.

Edit:
PS - as a child, I wondered why England and Ireland did not have many trees. I thought it was somehow natural that those places had mainly grass. It was years before I realized most of the forests had been cut down to make grasslands for meat animals and tilled soil for silage and vegetables.

I read somewhere that meat consumption had increased about 200% average per capita worldwide over the last 50 years; mainly in the developing countries. Of course I can't find the source.
Well, the issue is whether they (NZ) are increasing their herds or not. If they keep the herd numbers static 'as of date' then the any problem we have now isn't going to get worse, which was my point.

Also, it's well established there is no unlimited population growth - it's generally considered to be the case that earth's population will top out at around 10billion, as the number of children per couple drops to 'about two' as socio economic conditions improve, as we've seen in a number of areas already.

Despite the continual blather about how over populated we are, wealth per capita continues to increase, absolute poverty is declining world-wide and life expectancies are rising. We're nowhere near the environmental apocalypse and to be blunt, reducing food supply now is simply sacrificing people now, to allegedly prevent the end of times at some point in the future. Feck that for a point of view. I say provide power and food and we have the capacity to do both.
:hoff:
 
Well, the issue is whether they (NZ) are increasing their herds or not. If they keep the herd numbers static 'as of date' then the any problem we have now isn't going to get worse, which was my point.

Also, it's well established there is no unlimited population growth - it's generally considered to be the case that earth's population will top out at around 10billion, as the number of children per couple drops to 'about two' as socio economic conditions improve, as we've seen in a number of areas already.

Despite the continual blather about how over populated we are, wealth per capita continues to increase, absolute poverty is declining world-wide and life expectancies are rising. We're nowhere near the environmental apocalypse and to be blunt, reducing food supply now is simply sacrificing people now, to allegedly prevent the end of times at some point in the future. Feck that for a point of view. I say provide power and food and we have the capacity to do both.
:hoff:
We shall have to agree to disagree. I do understand about the projected top of the population growth curve. I think we have too many people now, because of the environmental changes and species extinction which has already occurred. Science will continue to produce better solutions in every field; but the environmental changes will be difficult to fix because of a variety of reasons: nationalistic goals; greed and the rewards of greed; basic human nature. In the very long term (200 years?), IF technological advances continue, and IF they can be employed globally, and IF population does go down even temporarily, and IF we establish colonies off-planet like the 1950s science fiction books propose, and IF.... - then mankind will have no overpopulation problems.

If NZ's goals were merely its own herds and not its contribution to world herds, I would agree with you.
 
The plan is back, tax farmers farts instead!

New Zealand has proposed taxing the greenhouse gasses that farm animals produce from burping and urinating in a bid to tackle climate change.

The world-first scheme will see farmers paying for agricultural emissions in some form by 2025.
The country's farming industry accounts for about half of its emissions.
But farmers have been quick to criticise the plan, with one lobby group saying it would "rip the guts out of small-town New Zealand".
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said money raised from the proposed levy will be pumped back into the industry to finance new technologies, research and incentive payments for farmers.
"New Zealand's farmers are set to be the first in the world to reduce agricultural emissions, positioning our biggest export market for the competitive advantage that brings in a world increasingly discerning about the provenance of their food," she told reporters while announcing the proposals from a farm in Wairarapa.

The pricing has not yet been decided on, but the government says that farmers should be able to make up the cost of the levy by charging more for climate-friendly produce.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-63211506
Oh, great. :headbang:
 
Establish the president on animals and you can guess what’s coming next
 
We shall have to agree to disagree. I do understand about the projected top of the population growth curve. I think we have too many people now, because of the environmental changes and species extinction which has already occurred. Science will continue to produce better solutions in every field; but the environmental changes will be difficult to fix because of a variety of reasons: nationalistic goals; greed and the rewards of greed; basic human nature. In the very long term (200 years?), IF technological advances continue, and IF they can be employed globally, and IF population does go down even temporarily, and IF we establish colonies off-planet like the 1950s science fiction books propose, and IF.... - then mankind will have no overpopulation problems.

If NZ's goals were merely its own herds and not its contribution to world herds, I would agree with you.
Well couple of things. Firstly the projected top of the population growth can be fed by not wasting 30% of the food currently being produced (source IFCO among others). This mean we can, right now produce the food we need for the projected maximum population.

Secondly, advances in food production are currently and have historically being retarded by misguided ideological attempts to stop fertiliser use (e.g. https://www.farminguk.com/news/dutc...-government-plans-to-cut-emissions_60719.html) and stop the introduction of GM modified food stuffs that both reduce the need for insecticide use and increase yields. The greatest exemplar of this latter might be the holding up of GM modified rice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice) which absolutely allowed illness and deaths for a good decade.

Reducing food production is simply sentencing people to starvation - which is wrong.

It seems to me that the doom saying environmentalists continually tell us what we can't have, while simulatenously never providing an option for what can be done and shouting down all other solutions.

Too much Co2, well let's use nuclear power more. Nuclear evil sqeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Clean coal technology? Fossil fuels evil-sqeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Tidal barrages? sqeeeeeeeeeee-environment-queeeeeeeeeee!
Increase food yields with GM? Evil-squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-wild conjecture about animal gens in plants-sqeeeeeeeeeeee
Use fertilisers? Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-must-be-organic-squeeeeeeeeeee!

So what are we 'allowed'?
Seems to me that many 'environmentalists' want 'other people' to die for their cause. If only there was a word for that. Oh, wait...

Agree to disagree? I don't think so. :hoff:
 
We will be allowed to live in caves and eat grass but wont be allowed to
dig more caves or plant grass.
The greens will because there work is so important still be able to jet
around the world to attend meetings on climate change, they have
read this on the tinter web so it must be true.

:omr:
 
I don't agree with gmo foods simply because the patents are owned by corporations from which seeds, fertilizer need to be bought.

All we have to look at is the fiasco with patented canola seed mixing with other crops of canola and the farmers being sued for using the gmo canola illegally because the gmo seeds entered into the farmers' fields.

The companies can control the use of the patented material as well as set the price. They do not allow seed saving for the next year. Each year's seed has a marker that allows the companies to know what seed is being used. And they will only buy back the crop planted with the current seed.

Third world country farmers are trying to protest the use of gmo seed for these reasons. It only benefits the seed companies and leaves farmers reliant and in debt to the big companies. It also limits the genetic diversity of crops.
 
Well couple of things. Firstly the projected top of the population growth can be fed by not wasting 30% of the food currently being produced (source IFCO among others). This mean we can, right now produce the food we need for the projected maximum population.

Secondly, advances in food production are currently and have historically being retarded by misguided ideological attempts to stop fertiliser use (e.g. https://www.farminguk.com/news/dutc...-government-plans-to-cut-emissions_60719.html) and stop the introduction of GM modified food stuffs that both reduce the need for insecticide use and increase yields. The greatest exemplar of this latter might be the holding up of GM modified rice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice) which absolutely allowed illness and deaths for a good decade.

Reducing food production is simply sentencing people to starvation - which is wrong.

It seems to me that the doom saying environmentalists continually tell us what we can't have, while simulatenously never providing an option for what can be done and shouting down all other solutions.

Too much Co2, well let's use nuclear power more. Nuclear evil sqeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Clean coal technology? Fossil fuels evil-sqeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Tidal barrages? sqeeeeeeeeeee-environment-queeeeeeeeeee!
Increase food yields with GM? Evil-squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-wild conjecture about animal gens in plants-sqeeeeeeeeeeee
Use fertilisers? Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-must-be-organic-squeeeeeeeeeee!

So what are we 'allowed'?
Seems to me that many 'environmentalists' want 'other people' to die for their cause. If only there was a word for that. Oh, wait...

Agree to disagree? I don't think so. :hoff:
Well, I at least agree to disagree. :)

Where did I state that I was for reducing food production and starving people?

When one lumps together all the different philosophies on environmentalism, of course the end state blend is idiotic and easy to ridicule.
 
NZ farmers spew bile at Burp Tax plan.

Farmers across New Zealand have taken to the streets on their tractors to protest government plans to tax cow burps and other greenhouse gas emissions, although the rallies were smaller than expected.

Lobby group Groundswell New Zealand helped organise more than 50 protests in towns and cities across the country, the biggest involving a few dozen vehicles.

Last week, the government proposed a new farm levy as part of a plan to tackle climate change. The government said it would be a world first, and that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products.

Because farming is so big in New Zealand — there are 10 million beef and dairy cattle and 26 million sheep, compared to just 5 million people — about half of all greenhouse gas emissions come from farms. Methane from burping cattle makes a particularly big contribution.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40987676.html
 
Last week, the government proposed a new farm levy as part of a plan to tackle climate change. The government said it would be a world first, and that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products.
This makes no sense to me. Would you not want "climate-friendly" products to be at least as affordable as the products that are being replaced? This is one of the problems I have with "organic" food. It costs more (and yes I understand why), but it makes it only affordable to wealthier people, not the poor who have no choice to go with the more environmentally friendly options.

Governments subsidize many things, but not to make environmentally better options available to everyone. I personally view the label "organic" as a status symbol.
 

How now, loud cow? Farmer fined over grieving animal's excessive mooing


A grieving cow’s moos were so loud that Spanish authorities fined its owner for breaking noise laws after complaints from long-suffering neighbours.

Farmer Roberto Pandiello was landed with a €300 fine from the local council in Siero near Oviedo because Carmina, a 15-month old cow, broke the legal noise limit.

Officials took secret noise measurements, which found Carmina’s sad moos reached 74 decibels. Spanish law establishes a maximum limit of 55 decibels near homes.

“We thought this could never happen because it’s ridiculous; it’s a joke,” Mr Pandiello, who lives in Asturias, a northern region synonymous with green pastures and dairy farming, said.

“She was lowing unusually loudly because she had to be weaned drastically after her mother was put down,” Mr Pandiello [said].

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...rieving-animal-s-excessive-mooing/ar-AA139nNE

maximus otter
 
Another psychotic cow.

A man has been seriously injured after being "attacked and trampled" by an escaped cow.

The animal escaped from Whitland Mart, Carmarthenshire, at about 10:15 GMT before injuring the man in nearby North Road, Dyfed-Powys Police said. Trains had to be stopped after the cow strayed onto rail lines and eventually had to be put down as it was "dangerously out of control".

The man has been airlifted to Cardiff's University Hospital of Wales.

Police said "every effort" was made to safely contain the cow, in consultation with the owner, after it ended up in a field.

"Unfortunately all attempts failed and, due to the danger posed by the animal, it was humanely dispatched with the consent of the owner," the force said.

The Health and Safety Executive has been informed and it is making inquiries.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-63689374
 
Another psychotic cow.

A man has been seriously injured after being "attacked and trampled" by an escaped cow.

The animal escaped from Whitland Mart, Carmarthenshire, at about 10:15 GMT before injuring the man in nearby North Road, Dyfed-Powys Police said. Trains had to be stopped after the cow strayed onto rail lines and eventually had to be put down as it was "dangerously out of control".

The man has been airlifted to Cardiff's University Hospital of Wales.

Police said "every effort" was made to safely contain the cow, in consultation with the owner, after it ended up in a field.

"Unfortunately all attempts failed and, due to the danger posed by the animal, it was humanely dispatched with the consent of the owner," the force said.

The Health and Safety Executive has been informed and it is making inquiries.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-63689374
The animal couldn't be tranquilized and then moved? It was most likely panicked. The poor thing was out of its familiar area and then has how many strange people waving their arms and shouting and running at it (this as seen in my imagination. I have seen neighbours help get a wayward cow back off of a road and back to where it belongs)

Here, even wayward black bears are tranquilized and moved out of harm's way.

Here's an article about what lessens cattle's stress:
https://medium.com/@goveg/cows-have-best-friends-and-panic-when-separated-from-them-7506ec3b474f
 
Another psychotic cow.

A man has been seriously injured after being "attacked and trampled" by an escaped cow.

The animal escaped from Whitland Mart, Carmarthenshire, at about 10:15 GMT before injuring the man in nearby North Road, Dyfed-Powys Police said. Trains had to be stopped after the cow strayed onto rail lines and eventually had to be put down as it was "dangerously out of control".

The man has been airlifted to Cardiff's University Hospital of Wales.

Police said "every effort" was made to safely contain the cow, in consultation with the owner, after it ended up in a field.

"Unfortunately all attempts failed and, due to the danger posed by the animal, it was humanely dispatched with the consent of the owner," the force said.

The Health and Safety Executive has been informed and it is making inquiries.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-63689374
I hope the meat from the cow was salvaged.
 
The animal couldn't be tranquilized and then moved? It was most likely panicked. The poor thing was out of its familiar area and then has how many strange people waving their arms and shouting and running at it (this as seen in my imagination. I have seen neighbours help get a wayward cow back off of a road and back to where it belongs)

Here, even wayward black bears are tranquilized and moved out of harm's way.

Here's an article about what lessens cattle's stress:
https://medium.com/@goveg/cows-have-best-friends-and-panic-when-separated-from-them-7506ec3b474f
I remember being in a similar situation some years ago, when I was waiting for a friend to walk along a footpath to meet me through an open field which was situated on the lower slopes of a steep hill which usually had cows in.
As I waited at a field gate for my friend to meet me, I realised I could hear this thundering ground rumbling noise, then at the top of the field hill happened to spot a whole herd of youngish cows, or bullocks (wasn't sure which was which at the time) stampeding down the hill straight towards my friend.
Shouting out to her to get a move on as I could see she would be in a difficult situation if she realised what was coming at her, she started to run towards me and then I could see that the herd had this leader and that was the one that was steering the others to charge towards us both.
All I could do to hold them up for a short while was jump up and down waving my arms about and shouting at them.
Just managed to have enough time for her to get over the gate with myself eager to do the same just as the leader started to charge towards me. And even when we cleared the gateway, the head one did not just walk away, it kept following us along the fence line in a really determined way to show how fierce it really was.
Thinking back - I think they might well have been expecting to be fed and maybe it had been delayed for an over-amount of time which made them so rebellious and scary.
 
Cattle (beef or dairy) are not cheap to raise. This is why I question that the owner agreed to them killing the animal rather than tranquilizing it. Though once @Endlessly Amazed mentioned the meat, maybe it was raised for beef.

Then I question the word "cow". A female bovine is not usually used for meat, but breeding. So, was the animal really a bull? Wish reporters actually knew there are two words to describe male vs female cattle:rolleyes:
 
Stray cows problem

A court in the western Indian state of Gujarat has handed a six-month jail sentence to a man for letting his cattle stray on the streets.

Prakash Jairam Desai was found guilty of letting them loose and endangering people's lives. Gujarat is among several Indian states facing an increasing problem of stray cattle on its streets. The court said the punishment was imposed to serve justice since such offences are on the rise.

Cows are sacred animals for India's majority Hindu community, and slaughtering them is illegal in 18 states, including Gujarat. In 2017, Gujarat tightened its cow protection laws by notifying that those slaughtering a cow could be punished with a life sentence.

An unintended consequence of that decision has been a large number of cattle roaming the streets, causing traffic snarls, attacking people or landing up at charitable cattle shelters.

In its order, the court said that because of owners leaving stray cattle on the roads, people had been killed and suffered serious injuries, The Times of India reported.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-63658536
 
Back
Top