studentsofclimate-blog

[studentsofclimate-blog]

WE CLOSE OUR BLOG - - - CONCLUSION

As we can see it through our articles and experiences, there is no perfect solution to the question, but things have to change. It is sure efforts have to be made and will be difficult in terms of money as in terms of changing habits. Surely the price of meat will rise,and we will no longer be able to produce so much meat, but maybe a little bit less meat for everyone wouldn't be a problem even if we need proteins. Surely also some farmers would have to find another way to work and the money to pay a new infrastructure. Some people stand for a world with intensive meat production and the help of new technologies to reduce the greenhouse gases. But those technologies are they optimal enough? And which of those two solutions would cost the less for the states? Indeed building methanizers for example costs a lot. We let you make your point on what the best solution would be for yourself. But for sure, if we want to stop global warming, the policy has to change.

Manon Badouix, Sarah Dalisson, Olivier Opitz, Claire Pflügerand Gravina Soumboud

[studentsofclimate-blog]

Hey, just one last post on the water footprint to give you some examples, ain't it incedible how much water we need to produce all the gods weare consuming every day? 

Olivier Opitz, Cologne, Germany

[studentsofclimate-blog]

The real benefits of this new industry

By Gravina Soumboud, Brasilia, Brazil

The idea is to combine increased economic and ecological efficiency by limiting losses and defects related to poor management of the herd, which requires a kind of industrialization of meat production.

Facing the GHG problem, a solution seems obvious: increase production per animal. Indeed, the main source of GHG emissions in the production system is the animal itself, "Enteric fermentation accounts for 52% of total emissions," we must make it as productive as possible. In this context, would intensify production per cow produce more using less surface and therefore more inputs. This intensification of production has already been tried in the United States for example, but also in some countries of northern Europe (for example Denmark) at other scales.

Thus the concentration of cows in confined spaces saves space (which is interesting in countries like Denmark, where the price of land is high). Another aspect of this production is the hyper-specialization of animals, and therefore such a strict separation between milk production systems and meat production systems in the case of cattle.

In the United States it is very specialized, that is to say that animals raise animals in the Rockies, open spaces, and then gathers in feedlots because animal feed is not the even when they are in the growth phase, we fatten there in the end, to give them more fat.

  In addition to the level of animals, increased productivity per cow is the most highlighted as solution, increasing the ration (reduced retention time in the rumen) and decreasing the amount of plant cell walls in thereof (increase concentrates), the amount of methane produced per liter of milk decreases. Animal intensification reduces the production of methane per kg of milk.

This type of system makes it possible to reduce the carbon footprint per liter of milk or kg of meat produced.

[studentsofclimate-blog]

The specific case of Brazil

By Gravina Soumboud, Brasilia, Brazil

Brazil is, since 2005, the world's largest exporter of beef and is the 2nd in the world for the bovine herd.

We hear that the supposed "damage" of intensive farming on the environment, but from what I see since I arrived in the northern region of Brazil, intensive farming is presented as a solution the environment of this region.

First of all, the rapid development of modern pig and poultry Breeding systems reduces the food needs of the whole of the livestock sector to a given request. These new forms Breeding can thus alleviate pressures that normally contribute to deforestation and degradation of rangelands, as is the case in some of America Latin regions (for example here in Brazil) and Asia and thus help to conserve land and biodiversity. Second, the methods to achieve economies of food, developed in the context of industrial systems are effective at any level and can therefore be applied in the context of mixed operating systems. It's the same for the waste treatment techniques that have been developed in response to new regulations in the field of industrial production. Thus, the technologies to save resources and manage waste generated in the context of industrial production as the digester can be beneficial to the entire industry.

    Biogaz

    In fact all organic waste such as manure, all agricultural residues, slaughterhouse of fat will be treated and converted into energy by the digester.

 The bacteria processes in anaerobic digestion processes; it's a  digestion in the absence of oxygen that will produce methane.

 This methane will be converted into electricity and heat. At the end of the biogas which has not been digested; the Digesta, is very rich in mineral salts.

  We will allow reuse by putting it on crops. Biogas is sustainable energy that has the greatest potential for development, and it is in the area of factory farming that as soon develops.

[studentsofclimate-blog]

Organized political denial in the US and conspiracy theories

Claire Pflüger, Washington D.C., US

Organized political denial in the Untied States

Even though it is scientifically proven that men are changing the climate, the denial of climate change amongst politicians and citizens of the USA is increasing. This has of course been bad for climate change sciences. This phenomenon is particularly supported by the conservatives and Republicans. They oppose themselves strongly to any kind of environmental sciences. It is a theme that divides the political spectrum and has lead to a well-managed machinery. Conservative theorists try to attack scientific proof by “manufacturing uncertainty” about it.

Conspiracy theories

Some of them claim that climate change is part of a conspiracy for ideological and/or financial reasons. Therefore, in their opinion, climate change is not a fact but invented and unreal.

  In this context, a good example is the speech given by Senator James Inhofe (Republican) who said in front of the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works : "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?".

He suggested further that supporters of the Kyoto Protocol (ex. Jacques Chirac) want to rule the world.

Another example is the Lavoisier Group, a sort of lobby of politicians and business people who do not accept climate change and its sciences. Clive Hamilton, a leading researcher on climate change politics, says about the group that they have developed "an elaborate conspiracy in which hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their 

results to support the climate change theory in order to protect their research funding".

He also says that the terrifying thing is that it “sounds plausible to us."

[studentsofclimate-blog]

THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE GREENHOUSE GASES PRODUCED BY INTENSIVE MEAT PRODUCTION

By Manon Badouix, Berlin, Germany

Nitrous oxide (NO2) :

also known as laughing gas.

Its the fourth most present greenhouse gas in the athmosphere.

It has 310 times more impact per unit mass than carbone dioxide.

Formation : comes from the association of ammonia in its gaseous form and oxygen.

When does it appear in the intensive meat prodution :after the spreading of manure in the fields, when the liquid ammonia become gas.

Methan(CH4 )

Its the third most present greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

It has 20 times more impact per unit mass than carbon dioxide

Lifetime : approximately 10 years in the atmosphere

When does it appear in the intensive meat production : during the digestion of the cattle principally

Ammonia (NH4 )

isn't a greenhouse gas but pollute also the atmosphere when in too big quantities.

It is present in big quantities in the manure and is generally used as nourishment for the plants.

Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) :

Its the second most present greenhouse gas in the athmosphere.

When does it appear in the intensive meat production : During the construction of the building, when the food is brought by the truck etc

[studentsofclimate-blog]

Introduction to an objectively positive view of intensive farming

Hello, my name is Gravina Soumboud and I'm a French student of the famous high school Sciences Po. As part of my third year formation, I choosed to stay in Brazil to work on my personal project. Indeed, I am passionate about environmental issues, energy and ecology. But I hear a lot these days about damage, environmental disasters and animal abuse that would result in intensive farming, so I decided to conduct my own investigation next to my study.

And my findings abolished my prejudices.

 __________________________________________________________

Since the Second World War, agricultural subsidies have encouraged its intensification (plant breeding, massive use of fertilizers and pesticides, heavy mechanization ...) and a new era in farming has emerged: farming industrial. This phenomenon has produced large quantities of meat, milk and eggs.

  The intensification of livestock responds to current environment where open markets, a large population, rising living standards in some emerging countries and therefore the increase in the consumption of animal products (meat, milk, eggs) call for an increase in production and a decrease in selling prices.

Indeed, meat production in developed countries increased from 85 to 110 million tonnes per year between 1980 and 2004 and it is estimated that production to 130 million tonnes in 2030. This is above to feed the world population has developed intensive farming.

The opinion of some scientists are clear about the benefits of this "new" agriculture. Indeed, they highlight the fact that without this increase would be greater famine and protein intake even more important in poor countries. For example, consider the practical case of Brazil.

Agribusiness is a sector that represents 22% of GDP, 37% of exports and 37% of Brazilian jobs.

The country's export champions of beef, pig and chicken.

In the US, American farms are at the forefront of genetic selection, the best performing genes are selects .  Each parameter has its importance in early genetic selection. But early in the genetic selection, breeders selected the genes solely on the basis of milk production, but it was damaging the longevity of animals, their resistance to disease and fertility of females, whereas without calves there are no more milk.But they were able to backtrack to resolve this problem. Today the health of animals is as much consideration as productivity. So once there was a danger to the animal, sector teachers are able to realize and to remedy.

  And stop eating meat is not desirable for the human condition of man, for his body because the iron in the meat we eat is absorbed by the body and is essential for red blood cells and their pigment.

The human homeostasis is the property that the human body to regulate the internal environment of the body to maintain in stable, constant conditions, but for that it needs iron as heme iron found in the meat and that is absorbed up to 30% by the body.

For example, in the early years of a child's life, the dietary iron needs are very important, otherwise food deficiency.

And in women, the contribution should be higher during menstruation and during pregnancy because the daily needs become more important and are usually drawn from the reserves of the body. This is why they must think to offset these samples by a diet rich in dietary iron meat.

[studentsofclimate-blog]

THE SOLUTIONS PROPOSED

By Manon Badouix, Berlin, Germany

For the moment the two most feasible solutions are to transform the methan in biogas through a methanizer or to make the cattle's feed easier to digest.

The methanizer :

This process consist in collecting the gases from the manure, make it pass through tube to make a turbine run in order to produce electricity.

The animals alluvial emits a lot of methan The idea is to catch this gas under a tarpaulin and redirect in a tube related to a motor. There, the mix of gas and oxygen make an explosion which makes the motor functions. It makes run the turbine which produces electricity for approximately 60 homes. What's more, the heat created by the motor can also be stocked and used to heat the animals local and the house of the farm.

This could be a great way to recycle the methan and help the turn in green energy. But this isn't a solution for the pollution of the ground and the water. Indeed this process only reduce the methan and not the nitrates and ammonia contained in a huge amount in the manure. The other limit is that it would request a huge money investment for the states, building the infrastructure costs too much for the farmers.

Change the animals feed :

An other solution proposed by the AAC (Agriculture and Agri-food Canada) is to change the nutrition of the cattle by making it easier to digest. The canadian searchers noticed that increasing the proportion of fat in the feed could decrease up to 20% of the methan emissions. The exact ratio is for 1% more fat in the feed you have 5% less methan emissions. Another factor that could reduce the methan emissions during the cattle's digestion is to give them a feed based on corn grains and high quality medicago. This nourishment attack the bacteria responsible for the methan production. The feed also had to be more nourishing, because the less the cows are eating, the less they have to digest and the less they produce methan !

Here the idea is to control the loss of nourishing energy in form of methan emissions, because it contributes to the effectiveness of the cattle meat or/and milk production, which also contribute to an ecological goal for the livestock industry.

The AAC also made a software called Holos which helps the farmers to see were they are loosing energy and which part of there farm emitted the more gases and energy. This could also be a solution to reduce the greenhouse gas of those intensive productions, but every farmer have to put it in practice.

So both solutions have their limits and depend first from the farmer's will but also from the politicians. Indeed they could elaborate a law obligating the farmers to use a certain feed for their animals or change their budget strategy in order to help the farmers building methanizer and promote research in the management of greenhouse gases.

[studentsofclimate-blog]

Analysis of political denial in Climate change

By Claire Pflüger, Washington D.C., US 

• Liberals and Democrats are more likely to believe in and be concerned about climate change as announced by scientists than conservatives and Republicans are.

• The self-reported understanding and concern of climate change are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are negative for conservatives and Republicans.

• It is only over the past ten years that a polarization of the political parties has occurred.

[studentsofclimate-blog]

IN HOW FAR IS OUR ATMOSPHERE CONCERNED FROM THE INTENSIVE MEAT PRODUCTION ?

By Manon Badouix, Berlin, Germany 

I am a Sciences Po student, in an Erasmus-year in Berlin, Germany at the Freie Universität and I'm following a cours in chemistry and agronomy.We are studying how to reduce the meat productions greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed this is a big problem because the spread of the manure and the digestion of the animals (particularly the cattle) are responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. With a growing and richer population, the worlds request for meat is becoming bigger and bigger. So the number of animal and of their alluvial also, those are a real problems for climate change because they contain at least two of the most polluting greenhouse gases : methan(CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO2) also called the laughing gas. The intensive meat production is responsible for 37% of the methan emission. In France the agriculture is responsible for 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions including 14% carbon dioxide, 70% methan and 76% nitrous oxide.

All those are contained in the alluvial of the animals and are also really rich in nitrogen (N) which is really good for the growth of plants. So the alluvial are spread on the fields but in too big quantities and only the half of the alluvial are indeed used by plants and the rest of the molecules become greenhouse gases. But those problems are sadly not the only ones, there are also other sides effects due to the methods of intensive meat production. First you need to build the buildings, which in some case (in the USA) measure approximately 1km, CO2 emissions. The feed for the cattle isn't grass because they will never see a field in their life. So the feed needs to be brought by trucks and is generally not made in the same state than the cattle, which emitted CO2 again. What's more, those kind of farms are industrialized which means that the man isn't that present during the process, most of the things are organized by machines and so they need electricity.

[studentsofclimate-blog]

Olivier Opitz, Köln, Germany

Hey guys, 

here is as I promised the graphic Mrs. Eon promised to send me. It shows the parts of green, blue and grey water used for the production of different meat types in comparison of different regions of the world. 

PS: You can find the graphic and a whole article on the water footprint of animal products by clicking on the following link:

http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012-WaterFootprintFarmAnimalProducts.pdf

[studentsofclimate-blog]

Interview with water engineer H. Eon on the "water footprint"

By Olivier Opitz, Köln, Germany

Hey guys,

The other time I told you about those students from my university I met and I talked with about the virtual water issue. Now they introduced me to an engineer, Mrs. Eon from the German Water and Waste Water Association, who explained me a new very interesting term - the water footprint. She agreed in having me interviewing her, here is the interview for you, enjoy!

I: Mrs. Eon, what can you tell me about this “Water Footprint” ?

Eon: The water footprint is very comparable to the virtual water theory you already know, it is indeed its basement. The footprint is like an indicator of the quantity, but as well of the use of water in different departments of production. It distinguishes between three different types of water use: Green water, blue water and grey water.

I: What do the colours stand for and why this differentiation?

Eon: The Green water refers to natural irrigation and the natural use of water such as rain to irrigate the crops or the groundwater. The blue water refers to the artificial use of water, artificial irrigation through sprinkler installations and other methods of man-made irrigation. And finally the grey water defines the amount of water that is necessary to dilute toxic substances as pesticides and insecticides for example to make sure they don’t kill the crops. Still those toxic substances find their way into our groundwater through the irrigation. It is important to make the difference between the three, because one does one really represent the precipitation, another one the part of se water through artificial irrigation and another the part of pollutants in the water.

I: So can you say there is an average percentage of blue water or grey water in each product?

Eon: No, no… (laughs) This does really depend on the product and especially on where it was produced. For instance, a kg of strawberries grown in Spain will have a much higher percentage of blue water than strawberries grown in Germany or in Poland for example, same goes for almost all products of agriculture.

I: Ahh, of course… So what would be the difference of the water footprint of pig meat produced in Europe for example end in the US?

Eon: Uff… I don’t have the exact numbers but for sure the part of grey water in US pork will be much higher than in Dutch pork. I have a graphic somewhere, I’ll send it to you. As well the part of blue water will be higher in the US, they use a lot of artificial irrigation for different means. But in India for example the blue water part would be even higher.

I: Ok I see, so this really depends on the country and the climate conditions..?

Eon: Exactly! I am really sorry but I need to go now, I am already late for my Pilates classes.

I: Thank you so much, see you in a bit!

Eon: Yes, bye!

PS: I'll post the graphic Mrs Eon promised me later as soon as I have it!

[studentsofclimate-blog]

Interview with Robert Dunlop, Researcher in Climate Change Politics

By Claire Pflüger, Washington D.C., US

I: Who is the typical person in the USA who denies climate change ?

R. Dunlop: We found out that conservative white males are the most likely to deny climate change.

I: Why is that so?

R. Dunlop: We proceeded from the assumption of the „identity-protective cognition thesis“. Hence white conservative males have a higher tendency for system-justification. The differences between other Americans and this particular group are even greater when they have very much self-confidence and act as they were experts on the subject.

I:Can you tell us more?

R. Dunlop: The white conservative males that „self-report understanding global warming very well“ are even more likely to be adopt a negationist attitude towards climate change.

I: Why was your research important?

R. Dunlop: This question is very simple to answer : conservatives tend to have a unique view about climate change and contribute thus very much to the climate change denial in the USA.

[studentsofclimate-blog]

Political Denial

By Claire Pflüger, Washington D.C., US

Hello ! My name is Claire Pflüger and I have the French and the German nationalities. As a third year SciencesPo student, I have decided to go to the United States and study Climate Change in politics. Interestingly climate change is a very controversial subject due to the fact that its denial is widely spread and popular. Through my investigations I met several interesting people with very different views about climate change…

[studentsofclimate-blog]

By Olivier Opitz, Köln, Germany

Dear readers, 

I recently found this clip on the internet after this action took place in Berlin on Potsdamer Platz. It first seems confusing and then you realise how much this is. Imagine instead of eating a steak, to help a whole african village with all these water bottles. Of course it seems utopic to just say "Don't eat meat, it kills animals and wastes water" But through this clip I see more an incitation to lower our meat consumption. Enjoy! 

[studentsofclimate-blog]

Issues of Climate Change on Water - The concept of Virtual Water

By Olivier Opitz, Cologne, Germany 

Hey guys, I am a student from the agronomy school of Nancy in France and decided to do my third year abroad, here in Köln (Cologne), Germany. During this year I met some interesting people from university who were working on subjects as waste water and environment and so on… I talked a lot with them and they told me some very interesting facts about the project we have: Here in Germany, the average person uses 122l of water a day to shower, brush teeth, et cetera. That is a very low number compared to twenty years ago when it was approximately 20l more. But they told me something that was even more important. Even though concerning this part of water consumption Germany sets a good example, the main water consumption is not caused by washing and so on, but by our quotidian consumption of food and other goods. My new friends here taught me the notion of “virtual water” which denotes the amount of water used for the production of each goods we have. An A4 sheet of paper for example needs 10l of water for its production. I was shocked, it is as if I could fill a whole bath tub with water by holding those 20 pages in my hands I wrote for my essay the other day. But the most important facts are to be found in the agriculture. Some sources say, that 8% of the worldwide drinking water would be used for stockbreeding and meat production.  The biggest part of the water is used to produce the feed for the animal, the average amount of water used to produce a kilo of wheat, is estimated at 1,350 litres. While a kilo of chicken would consume 3900 litres, a kilo of pork meat 4,800 litres and a kilo of beef even 16,000 litres, enough to shower yourself every day during a whole year! This seems enormous but if we think about it, it is not that odd. The animals drink, this is only a minor part of the water they are consuming. But then they are fed and they often eat a lot. The picture lots of us have of happy cows jumping around on the meadows and eating fresh grass is often an illusion. Most of the time, cows and beefs get hay and other feed made of wheat and other cheap cereals that are often imported from abroad, where they are cultivated in monocultures and sometimes irrigated. Then those plants are harvested and transported around the globe or in neighbouring countries to be fed to animals. In Germany people could think the water issue is not that big, in terms of water Germany is quite blessed and wealthy. But the goods imported from drier countries such as Spain or Israel are to be measured differently in terms of water. Germany for instance “imports” more water than it exports, so it is a net importer of water. I think this shows us very well the whole extent of the virtual water and its role in water policies. The fact that dry countries export so much virtual water and countries with more precipitation do import a lot of water predicts a huge unbalance for the future when, due to global warming, the dry regions will become more dry and water shortage will be an extended problem. Concluding we can say that this subject leads us to a completely new issue we often do not even think of because the use of water in our northern countries does not seem to be a big issue on Climate Change, while in fact the countries that suffer the most of it will be those seeing whole branches of their economy come to fall as soon as the temperatures will rise and the precipitation rates fall. 

[studentsofclimate-blog]

South-Africa and Climate Change

By Sarah Dalisson, Cape Town, South Africa      

           The paradox of Climate Change called “the Giddens Paradox” explains that the Generations and the countries that are the less responsible for Climate Change are those who will suffer the most of it. In Africa the countries are very close to the Equator and it is one of the first regions which will be touched by Climate Change. Greenhouse gas emissions are rising more rapidly that predicted and the world is warming more quickly in response, beginning by the regions close to the Equator. The part of the population which was concerned by extreme temperatures was 1%. Now it concerns 10%. 

                      Moreover Africa is one of the regions that suffer the most of malnutrition. In sub-Saharan Africa between 1990 and 1992 there were 169 millions of people suffering of malnutrition. Between 2003 and 2005 they were 212 millions. On the contrary of other continents like Asia, the famine is always more present in Africa. The combination of alimentary crises and economic crises has risen up the part of people starving. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in 2009 there were more than one billion people undernourished in the world. As we can see on the following graphic Africa is the exception between all the continents. It is the only one where the malnutrition is still growing.

         In South-Africa the World Wildlife Fund's (WWF) Green Growth South Africa (GGSA) started a project funded by the British High Commission, which was designed to grow levels of ambition in South Africa to commit the country to a sustainable development process or “green growth” path both in national and international policy landscapes. Green growth is understood to mean a way to meet the needs of current and future generations without harming people or the planet. 

       South Africa which belongs to the “BRICS-countries”, was hosting the 2011 17th Conference on the Parties (COP) climate change negotiations and the government's adoption of the domestic Climate Change Response Policy provided the ideal opportunity to encourage discussion to develop a vision of what a “green economy” would look like. The GGSA project engaged key stakeholders from the public, private and civil society sectors through a range of interventions aimed at encouraging debate and discussion of core proposed interventions to affect a more sustainable economic trajectory. The following actions were achieved: A range of briefing papers aimed at framing key debates and interventions like “carbon tax”, “climate finance”, “just transitions” and “integrated energy planning”. A series of high level events in partnership with the National Business Initiative with speakers from Ministries, executive private sector representatives, civil society leaders aimed at providing multi stakeholder platforms enabling delegates to engage with diverse perspectives around low carbon economic transition. Additional papers and research work - inclusion of nuclear in energy planning, energy access projects in South Africa and developing renewable energy capacity in government. Finally a publication featuring key debates and WWF work around the Green Economy was launched at COP17. Additional events – the South African Climate Action Network, the launch of a Carbon Tax Paper.

      Moreover the World Wildlife Fund South-Africa engages in efforts to promote sustainable agriculture, minimize adverse impacts of farming on the environment and to demonstrate good stewardship of natural resources. Agriculture is an important regional driver of rural development, job creation and poverty alleviation. Farming practices must therefore not only protect the long-term productivity of the land, but also ensure profitable yields and the well-being of farmers and farm workers alike. In the South African context, the agricultural sector is a critical stakeholder in the management of our natural resources, with 80% of the land surface owned by agriculture (including small-scale farmers, emerging farmers and commercial farmers). Nearly two thirds (63%) of all their freshwater resources are currently being used by irrigated agriculture. WWF's work in the agriculture sector focuses on innovative ways to reconnect their food systems and ecosystems. WWF-SA works with various industries, government and the retail sector to reduce the direct on-farm environmental impact of their production practices. They are engaging with landowners to set aside remaining natural areas of high conservation importance and working to protect and maintain healthy, functioning natural systems. This includes efforts to effectively managing our catchments, rivers, wetlands and soils and the free associated ecological services they provide – climate proofing South-Africa's farms in the face of climate change.

       To conclude we can say that South-Africa is trying to make efforts on its politics to try to reduce its pollution and to improve the quality of the agriculture and the environment.