Stop growing food... it's a killer!
Discussion
might just be the next band wagon after global warmists have final given up on convincing us that CO2 is all bad...?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1302...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1302...
How much more of this s
t have we got to put up with?
How many other components of air are going to be seen as dangerous?
First it was CO2, now Nitrogen.
Oxygen next perhaps?
Or perhaps Di-hydrogen Monoxide?
No. I think they'll go for Argon.
Maybe Roger Harrabin, George Monbiot et al should stop breathing this dangerous chemical in now?
t have we got to put up with?How many other components of air are going to be seen as dangerous?
First it was CO2, now Nitrogen.
Oxygen next perhaps?
Or perhaps Di-hydrogen Monoxide?
No. I think they'll go for Argon.
Maybe Roger Harrabin, George Monbiot et al should stop breathing this dangerous chemical in now?
Whats your points here?
All that is being asked to consider is that the farming industry look to use less chemical fertiliser in the production of crops and livestock, by way of more sustainable farming methods.
Nobody is saying ban anything nor are they telling you that you should give up meat - more that as a westernised society we have moved from meat being a luxury item that we occasionally had in our diet, to one that is expected to be in every meal.
That shift in the last century has led to the prolems we see here as a result of the intensive farming methods used today. Population expansion and the requirement of cheap meat/food has meant that it has only got more of an issue.
All that is being asked to consider is that the farming industry look to use less chemical fertiliser in the production of crops and livestock, by way of more sustainable farming methods.
Nobody is saying ban anything nor are they telling you that you should give up meat - more that as a westernised society we have moved from meat being a luxury item that we occasionally had in our diet, to one that is expected to be in every meal.
That shift in the last century has led to the prolems we see here as a result of the intensive farming methods used today. Population expansion and the requirement of cheap meat/food has meant that it has only got more of an issue.
neil_bolton said:
Whats your points here?
All that is being asked to consider is that the farming industry look to use less chemical fertiliser in the production of crops and livestock, by way of more sustainable farming methods.
Nobody is saying ban anything nor are they telling you that you should give up meat - more that as a westernised society we have moved from meat being a luxury item that we occasionally had in our diet, to one that is expected to be in every meal.
That shift in the last century has led to the prolems we see here as a result of the intensive farming methods used today. Population expansion and the requirement of cheap meat/food has meant that it has only got more of an issue.
I think the view is that whenever a 'scientific study' finds a link between something that will 'end the world', government ups taxation and finds ways to make money from it under the banner of the environment (whilst not actually doing anything to prevent said armageddon). It happened with global warming and carbon dioxide, it'll no doubt happen with nitrogen now too.All that is being asked to consider is that the farming industry look to use less chemical fertiliser in the production of crops and livestock, by way of more sustainable farming methods.
Nobody is saying ban anything nor are they telling you that you should give up meat - more that as a westernised society we have moved from meat being a luxury item that we occasionally had in our diet, to one that is expected to be in every meal.
That shift in the last century has led to the prolems we see here as a result of the intensive farming methods used today. Population expansion and the requirement of cheap meat/food has meant that it has only got more of an issue.
Two long-term scenarios.
Maybe a hundred billion humans living miserable lives.
A few billion humans living high quality lives.
The solution is rather simple in my view.
Population should only expand when it has little or no environmental impact. We are going to breed ourselves into a miserable future! Evil mode on, but why we help out populations that have unsustainable birth rates and technology to sustain them is beyond me. We are digging a deeper hole for all our futures!
Dave
Maybe a hundred billion humans living miserable lives.
A few billion humans living high quality lives.
The solution is rather simple in my view.
Population should only expand when it has little or no environmental impact. We are going to breed ourselves into a miserable future! Evil mode on, but why we help out populations that have unsustainable birth rates and technology to sustain them is beyond me. We are digging a deeper hole for all our futures!
Dave
Yes, but just as they've demonised Carbon Dioxide by referring to it as dirty 'Carbon', they're doing exactly the same with Nitrates in fertilizer etc by calling it Nitrogen.
Psuedo-scientific waffle to induce panic.
Psuedo-scientific waffle to induce panic.
science quack said:
Nitrogen pollution from farms, vehicles, industry and waste treatment is costing the EU up to £280bn (320bn euros) a year, a report says.
The study by 200 European experts says reactive nitrogen contributes to air pollution, fuels climate change
and is estimated to shorten the life of the average resident by six months.
Livestock farming is one of the biggest causes of nitrogen pollution, it adds.
It calls for changes in farming and more controls on vehicles and industry.
The problem would be greatly helped if less meat was consumed, the report says.
Nitrogen is the most common element in the atmosphere and is harmless.
It is the reactive form - mainly produced by human activity - that causes a web of related problems.
The 600-page report relies on experts from 21 countries and 89 organisations. It estimates the annual cost of damage caused by nitrogen across Europe as being £55-£280bn.
Dr Sutton said nitrogen pollution was a serious issue not just in Europe but also N America, China and India.
Reactive nitrogen emissions from agriculture are the most intractable as they come from many diffuse sources.
The report says Europe needs nitrogen fertilisers for its own food security but blames many farmers for applying fertiliser carelessly to crops, so that excess nitrogen runs off to pollute water supplies.
Run-off from animal manure also fouls watercourses, and the release of nitrous oxides from uncovered dung heaps pollutes the air.
'Dominant driver'
Agriculture produces 70% of the nitrous oxide emissions in Europe.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
The big challenge is to link existing policy areas and make them work together”
End Quote
Mark Sutton
Report author
New rules reducing nitrogen emissions from farms are introduced next year, but there are questions over whether these will be strict enough or properly enforced.
The report says more careful application of fertiliser will benefit farmers by saving money. It will benefit the climate by avoiding the energy used to create the fertiliser.
Lead editor, Mark Sutton from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology near Edinburgh, told BBC News that 80% of the nitrogen in crops feeds livestock, not people.
"It's much more efficient to obtain protein by eating plants rather than animals," he said.
"If we want to help the problem we can all do something by eating less meat. Eating meat is the dominant driver of the nitrogen cycle in Europe."
The report says government efforts to control emissions of reactive nitrogen from combustion sources have been more successful.
In the 1980s nitrogen controls were placed on industrial plant and vehicles, This has led to a cut in emissions of 30%, despite an increase in traffic and economic activity.
But the traffic increase has slowed progress in reducing emissions further, and people in many areas still suffer from nitrogen-related air pollution, including small particulates that get sucked deep into the lungs, and ground-level ozone - a strongly irritant gas formed by the action of sunlight on reactive nitrogen.
The authors note that industries have typically resisted controls on nitrogen, but that the benefits of reducing its emissions far outweigh the costs.
Dr Sutton said: "This report is the first time anyone has brought together the whole suite of environmental and human health issues from nitrogen on a Continental scale.
"There have been and still are many attempts to control nitrogen but we believe the big challenge is to link existing policy areas and make them work together."
The study by 200 European experts says reactive nitrogen contributes to air pollution, fuels climate change
and is estimated to shorten the life of the average resident by six months. Livestock farming is one of the biggest causes of nitrogen pollution, it adds.
It calls for changes in farming and more controls on vehicles and industry.
The problem would be greatly helped if less meat was consumed, the report says.
Nitrogen is the most common element in the atmosphere and is harmless.
It is the reactive form - mainly produced by human activity - that causes a web of related problems.
The 600-page report relies on experts from 21 countries and 89 organisations. It estimates the annual cost of damage caused by nitrogen across Europe as being £55-£280bn.
Dr Sutton said nitrogen pollution was a serious issue not just in Europe but also N America, China and India.
Reactive nitrogen emissions from agriculture are the most intractable as they come from many diffuse sources.
The report says Europe needs nitrogen fertilisers for its own food security but blames many farmers for applying fertiliser carelessly to crops, so that excess nitrogen runs off to pollute water supplies.
Run-off from animal manure also fouls watercourses, and the release of nitrous oxides from uncovered dung heaps pollutes the air.
'Dominant driver'
Agriculture produces 70% of the nitrous oxide emissions in Europe.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
The big challenge is to link existing policy areas and make them work together”
End Quote
Mark Sutton
Report author
New rules reducing nitrogen emissions from farms are introduced next year, but there are questions over whether these will be strict enough or properly enforced.
The report says more careful application of fertiliser will benefit farmers by saving money. It will benefit the climate by avoiding the energy used to create the fertiliser.
Lead editor, Mark Sutton from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology near Edinburgh, told BBC News that 80% of the nitrogen in crops feeds livestock, not people.
"It's much more efficient to obtain protein by eating plants rather than animals," he said.
"If we want to help the problem we can all do something by eating less meat. Eating meat is the dominant driver of the nitrogen cycle in Europe."
The report says government efforts to control emissions of reactive nitrogen from combustion sources have been more successful.
In the 1980s nitrogen controls were placed on industrial plant and vehicles, This has led to a cut in emissions of 30%, despite an increase in traffic and economic activity.
But the traffic increase has slowed progress in reducing emissions further, and people in many areas still suffer from nitrogen-related air pollution, including small particulates that get sucked deep into the lungs, and ground-level ozone - a strongly irritant gas formed by the action of sunlight on reactive nitrogen.
The authors note that industries have typically resisted controls on nitrogen, but that the benefits of reducing its emissions far outweigh the costs.
Dr Sutton said: "This report is the first time anyone has brought together the whole suite of environmental and human health issues from nitrogen on a Continental scale.
"There have been and still are many attempts to control nitrogen but we believe the big challenge is to link existing policy areas and make them work together."
Prof Prolapse said:
It's referring to excessive use of Nitrogen based fertilisers and Nitrous Oxide emissions from agriculture.
Not atmospheric Nitrogen (N2) per se.
Facts eh? Ignorance and prejudice is much easier... Fun too, you get to pretend you're an authority because you read the paper!
basically it is utter bNot atmospheric Nitrogen (N2) per se.
Facts eh? Ignorance and prejudice is much easier... Fun too, you get to pretend you're an authority because you read the paper!
ks written by an idiot to scare other idiots who then vote for idiots as they promise to tax idiots to save the idiots from idiots 
thinfourth2 said:
Prof Prolapse said:
It's referring to excessive use of Nitrogen based fertilisers and Nitrous Oxide emissions from agriculture.
Not atmospheric Nitrogen (N2) per se.
Facts eh? Ignorance and prejudice is much easier... Fun too, you get to pretend you're an authority because you read the paper!
basically it is utter bNot atmospheric Nitrogen (N2) per se.
Facts eh? Ignorance and prejudice is much easier... Fun too, you get to pretend you're an authority because you read the paper!
ks written by an idiot to scare other idiots who then vote for idiots as they promise to tax idiots to save the idiots from idiots 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff