Possible 90% REDUCTION in CO2 emmissions by 2035?

You sound upset, maybe we could return to this at a different time.

 

You sound like you're becoming very emotionally involved here. Granted that emotions provide motivation, at the same time for us to communicate we need to rise above our fervor and deal w/ reality in a manner where we can converse..

 

--and for now that's how it's going, and truth be told, as things are I can still live w/ it all.

We might want this same sense of acceptance of the majority rule when the majority votes in the other faction. Question: were you as much in favor of majority rule 4 years ago?

 

Oh it works very well in Europe where the EU Government is taking the freedoms of those citizens. The battles that Dutch farmers have had with the socialist climate change bureaucracy is one recent example.

It doesn’t work so well in Asia where the Chinese pay lip service to climate change while they build more coal fired plants. The western socialists have also continued to classify the Chinese economy as “developing” which allows them to continue to be the largest emitter of CO2 in the world.

 

My position remains the same as it has always been, individual RIGHTS always override the TYRANNY of the majority that seeks to DEPRIVE We the People of our Rights.

If it does NOT involve RIGHTS then yes, majority rule applies.

Once upon a time we had GENUINE Conservatives who UNDERSTOOD that what was best for the NATION as a WHOLE always OVERRIDES partisan political agendas.

They have become an Endangered Species.*

That is unfortunate because they acted like a pressure valve on Liberal enthusiasm and introduced reality into funding programs.

What we have now is a RABID rabble of batshitcrazy ignorant cultists who have OVERWHELMED what was once a respectable political organization.

They HAVE a MAJORITY in the House!

What have they ACCOMPLISHED?

If a Do-Nothing Congress only passed 70 bills a year what do you call one that only passed 20 bills in a year?

The term BrainDead Congress springs to mind.



*That Endangered Species, covering 5 Republican Administrations, apparently just filed an Amicus Brief AGAINST The Traitor-in-Chief's assertion that he has "absolute immunity". They won't be voting for him either.

 

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? I don't think it was claimed that precision fermentation is currently cheaper than animal-based protein, but that it soon will be, and when that happens, the market will move towards the cheaper alternative.

You raise a good point, though. For market disruption to occur, the new product does not have to be just cheaper than the old one, it has to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper, by a factor of 2-3. This is because the old product (animal based meat in this case) has the advantage of entrenched interests and infrastructure, and those interests will do anything to prevent the market disruption. That's the disadvantage that alternative energy has to overcome. It is only a matter of time, but we, as a society, have a choice: Do we stay with the old or do we embrace the new. This choice may as well determine whether or not the US will be competitive in future energy markets

 

Wrong Sorry you don't understand how the game is played. The Democrat Party leadership are the rich and very rich. It had been that way since WWII and was cemented in Iron with the Election of Ronald Reagan when almost all of the Country Club Republicans, fled to the Democratic party. Almost all the billionaires are Democrats these days. Many can't wait to get this green crap rolling because they are positioned to milk it for every last dollar and more than a bit of power. By the way what are people with Ciliacs disease supposed to eat? Since they can't process gluten.

 

FTR I have the NAYSAYING member you responded to in Cyberia.

First off FERMENTATION is natural and we have been using it for MILLENNIA. It makes beer, FFS!

PRECISION Fermentation is just taking that to the next level where fermentation is now REDIRECTED to produce PROTEINS.

Easy to say, not as easy to commercialize however this part of the Paradigm Shift began 3 DECADES ago.

https://turtletree.com/precision-fermentation-perfected-fermentation-101/

The CONCEPT of Precision Fermentation COMMERCIAL use has been in place for 30+ years. Odds are the member has probably eaten some of that cheese over that time period. ALL of us have probably eaten it by now.

https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-fermentation/

This is an EMERGING technology that it getting FUNDING because the POTENTIAL here is MASSIVE, way more than the 2-3 times you mentioned. That is why Tony Seba mentioned it as a game changer.

All DISRUPTIVE technology has FALLOUT. This will not be an exception to that rule.

Agriculture has CHANGED multiple times in the last two centuries so this is NOTHING NEW to this sector. Think back to the technological INNOVATION of the Cotton Gin and how that massively REDUCED the need for slaves to separate the cotton from the seeds by hand. Every slave owner wanted a cotton gin because it meant fewer slaves to house and feed for the same amount of cotton produced. Their own SELF INTEREST caused that technology to thrive.

Factory farming is another agricultural technological innovation, albeit a BAD ONE, but still DRIVEN by exactly the same self interests.

NONE of US need to lift a finger to help Commercial Precision Fermentation succeed. It has already PROVEN that is it both VIABLE and PROFITABLE. The corporations will follow the money and adopt the technology because that is in their own best Self Interests.

No amount of naysaying is going to put the fermentation genie back in her bottle now.

 

That's right. It's what the term "predicting" means...

 

I think the cotton gin increased the need for slaves because more were needed to pick the cotton to feed the faster production brought about by the gin.

 

My understanding was that the excess slaves that were separating the cotton where sent back into the fields to pick more cotton thus reducing the harvest time. More slaves might have meant more land could be farmed with cotton.

Either way it transformed that part of the slave exploitation that was occurring in the South.

 

I wonder whether the anti-AGW crowd has really thought this through.

If the cattle are not slaughtered for beef, they will live and emit more greenhouse gases. Not only that, since they would not be slaughtered for beef, they will multiply and create even more greenhouse gases. The alternative appears to be kill all the cattle so that we now have another extinct species or do we intend to waste energy and manpower sterilizing the major portion of the beef cattle.

 

Where did you get the idea that cattle would not be slaughtered for beef?

Weird...

 

I am responding to what PF members post. “Did the OP watch the video” would be a more appropriate question? Is the OP false claim from lack of watching or is it intentional disinformation meant to mislead PF members?

Yes, you are right on about market disruption. It’s exactly like the energy sector (in fact market disruption in the ag sector really is all about energy). Current commercial agriculture is centered on traditional forms of energy. One example being nitrogen fertilizers that are primarily fossil fuel based.

They (seed companies and soil amendment companies) have been telling us nitrogen fixation by non legume commodity crops is imminent for decades now. Yet I’m still purchasing urea and 32-0-0 to fertilize my corn crop. It’s not because we CAN’T engineer microbes to fix nitrogen for corn.

Animal agriculture, especially beef production, is even more complicated when it comes to market disruption. In previous posts I’ve shown how soil organic matter/carbon sequestration is maximized under grazing ecosystems. The analysis done by companies looking for investors to build $600 M facilities aren’t accounting for carbon (and nitrogenous pollution) management currently supplied by grazing systems.

Then you have the problem of completely destroying local, regional and state economies that depend on grazing systems and dairy production. You would destroy the economy as well as the best soil carbon management system nature has ever devised.

And what about national security? What are the implications of having one or two sources of fungal genetics and all production being in a few thousand large fermenters instead of food production being spread over the entire country? What about the greenies that have been pushing local production from ethical organic producers? Are they really going to accept a vertically integrated product made from natural gas? Maybe. Are all the progressives that claim to oppose monopolies going to accept “animal protein” from a highly concentrated monopolistic industry. Maybe. People don’t really have principles I guess.

I predicted big screen TVs would get cheaper 10 years ago. But I’m not out advocating for people to buy and watch more TV because that prediction was correct. When it comes to fermentation, my industry has been predicting cellulosic ethanol would be cheaper for consumers than other fuels by now. But unfortunately biological processes are not governed by the same “laws” as non biological technology.

I went and watched the video. I think the guy predicted parity or cheaper fermentation proteins by 2025. The problem is no scaled production facility even exists and it’s about as close to 2024 as one can get.

As I said before I’m not opposed to precision fermentation. I’m a vegetarian and consume some meat alternatives myself. I raise beef as well. But I’m not concerned about disruption from fermentation. I have formulated options to deal with disruption. So my arguments aren’t based on personal biases from that end either. In fact, I’ve been advocating for changes to production ag on PF all along.

It’s just that elimination of bovine based agriculture is anti science from several perspectives. These folks don’t understand the thing they wish to destroy. They maybe don’t know enough to account for the carbon and nitrogen management aspects of large ruminants in ecosystems. I hope it’s that and not intentional destruction of ecosystems they want.

Hope your holidays are going as planned my friend.

 

I believe I have come up with a solution to this perplexing problem. We should slaughter those cattle for food. By doing so, we control the population of beef cattle and we are not required to spend time and energy manufacturing protein rich food.

 

Then why are they wasting time and money creating alternatives?

 

LOL.

The OP made a direct claim that is patently FALSE. You echoed that false claim.

Either you guys didn’t watch the video or you are both intentionally misrepresenting the video.

 

They can’t think it through because they know little of the underlying science. And what they think they know simply isn’t true. They are now on record misrepresenting what the OP video actually says. These people are neither educated or trustworthy.

 

It appears the EV market might be drying up. My guess is some people bought them thinking they're saving the planet while others want to stick with what's reliable and that is ICE cars.

It's a hard sell for EV dealers and alarmist politicians when they tool around in limos and private jets all while asking the little guy to pay for something that really is not attractive to a lot of people because EVs have so many drawbacks and limitations.

 

Naysayer? I’m the only one here who has working knowledge of the technology. I’m the only only here with a working knowledge of grazing systems and animal agriculture.

I’m simply pointing out FACTS that conflict with your FALSE claims. The claims in your OP are patently false.

You probably have me on ignore because you can’t deal with actual facts and science based content. You prefer emotional ranting to peer reviewed studies like I’ve presented here to combat your disinformation and misinformation.

Oh, I have some rennet produced through fermentation in my refrigerator. I use it to make cheese from milk I produce.

 

Correct. They see the conspiracy theory in all things. Or make it up.
MAGA adores the one who said he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th ave and he'd not lose and members of that cult.

 

Because cow meat is going to be very expensive. Read the OP, for heaven's sake!

Everything is being done so people don't have to change a single thing. In fact, everything is being done so that combating climate change will actually be a benefit to the people. But it's clueless people who are holding us back. And one way to know who these people are is to take note who responds to a thread negatively when they haven't even bothered to find out what is being discussed. THOSE are the TRUE problem.

 

Based on your 1st paragraph, the entirety of gov't is the swamp.
The system is the swamp. And to fix the swamp, one would have to end the system that is in place today.

News for you, trump won't drain the swamp. He made his fortunes, paying into that swamp. He only enriched his status by using the swamp to further his monetary interests.

If you want to start draining the swamp, you'd want to employ what many of us have been asking for, for decades. Get the bribe money out of campaigns.
I can tell you from the past, it's mostly the RW that fights any attempt to reign in campaign donations. And in fact, have made it easier for bribes to be hidden.
So, to drain the swamp, it has to start with the money. Something the RW has been very much against and has made it easier to donate anonymously.
So it rings hollow in my ears when I hear this draining the swamp BS. Money is NOT free speech. It is a medium of exchange for goods and services. IOW, it purchases things.

 

Nowhere does it say that "cow meat" is going to become very expensive. And that does nothing to negate my original statement.

 

I have echoed nothing. I addressed the prediction (i.e. something that doesn't exist, but can exist in the future).

I don't know what the state of this technology you mention is right now. But given your "batting record", the fact that YOU say something is false kinda renders it more credible. Past experience with your claims tend to point us in the opposite direction. Not relevant enough to warrant researching at this point, though. My point is that NOBODY is demanding any change of diet, like the poster I responded to claims. Such change WILL exist as climate change renders some food items more and more expensive and difficult to obtain. But research is geared towards avoiding any "inconvenience", even to science deniers, as a result to avoid ongoing consequences as a result of Climate Change.

In our country, the struggle to deal with climate change can be more an opportunity, rather than a burden, like the Oil Industry and certain specific interest groups has brainwashed part of the population to believe.