BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.

morstar

Do we not think a lot of meat is going to lab grown in the not too distant future?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-first-time

rick_chasey

morstar said:

Do we not think a lot of meat is going to lab grown in the not too distant future?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-first-time

Not read the article but I did read something on it elsewhere - apparently it's not very a pleasant texture if you want anything that isn't like a chicken nugget.

ddraver

morstar said:

Do we not think a lot of meat is going to lab grown in the not too distant future?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-first-time

When it gets cheap enough, I think so, yes. By which I mean cheap enough to be what McDonalds "burgers" are made of, or lidl chicken nuggets etc.

Then 'proper meat' will be for 'special occasions'...

pangolin

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Wasn't the land cleared to build ships quite a considerable time ago?
Sheep simply used the new free space.

I think we're muddling various continents here but no, most of it was cleared long before the British Navy was a thing. We were down to 50% of land area by 500BC and 15% by 1086. We're now back to 11%. Soy production for animal feed is a different issue.

I was referring purely to Britain and while my history may be hazy I am fairly sure most forests were felled for war supplies of one kind or another.
Curious as to the starting point to get down to 50%. Surely the planet was never 100% trees?

Can't find a definite source for this, people seem to think Britain was somewhere in the 60 - 80% range tops. Lowest level was around 5% circa WW1 which led to the national forestry commission being established. We're back up to 16% which is a 1000 year high.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.

Do you mean leave it as it is but also remove some of the sheep?

What's the argument for not also encouraging some tree growth?

elbowloh

Places like Knepp show how (relatively poor yielding) farmland can be required and still produce some highnl quality food, albeit not enough to not have to import. It's a nice place to visit too.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.

I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.

darkhairedlord

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.

I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.

I look forward to nailing some grass skirting boards onto the walls.

pblakeney

We are slowly coming to my pet theory.
The planet would be much, much better without humans. Not enticing though, is it?

rjsterry

pangolin said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.

Do you mean leave it as it is but also remove some of the sheep?

What's the argument for not also encouraging some tree growth?

They just need to be plants, not necessarily trees.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.

I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.

Not sure that disagrees with what I wrote.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.

I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.

Not sure that disagrees with what I wrote.

I wasn't sure a one year or less cycle of grass growth was a good enough reason to not farm animals. I was hoping for a better reason. So, I'm not disagreeing.

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

We are slowly coming to my pet theory.
The planet would be much, much better without humans. Not enticing though, is it?

You'd need to define "better".

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

We are slowly coming to my pet theory.
The planet would be much, much better without humans. Not enticing though, is it?

You'd need to define "better".

And better for what?

pblakeney

Better as in a sustainable planet instead of an industrial wasteland. Most plants and other creatures would benefit from a lack of humans. Not worth dwelling on though.

kingstongraham

Can someone explain the logic of this to me in simple to understand words?

https://www.ft.com/content/4d4bbf25-97c4-498d-9772-80c0b165f52e?segmentID=635a35f9-12b4-dbf5-9fe6-6b8e6ffb143e&twclid=11395687741900341252

"English farmers to be paid up to £100,000 to retire - Scheme aims to free up land for new entrants as part of a post-Brexit shift in subsidy system"

morstar

kingstongraham said:

Can someone explain the logic of this to me in simple to understand words?

https://www.ft.com/content/4d4bbf25-97c4-498d-9772-80c0b165f52e?segmentID=635a35f9-12b4-dbf5-9fe6-6b8e6ffb143e&twclid=11395687741900341252

"English farmers to be paid up to £100,000 to retire - Scheme aims to free up land for new entrants as part of a post-Brexit shift in subsidy system"

This is what I was referencing about policy direction.

In short, they need to replace CAP. But they don’t want something similar, they want a totally different direction.

They want to help older farmers who aren’t innovative and dependent on CAP to retire.

They want new blood to be land managers and not necessarily actually produce any food. This is the bit that is radical.

In short, we are saying that how land is managed can help prevent floods and enhance nature in lots of ways.

The logical conclusion is that we import even more food than now. Given that we are dependent on imports anyway, is this materially different. Not really I guess but is surprising to choose to wind down an industry.

tailwindhome

tailwindhome

I really am so very tired

tailwindhome

rick_chasey

Maybe I am confused here but with this australia trade deal are the remain and leave sides swapping arguments?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Maybe I am confused here but with this australia trade deal are the remain and leave sides swapping arguments?

I think there has been a paradigm shift leading to a crumbling of old allegiances that have been replaced by a split by age.

So you end up with ardent Brexiteers such as the ever young Hannan and the aged Gove now on opposing sides

morstar

FFS, it’s simple enough.

We want free trade with anywhere that isn’t Eu as long as it isn’t free and can’t compete with us.
We want cheaper pricing from a global market but want higher quality standards than anywhere else.
We want no bureaucracy that we didn’t create but our own bureaucracy will be fine as that doesn’t count.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Maybe I am confused here but with this australia trade deal are the remain and leave sides swapping arguments?

I think there has been a paradigm shift leading to a crumbling of old allegiances that have been replaced by a split by age.

skyblueamateur

tailwindhome said:

Go on Pootsy!!

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

FFS, it’s simple enough.

We want free trade with anywhere that isn’t Eu as long as it isn’t free and can’t compete with us.
We want cheaper pricing from a global market but want higher quality standards than anywhere else.
We want no bureaucracy that we didn’t create but our own bureaucracy will be fine as that doesn’t count.

Losers will always shout ten times louder than winners.

I am staggered that Boris (or anybody) has had the balls to go against the farming lobby.

Was amusing to read Eustice described as being "captured by the NFU"

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Maybe I am confused here but with this australia trade deal are the remain and leave sides swapping arguments?

I think there has been a paradigm shift leading to a crumbling of old allegiances that have been replaced by a split by age.

I am glad you liked that

Jezyboy

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.

I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.

Not sure that disagrees with what I wrote.

I wasn't sure a one year or less cycle of grass growth was a good enough reason to not farm animals. I was hoping for a better reason. So, I'm not disagreeing.

Grass takes Co2 out of the atmosphere and sheep convert it into protein for humans and methane. (OK that's a very rough way of putting it)

Methane much more potent a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, between 72 times more potent across 20 years to 34 times across 100 years.

I'm assuming the variability of its potency accounts for the methane cycle bit.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

This could be interesting: if, as non-EU citizens, Britons have to show proof of accommodation (and, by implication, second-home owners have to do the paperwork too for guests), this could, potentially, change the face of holidays in France for many. No more unplanned & improvised itineraries, if this turns out to be the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/20/uk-travellers-to-france-may-be-asked-proof-of-accommodation-as-part-of-post-brexit-changes

Declaring an interest - as far as I can tell, for myself all I'd need to do would be to prove I had a property to go to, but hosting guests could be a bureaucratic nightmare.

This is a common feature for some countries in order to get a visa. Typical work around involves booking somewhere that is refundable. Or just paying someone to provide a booking.

It's much like entry cards for countries where it asks for an address. Always just give the name of a hotel out of a guidebook. Leaving it blank won't be accepted, explaining you don't know where you will be staying won't be accepted and writing an actual address will just attract attention. Sometimes you need to make life easy for immigration officers.

I wasn't paying attention once for a Chinese visa and declared I was going to Xinjiang (this was before the recent issues). The guy at the visa processing centre asked why and pointed out it would need to go to the special applications process. So I corrected my mistake, declared Beijing and he filed it in the normal visa section. Everyone was happy including the immigration offical in Xinjiang.

I'm hoping that's the case. I might also look into setting up an AirBnB listing if that could provide a workaround. But all a right PITA in comparison with the freedom we had before.

You might find that opens up a rabbit hole of bureaucracy, but otherwise it might work.

It's obviously far more cumbersome than before, and unfortunately it is rare for reason to come into the visa process*, so I'd imagine the hassle could remain a while.

*People have been moaning about the 90 day rule for years, but the Schengen area is content to prevent long term tourists even with evidence of money.

Yeah, I'd have to check the bureaucracy side (not least insurance and safety checks/certification), for sure, as I'd not want to go from the frying pan into the fire. On the other hand, if it would work, it would give me the excuse to use the Stanley Johnson exemption (travelling abroad to prepare a property for letting), should I need it.