quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Nope! No such thing

And to prove my point I’ll be at Fogo de Chao tonight getting the meat sweats celebrating our 11th wedding anniversary.

Very happy anniversary!!!

I agree, I will happily trade years my life for prime rib or a perfectly cooked ribeye once a week.

Moo-moo-moo!

Nope! Not possible to eat too much beef. Like the commercial said, Beef - it’s what’s for dinner!

To paraphrase my daughter, “Too much beef?” No, that is not a thing.

I consume a lot more pig than cow, what with, for example, 80/20 ground beef @ 5.70/lb., or a ¼-lb. Wendy's single costing $5.99.

quote:

Research has shown that beef production, which goes hand in hand with deforestation to create grazing land for cows, is responsible for over 4.2bn metric tons of global carbon emissions.

Standard liberal talking point. Always based on cutting down the trees and raising cattle in a feedlot (i.e. high density, no grass, and typically grain fed).

If the trees are cut down and replaced with pasture, research shows that pasture actually sequesters more carbon that forest. If the cattle are rotationally pasture raised, their ruminant system actually fertilizes the land making the pasture grow better and sequester even more carbon.

The reason pasture sequesters more carbon than forest is the grass mostly stores it in the roots but trees mostly store it in leaves and woody material. If the tree is cut down or burnt down then most of the carbon is gone. If grass is cut down or burnt down the roots are still there.

The other reason pasture sequesters more carbon than forest is the environmentalists have prevented proper forest management. Poorly managed forest has almost no sunlight reaching the ground so it's just a mat of leaves/needles, and the trees are tall & skinny with not many leaves for photosynthesis to start the carbon cycle.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Research has shown that beef production, which goes hand in hand with deforestation to create grazing land for cows, is responsible for over 4.2bn metric tons of global carbon emissions.

Standard liberal talking point. Always based on cutting down the trees and raising cattle in a feedlot (i.e. high density, no grass, and typically grain fed).

If the trees are cut down and replaced with pasture, research shows that pasture actually sequesters more carbon that forest. If the cattle are rotationally pasture raised, their ruminant system actually fertilizes the land making the pasture grow better and sequester even more carbon.

The reason pasture sequesters more carbon than forest is the grass mostly stores it in the roots but trees mostly store it in leaves and woody material. If the tree is cut down or burnt down then most of the carbon is gone. If grass is cut down or burnt down the roots are still there.

The other reason pasture sequesters more carbon than forest is the environmentalists have prevented proper forest management. Poorly managed forest has almost no sunlight reaching the ground so it's just a mat of leaves/needles, and the trees are tall & skinny with not many leaves for photosynthesis to start the carbon cycle.

so,

found out not long ago that farmers can sell carbon credits for crops and forest land , etc,

so, if Farmer Ted can sell the carbon credits for the 100 acres of pasture, and he decides to grow cattle on that same pasture, is he a net neutral farmer?


yes, a serious question, and yes, I know it is fucking stupid,

but that is how the Gov't is working this climate change and carbon crap, I have met farmers that have been thinking of selling the credits for both timber planted and fields planted,,,

and since cows fart,, is that measured and can they offset it with the pasture the farting cows are consuming,,


meanwhile,

unless UK beef has improved, I don't see it doing well here, at least not on the grill or table,


we tried some in the UK back in 2008 and it was sub par compared to US Beef (and just as a disclaimer, I was a meat guy for 19 yrs, grocery biz for 35 yrs) and had a customer that was an English Ex Pat and would buy a whole ribeye, freeze it, and then take it as his carry one back to the UK to see his kids, since he said all UK beef sucked

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
so,

found out not long ago that farmers can sell carbon credits for crops and forest land , etc,

so, if Farmer Ted can sell the carbon credits for the 100 acres of pasture, and he decides to grow cattle on that same pasture, is he a net neutral farmer?


yes, a serious question, and yes, I know it is fucking stupid,

but that is how the Gov't is working this climate change and carbon crap, I have met farmers that have been thinking of selling the credits for both timber planted and fields planted,,,

and since cows fart,, is that measured and can they offset it with the pasture the farting cows are consuming,,

US system hasn't been created yet so none of your questions can be answered.

Speculation is a cap and trade system where there is a US limit for amount of greenhouse gases that will allow to be released into the atmosphere:

producers/emitters (power plants, refineries, etc) that go over their individual allotment have to buy credits and ones that go under their individual allotment can sell.

farmers and land owners should be able to sell carbon credit based on their land size and type. It's a tax issue (i.e. gov't makes money on it) so I'd anticipate gov't audit to look for cheaters. For example, I've recently seen article from another country where faux land (i.e. only existed in electrons) was being traded.

it'll have a layer of inefficiency as there will be middle men. Hopefully the middle men are just the trading market and not a whole bunch of layers between the landowner and the trading platform, and between the producer and the trading platform.

it'll have a layer of inefficiency as the gov't will be involved. We all know they'll go way beyond their legitimate purpose (i.e. allotment for producer, amount of offset for landowner, audit, etc.) with hordes of people doing nothing and then they'll redistribute the wealth to pet causes.

hopefully the trading platform only allows actual producers and people with physical locations to sequester the carbon. It'll just further fuck over US citizens if speculators (i.e. don't physically own/lease the land or physically produce CO2) are allowed on the trading platform to make carbon credits have wild roller coaster prices.

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

What this is saying is that it's OK to produce as much carbon emissions as ever as long as tax is paid on it. I thought the goal was to actually reduce the emissions.

I raise beef cattle. I eat a LOT of beef.
I plan to cheep doing both.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
What this is saying is that it's OK to produce as much carbon emissions as ever as long as tax is paid on it. I thought the goal was to actually reduce the emissions.

Yes and No. It's not the real problem either. The real problem with all of this is the 1st world will likely spend trillions upon trillions on this, but the 3rd world will now have an even bigger cost advantage and puke out emissions like 100 years ago. The other problem is population is predicted to increase by 2 billion between now and 2050 and largely in the 3rd world.

Back to the yes and no about cap and trade being all about the taxes:
Yes - I don't see any way the gov't sets this up without them taxing it. The stated goal is to incentivize "good green house gas behavior" with a combination of taxes, tax incentives, and a carbon credit trading market. However, we all know the first rule of politics is the item actually being discussed is power and the topic is just smoke and mirrors to mask the power struggle. There is a monumental power struggle going on here with generational implications.

No - It will depend on what the US limit for amount of greenhouse gases that will allowed to be released into the atmosphere. More importantly is the trajectory they decrease emissions annually between now and something like Net Zero by 2050. For example:

If it takes 3 years to do an EIS and get through the permitting process it'd be hardly fair to pass legislation that started tomorrow instead of 3 years from now.

Instead of decreasing annually maybe it's a series of ratcheting decreases where it stays at the same level for several years before decreasing again.

A lot will also depend on technology development. If you ignore the asshats (e.g. politicians and media), the serious thinkers make a solid case that today's slate of technology is insufficient even if the amount of it was expanded exponentially. If the US goal was Net Zero by 2050 then new technologies will be needed and once again there is a time component to that.

Here is an example of a potential decrease that cap and trade could cause. One of the longstanding maintenance practices in oil & gas is to flare gaseous hydrocarbons at the start of maintenance. Right now, as long as you can permit it, you can flare it. If you had to buy carbon credits to flare it then it could force people to be creative such as adding a storage sphere in facility design to be able to store the hydrocarbons rather than flare. Items like this would change emissions, but the cost of the storage sphere would be passed along to the consumer.

Speaking of the consumer, with a cap and trade system I think consumer costs will have to increase as emissions decrease due to the taxes, the research, and the amount of infrastructure investment.

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

I find the basic question to be blasphemous!!!

I try not to eat anything for dinner that my dinner eats for dinner.

I mostly eat chicken and fish now, but I’ll get some moo every now and then.

With all of the progressive touting their vegan/anti-cattle industry schtuff, I’d think the OP’s question wouldn’t have been asked in this day and time. I actually like fish and chicken better, but it has nothing to do with politics…just health and taste.

I don’t understand the question.

quote:

From the article posted by GrumpyMCO:
One of the biggest drivers of the climate crisis, accounting for a third of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions, is food production, with meat – particularly beef – at the top of the list.

Fucking nonsense, just like carbon emissions and global warming.

I'm simply mad for British beef.

>>> MOO <<<