What are our core messages and video development

I believe your statement as revised is a better position for the group to focus on as we need to be moving the science along with the farming practices to minimise GHG and maximise potential carbon storage.

Thanks

Regards

Gary Hayman
www.nzsugarfree.co.nz ( http://www.nzsugarfree.co.nz )

Ka pai, thanks Gary. :thumbsup: So, we've had 12 days' to chew things over, and we seem close to landing some acceptable wording. :slight_smile: What's our next step here (Peter)? Do we take a poll, or:question: :thinking:

Hello Peter et al,
Cam and I (Carbon Neutral NZ Trust) attended a most interesting presentation of the enhanced PV system at Riverbank School in Kerikeri the other day and think that it would be most suitable to many schools to get kids and parents involved.
Attached is a detailed description of the project for your information. Although indicated as “confidential”, I received the green light to pass it on to the group. Just a copy right for the school would be courteous.

Cheers
Rolf
Hi Mike, Rolf, Cam,

Thank you for meeting this morning, I hope it was worth your while and helped you to understand our system.

Attached is the report I promised to send you called "Going for Gold." If you have any questions, please Email me at this address.

Cam you also asked for a link to Genesis Energy Schoolgen program. Attached are some documents from their program.

My contact at SkySolar Auckland is Mike Ward, Email: [email protected]; Mobile: 021661909

My contact at Power Genius Ltd is Simon Dickson, Email: [email protected]; Mobile 0275047834

Feel free to call them for advice.

Kind Regards

Gerry Buxton

Board Chairperson

Riverview School

Mobile: 0275760626

This is just to get the ball rolling, and going fishing for answers: I have beliefs, but my mind will follow clear rationale and demonstrable logic. The changes being urgently called for are about mitigating the destructive effects of climate crisis. All industrial, input intensive, soil-destroying, GHG emitting food production (including plant-based food) must be radically improved throughout the whole supply/distribution chain – not just animal farming. Everyone is being called to make changes. But while food production reform has been articulated as being about reducing to zero net GHG emissions, that’s not only over-simplifying things, but it’s dumbing down the truth. Given how much GHG overshoot the world’s in, carbon neutrality’s not enough because our situation is actually much more dire, and to frame this as ‘we have time to transition’ would be a fatal mistake. We’re out of time, we must act decisively, and fast, in the opposite direction. This means we need to be creating net positive GHG sinks now.

I observe expert reports that GHG emissions are significantly higher for meat-eaters (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4372775/). Further, not all animal farming is created equal: some have a higher/lower GHG impact, suggesting that “dietary shifts towards low-impact foods” (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5/pdf) result in greater GHG benefits than switches from “conventional agricultural systems to alternatives” (like regenerative farming) could even produce. This is mostly because animal-based farming is typically more resource intensive (http://www.wri.org/resources/charts-graphs/animal-based-foods-are-more-resource-intensive-plant-based-foods) than its plant-based counterparts, and within the animal-based farming spectrum some are more resource intensive compared with others. Assuming limited response capacity, this suggests that maybe we should be prioritizing action with respect to the ‘worst offenders’ of animal-based farming. That’s a strategic decision. But if the science on GHG emissions of different diets is wrong (and I doubt we’ll resolve it here on Loomio!), we need to clarify that ASAP, because debating diets zaps our focus from more meaningful ways we could be using our energy.

I agree (as I hope do many others) that meat and dairy production emissions can be much reduced with efficiency gains, new technology and/or returning to GHG-sequestering regenerative agriculture. This all undeniably has significant value. But will the critical mass (whatever that is) of farm conversion happen in time to reap the sequestration rewards (reports are that it happens “over time” (https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2018/04/11/Harnessing-regenerative-food-production-to-fight-climate-change) – and that’s time we just don’t have)? And still, how do GHG emissions of animal-based agriculture compare with plant-based (I’m of the understanding that plants are more effective at carbon sequestration because plants interface directly with the soil - true?). Regardless, however, if we fail to act progressively enough, “nitrous oxide from fields and methane from livestock may double by 2070” (https://phys.org/news/2014-03-climate-require-meat-dairy-consumption.html), and that would be catastrophic. With population growth, coupled with consumer lag in getting informed and voluntarily changing dietary habits, meat and dairy consumption is likely to continue to grow (https://phys.org/news/2014-03-climate-require-meat-dairy-consumption.html).

This is why reducing animal-based food production at source looks like a more attractive policy option to assertively encourage society to adapt fast. Of course, we need supports in place to help people transition, but with mock meats coming online it’s easier now than ever. If done correctly, meat eaters don’t even have to sacrifice much at all (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/04/livestock-farming-artificial-meat-industry-animals).

That food production is just about GHGs, however, is only half the picture (an oversimplification). We need to treat every opportunity and every action we take in terms of the greater imperative of creating resilience, and mitigating numerous other climate crisis ‘bads’ simultaneously. Optimizing failed spaces may produce feel good results in the short run, but for massive change what’s often required is transcending the space entirely: drastically reducing animal-based products can help address:
1. Biodiversity and habitat loss (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/04/livestock-farming-artificial-meat-industry-animals): hugely increased domesticated animals has conversely led to a reduction (and in some cases extinction) of wild animal species and habitats.
2. Imbalanced diet: including too much animal products and not enough nutritious plant-based food has led to increased disease (sugar and other things too need to be dealt with).
3. Inefficient net energy invested for energy returned on animal products (that’s a pure physics argument: investing more energy in than you get out is an unsustainable proposition; it’s the same mistaken thinking that propped up the fossil fuel industry and is akin to the idea that we can keep expanding on a planet of finite resources).
4. Animal cruelty.

I like your statement. Focuses on the real issue of poor farming and food production.

Regards

Gary Hayman
www.nzsugarfree.co.nz ( http://www.nzsugarfree.co.nz )

And this commentary from a George Monbiot, a confirmed vegan, is very much biased. Search for Allan Savory response to balance this.

Holistic Grazing Management

https://futurebeef.com.au/knowledge-centre/grazing-land-management/?XeBBu

http://www.beefproducer.com/grazing-systems/increase-stock-density-improve-land-faster

The research:

http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/10/13500

http://www.jswconline.org/content/71/2/156.abstract

Vaalea Darkke The Scientific American article you posted strikes a hopeful tone about Allan Savory's insights and accomplishments.

The failure of George Monbiot and the Sierra Club magazine staff to recognize Holistic Planned Grazing for the disruptive innovation it is, speaks to a lack of curiosity about the extraordinary results being achieved by regenerative grazing pioneers in terms of restoring soil health, biodiversity, and habitat - which allows wildlife populations to rebound and flourish. (The National Geographic documentary linked above explains this beautifully.)

For a response by sustainability guru and co-author of Natural Capitalism, Hunter Lovins, see ... Why George Monbiot is wrong: grazing livestock can save the world

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/19/grazing-livestock-climate-change-george-monbiot-allan-savory

Anyone suggesting Savory's approach of Holistic Land Management is anti-wildlife is frankly not familiar with his work.

I am proud to note Allan Savory serves on the Soil4Climate Advisory Board.

Soil4Climate advocates for regenerative cropping and grazing practices to heal land, improve soil fertility and drought resilience, return flow to dried-up rivers, prevent flooding, restore wildlife habitat, and revitalize rural economies while sequestering atmospheric carbon.

Join the 5,200+ scientists, farmers, policymakers, journalists, and concerned global citizens of Soil4Climate at facebook.com/groups/Soil4Climate ( http://facebook.com/groups/Soil4Climate )

Resource links

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110615161800.htm?WRD

http://www.ridgeshinn.com/wpSD/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/comments-dietary-guidelines-2015.pdf?qsH

Regards

Gary Hayman
www.nzsugarfree.co.nz ( http://www.nzsugarfree.co.nz )