Soil carbon report

[John Walker]

By way of a 'PS' to my article 'Ahead of the carbon curve' (KG, Dec 09), and as a follow-on from the links to the further information I gave in the thread 'Facts or Feelings.', forum members interested in exploring this further might like to have a look at a new report on soil carbon which has just been published by the Soil Association.

"New research from the Soil Association reveals that if all UK farmland was converted to organic farming, at least 3.2 million tonnes of carbon would be taken up by the soil each year - the equivalent of taking nearly 1 million cars off the road."

Although the report focuses on the agriculture sector, there are clearly (as my article sought to explore) implications for us as gardeners in rethinking our approach to garden soil care in order to make a contribution to help mitigate climate change.

The report is available in PDF form, both as a summary and as the full report. Both are extensively referenced toward the back. The summary is more digestible.

http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorgan ... fault.aspx

[Cider Boys]

If climate change is such a great threat to our world then I am grateful that research is being done to combat any of the causes of it.

Also, if this Government is as serious as it proclaims about global warming then why does it not try to limit our ever increasing population due to immigration?

Knickers in a twist

Barney

[Mike Vogel]

Limiting immigration would not affect the population globally - just preventing some of it spreading over our 1% of the world. What is needed is a worldwide ban on producing more than a certain number of children per adult and totalitarian actions like compulsory sterilisation of men and women who have been responsible for reaching that certain number. The one action which would have an immediate effect is to cull 30% of the human race - i.e. one billion Chinese, 100 million Americans, rather more Indians and 20 million here in the UK. Who would do that? Not me. The amount of carbon and methane produced every time we breathe out and fart must be tremendous.

Or let's just eliminate termites. I gather they produce more emissions than we do. More politically acceptable, though the animal rights lobby will make a fuss.

[Cider Boys]

You are quite correct that limiting immigration would have little effect on the world's population. However allowing mass migation from developing countries to developed ones like ours does also increase the effect on climate change as the immigrants change their aspirations (rightly so) and live as we do.

If you accept the mantra that climate change is man made then this must be a contributing, if unpallatable fact.

Barney

[alan refail]

The latest figures for net migration into the UK show a figure of 163,000 for 2008. In other words, fairly negligible in terms of the total UK population. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mignr1109.pdf

To bring immigration into the discussion is at best a total red herring, and at worst is creating a political scapegoat of other human beings.

I am happy to accept scientific evidence of climate change and am inclined to think it very likely that the rapid industrialisation of the past century and the massive increase in the world's population has had an impact on the situation. It is also pointless to deny that the planet's finite resources will at some point run out. We in the western world have just lived through the best of times. But I do not imagine it will go on for ever. The great majority of the world's population have yet to enjoy(?) what we have taken for granted, and maybe never will.

Whatever changes need to be made to reverse climate change and minimise the exploitation of limited resources should be welcomed and encouraged. However, in pessimistic mood, I am sure that in the not too distant future the irresistible, historic forces of conflict and famine will kick in to redress the balance. Humans are, after all, a primitive species existing in a hostile world.

I am well aware that I shall not be here to see this, but my grandchildren and their granchildren will. And I'm sure I will die with that regret.

[Cider Boys]

You may think the projected increase in our population due to immigration is negligible, I beg to differ. I think the official figures indicate we are on course for 70 milion by 2029.

It is NOT the fault of the people that are encouraged into an already over crowded country, I would no doubt do the same if in their position.

It is nothing to do with scapegoats either, it is the likes of irresponsible politicians and their supporters that do not believe in joined up thinking that are to blame.

If global warming is man made then adding to it with no control seems a little stupid.

http://www.cis.org/GreenhouseGasEmissions

Barney

[alan refail]

Just a footnote.

The Center for Immigration Studies is not a scientific research body; it is a right-wing "think tank"/"pressure group". As such, its views seem similar to those of the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and other UK groups (political and otherwise) that seek to place the blame for our problems on "immigrants". I put the word in inverted commas as they rarely define what they mean by it: people trying to enter the country, people who have entered recently, people who have entered many years ago, or, for that matter the children and grandchildren of those who have been here for generations.

[Nature's Babe]

With you 100% on this. As governments are not taking responsibility it is up to us to take individual responsibility for the sake of our children, and we can sequester carbon in our gardens as well as farming. With the heavy rains we have been getting and possible droughts in summer too, i have been using these methods in which plants survive both flood and drought better


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 864235132#

[Cider Boys]

Off course, as usual, some try to sweep it all under the carpet.

It is not anything about blaming immigrants, the facts are, using official figures, that unless immigration is curbed we are set to soon hit 70 million by 2029.

Now you can't have it both ways, if populations, especially in the West are to blame for climate change, then present immigration numbers are only going to make things far worse.

It is also nothing to do with right wing think tanks, Daily Mails nor Daily Expresses; facts are facts. Or are you saying that increasing populations have no impact on Global Warming?

There have been many other studies that have reached the same conclusion that immigration from under developed parts of the world to developed countries has a detrimental effect on climate change.

This may be uncomfortable for the liberal left that have always told us how beneficial immigration is, but if climate change has to be tackled then we must address the facts not swept unpallatable facts under the carpet.

Barney

[Tony Hague]

You are quite correct that limiting immigration would have little effect on the world's population. However allowing mass migation from developing countries to developed ones like ours does also increase the effect on climate change as the immigrants change their aspirations (rightly so) and live as we do.

This brings up some really ugly notions. The UK produces 2% of world CO2 emissions, although it amounts to only 1% of global population. In other words, we are emitting twice our share. So are people from developing or third world contries somehow lesser beings that must be kept out because they don't deserve the lifestyle we have ?

Or perhaps we should just point our fingers at China for their rapid industrialisation, ignoring the fact that so much of their pollution is generated whilst manufacturing tat for the west.

At least John's thoughts are (a) positive and (b) relevant to gardening.

[John Walker]

I must confess to be being ambivalent on the population debate. I am trying to learn more about it. These things are never as clear cut as they might seem. One article I read recently, by George Monbiot, which really got me thinking, can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... super-rich

I must confess I'm not exactly sure how we got from the potential for soil to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to a debate on population/immigration...

[peter]

That John, is the beauty of a forum.

In all seriousness if the world population was down at the level it was in say 1909 or even 1809 then the affluent "western" (or euro-american) lifestyle might just be feasible without wrecking the planet or ending up introducing compulsory birth-control (as practised in China).

Work out how much food a human needs to survive for a year, alternatively and more realistically, work out how much food you personally consume in a year, call this a Human-Food-Unit.(HFU)

Take the ability in one calendar year of the available cultivatable and grrazable land across the planet to produce the various foods and calculate how many HFUs can be produced.
Divide that by the current population of the world.

Key assumptions to make.
Land with a slope of greater than 1 in 5 is not cultivatable.
Mountains, Deserts, Swamps, Permafrost are not cultivatable, though the latter may support reindeer.
Not all land that passes the above will be able to produce arable crops or sustain grazing.
That you wish to cohabit with the wonderfully diverse fauna and flora that we (still) have left in their natural environment and have set aside sufficient reserves for these to maintain a viable population.

Now get a graph of human population growth and mark on it the year at which our population (planetwide) will exceed the planets ability to feed it.

Forget about including oceanic resources such as fish as it just gets too complicated to work out, I'm sure they would prolong the crossing of the lines on the graph, but they will cross eventually.

Go back to your calculations and set the diet at survival rations, think UK Second World War rationing, with minimum variety (e.g. no silly extravagant flavours like truffles and spices), mark that point on the graph.

Repeat the process after deleting all other life forms other than those we eat and using their biospace to grow human food.

Think about clean potable water, that's another issue, what happens when the flora that helps filter it, helps produce rain clouds is gone?

Can we change global mindsets towards responsible numbers of offspring without bringing even more discord, given that various groups of humanity have viewpoints which oppose or disregard population control.
That is do things in a civilised and democratic way.
Oh I do hope we or our children can, or its a bleak outlook for our grandchildren.

The alternatives that spring to mind are dreadful, the 1984 scenario with the "strong-men" taking over and humanity ends up either back in tribalism fighting for territory and resources, or the elite live in luxury while the proles get subsistance.

Can't remember the name but I read a science-fiction short story where the curator of the last zoo on earth had to euthanise the sparrows, worms and grass that constituted the last non-productive species left on earth so that two more humans could be brought into existance.......

Bleak prospect for the long term isn't it?

[Geoff]

Don't forget to watch Horizon tomorrow, Wednesday 9th.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pdjmk