the village idiot

It's pretty complicated though. Much of the problem with cows is due to the large swathes of land deforested to produce grazing. From a CO2 perspective it would be better if they were tightly packed into sheds and not grazed. We obviously don't want to go there though. Upland Sheep grazing is also a bit of an environmental disaster area. Meat is just a big problem full stop.

Chicken and Pork have a much lower carbon footprint. Beef is off the charts.

That's a really good question, and the honest answer is I don't know. I think we might well need something like that to effectively solve the really big problems, but how you would get to it and made sure it kept to a moral agenda, I see no way.

I think flying only accounts for around 12% of CO2 emissions (could be wrong). Agriculture is a big one, especially beef production. I'll see if I can find a proper breakdown.

I would suggest you're probably not Greenpeace material.? Not judging, just saying, but one flight for one passenger is equivalent to 8 months of driving a car in terms of CO2 release.

Doing some, but should be doing a lot more. I don't own a home I chose not to have children I don't fly I changed job to manage woodland. I still eat meat, which is a big minus in my column.

Sulphur dioxide is a funny one because sulphur can actually mitigate global temperature rise by reflecting the sun's rays. This is why pumping sulphur into the atmosphere is one of the strategies being looked at. Volcanic activity has caused mass extinctions in the past. The problem at the moment is the extra CO2 that human activity is adding to the atmosphere on top of natural processes. We have only been around for a blink of an eye in Earth time and we are on the verge of wrecking it. Even more disturbing is that we know we are doing it and how to stop it but we're not doing it! We are a very strange species.

Nice one! Trees release their stored carbon back into the atmosphere when they die and break down/are burned, so we'd have to be shit hot on management/replanting. Could help replace some of the jobs lost to automation? If more wood meant that less coal and oil were taken out of the ground this would help greatly too.

The psychology of this is really interesting. It was partly why I started the thread, to see what the feeling was amongst us wood chuckers. Given the all encompassing nature of the problem it is a bit odd (like the girl said in Beau's video) that the world isn't talking about it all the time. Is it too bad to contemplate? Are the worst effects too far in the future? Are the sacrifices we would have to make a deal breaker? Have we gone too far down the road of dismissing expert opinion when we don't like the findings? Is an existential crisis more than our brains are evolved to handle? Is there not enough info out there? Is it out of our hands? The fact that it would be political suicide to demand the necessary changes is certainly a huge stumbling block to action, especially as we will generally vote in leaders who promise to enable us to do more, not less. Someone was suggesting that it is futile to argue over Brexit when we have much bigger fish to fry, but I think it is still relevant. Nations having more autonomy will almost certainly make global action much more difficult. Just thinking aloud. Feel free to rip me to pieces!

I like your optimism? I think it's pretty unlikely we'll reach that level of advancement if we don't curb CO2. Too busy fighting over resources. Plus it does nothing for the billions left to suffer. It will be a miracle if we ever get humans out of our own solar system, let alone into the next planetary system. Other galaxies? Forget it. The distances are mind meltingly collosal.

I doubt it, the nearest Earth like planet is at least 80,000 years travelling time away.

Have you looked this guy up Hairychest? It would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

Interesting reading tree-fancier. Last I heard, to reduce atmospheric CO2 enough using the carbon capture machines would cost 3 times the total wealth of the entire planet. If the cost has come down radically you can see them being part of a solution. The Sulphur in the atmosphere idea is vastly cheaper, but risky. We would not be reducing atmospheric Co2, just building it up to ever greater levels, so if the Sulphur pumping ever went offline for any reason we would be toast. Will be very interesting to see the UNEP report when it surfaces.

This lady is from the 'Friends of Science Society' This is a very small group of commentators who receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, primarily oil.

Just checked the VAR Mark. Fat Tony had stalled to scratch his arse crack. The apex of his gut curve played the fella on. Marginal decision though.

I presume you don't really mean "scientologists".?

This is why good science is so important. It is the only tool we have to tell us objectively what is occurring in the World, without personal bias. The utterly overwhelming scientific consensus, from people who actually know what they are talking about, is that we are in very deep doo doo. The circulating idea that all climate scientists are collaborating in some sort of mass conspiracy is just crazy talk. We would be tragically foolish to reject the findings from the people using the best methods we have to find things out. Is the scientific consensus ever wrong? Yes, but extremely rarely, and even less so as time goes on. The stakes are way way way too high to not back the favourite on this one. It would be akin to betting your descendents lives on the 'other horse' in a one horse race.

Refreshing to see the Alpha Male AGM passing off without incident again.

Yes, and yes. We have prioritised Ash heavy areas for felling but within the structure of our 10 year management plan. We don't yet know if all the unhealthy trees will definitely die, so to take them all out would be premature (not to mention totally impractical as there are only two of us.) The Wood is primarily managed for biodiversity, so standing and fallen deadwood is good. We do have to maintain a balance though between maximising ecology and sustaining financial viability. No restrictions on moving Ash timber out of the Wood. As you quite rightly point out, this would be futile.

? Is that as in 'create ures'? Yes, that wouldn't fit my profile.

The dieback or the Woodland?

Mainland Europe not good. Not sure about the rest of the World. There are a few different varieties of Ash. Others will know a lot more about it than me.

Don't worry! The Woodland will be fine. Just no Ash.

Yes, there is bound to be some resilience at least, if not resistance. Last I heard it was estimated to be somewhere between 10% and 0.1% nationwide. Time will tell.

Not to my knowledge. It is pretty devastating though. I manage a 200 acre ancient Woodland which is predominantly Ash. I haven't seen a healthy Ash tree in the past 2 years.