Beef Plan Movement

Beef plan Movement is tackling the miscalculation of farm emissions

@LeonSimons8 @pgreenfielduk youtu.be/x0kpNGFMyYA?si… Very good debate on green policy

"The sudden collapse of carbon sinks was not factored into climate models – and could rapidly accelerate global heating"

@think_or_swim @davitter youtu.be/x0kpNGFMyYA?si… Very good debate on climate policy in Ireland

Per @davitter’s tweet, am happy to confirm that plant-based drinks such as oat or soy milk, are NOT going to be subject to 23% VAT. Some good news.

@climate_ambass @HeritageHubIRE @WaterfordCounci @BioDataCentre @CentreBio @countykerry @GreenerClare @LimerickEnviron @CorkCountyPPN @corkcitycouncil @TipperaryCoCo youtu.be/x0kpNGFMyYA?si… Good debate here on green policy

Join us at 1 pm for the highly popular 'Not Stopping Now!' webinar series! Georgia MacMillan, from Mayo Dark Skies, is sharing practical tools to protect our dark skies. Sign up below #ClimateActionWeek #HalftheParkisAfterDark #UnderOneSky #EndLightPollution

@greenparty_ie youtu.be/x0kpNGFMyYA?si… Good discussion here on green policy

"Fine Gael will be voting against our forestry plans. They voted against our Just Transition Bill. They voted against our Waste Reduction Bill. They're still pushing LNG terminals down in Shannon. They are talking up their green credentials, but they're actually the status quo."

@lovebeingirishm @EamonRyan youtu.be/x0kpNGFMyYA?si… Good discussion here on green policy

@EamonRyan We must turn to Nuclear Energy, it is Safe, Clean and Effective, Green Party Policies are not Sustainable, Ryan and his Totally Delusional Cronies will hopefully be a thing of the past after The next Election, The Green Party will bring Ireland to its knees, particularly workers

We gotta go clean. We gotta go green. We gotta go decarbonised. Ireland is building interconnection with France as part of our transition to clean energy. We need this cooperation across Europe. 📌Energy Council, 15/10/24

youtu.be/qMUUbmblMsM?si… Watch Beef Plan Movement interview with Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice and Nadaline Webster. Our farm emissions are massively overstated and need to be rectified. Farmers will be shocked by the scale of this issue.

@jennybrunton94 There will be a famine in Europe. Comparing food production on an even kilter with fossil fuel use is very sinister.

The Danish government will introduce Europe’s first carbon tax on agriculture where from 2030 farmers will have to pay 120 Danish krone (€16) per ton of emitted CO2 equivalent, rising to 300 krone (€40) from 2035 onwards. britishagriculturebureau.co.uk/updates-and-in…

@Artemisfornow @marekchinedu Depends on the cow.some are crazy if hey aren't used to people.

@marekchinedu Seriously, get a grip! It’s a young cow!!! A few words and an apple would have worked just fine!

UK - I am so upset by this. What looks like a young cow has escaped from her field. The police think it’s ok to ram her with their police car. This is truly disgusting of the police. Wtf is wrong with this country 😳😱

@Peterhynes15 Fair play to them, best strategy they've used in years!

The Green Party IRE have reduced the carbon footprint of their MEPs by 100% #Europe

The new Dutch government is essentially to bin the green agenda entirely: Cuts to farming gone. Fuel taxes cut. Subsidies for heat pumps and insulation gone. Electric car subsidies cancelled. 4 new Nuclear plants. They're tossing the whole thing in the trash.

It is an increasingly frequent feature of EU regulations that there is a clause seeking standing for environmental activists to sue individual farmers. It in included in the Industrial Emissions Directive and although was removed at an early stage, was also included in the proposed Nature Restoration Regulation. What we as farmers need to consider is whether we should be seeking standing to sue individual environmentalists and activist groups where they are seeking to do harm to farmers on the basis of incorrect information. Take the Hen Harrier designations as an example. Thge interference in private property rights is justified on the legal basis that it is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. Environmental activists lobbied in Europe for this directive and ran public (mis)information campaigns to get it across the line. Affected farmer incomes were decimated along with the value of their land. The result for the Hen Harrier? Numbers have declined further. The environmentalists seemed to respond to this news by switching seamlessly to blaming Coillte and other bodies for the decline. Here's the rub though. If there is a problem that has a substantial or majority root cause and you address that substantial or majority root cause correctly, the problem improves. If you address that substantial or majority root cause incorrectly or (as is more common) fail to address the correct root cause, the problem does not improve and often gets worse. What accountability is there for environmentalists who advocate to do immense harm to a group of individuals on the basis of their personal beliefs or agenda rather than a strong evidence basis? There is none. And I believe that there should be. Many environmental activists are pushing hard on reducing or eliminating livestock agriculture. That is not an evidence based position. It is an ideological position. They are going to do immense harm not only to individual farmers but also to the people whose food security and diets they are so recklessly interfering with. If you want to hold me accountable for harm I do, fair enough. But then in return, you must also be accountable for the harm you do. The proposed harm being done to farmers on the basis of incorrect figures is enormous. We need both the figures to be corrected and those who are leveraging incorrect figures or insufficient data to do harm to be held to account. amazon.de/dp/B0CQDH5JRW

Link to Beef Plan Movement interview with atmospheric physicist Dr.Richard Lindzen . Very interesting points made here. youtube.com/watch?v=bfuCS4…

@HannahEDaly @NadalineW Nadaline is correct, look it up

@NadalineW Do you really believe there’s a conspiracy among state and scientific agencies - EPA, Teagasc, IPCC, UN, scientists with no vested interests - because they have something against cattle? Because this misinformation is giving false hope, sowing grievances, delaying action etc.

It's funny how much denial there is around the emissions figures from agriculture being wrong - which they are. This is just a fact and here are the ways in which they are wrong: 1) Overestimated - in Ireland, the volume of actual methane that comes from cows is overestimated by around 20%. 2) Over-multiplied - across the globe the volume of methane is multiplied to give a CO2 equivalent figure which the IPCC say overstates the warming by methane from cattle by 300 - 400%. 3) The CO2 that produces the methane is counted as being returned to the atmosphere as both CO2 and methane which is incorrect. But that's just the methane. We also have: 4) Emissions from non-agricultural activities is included in 'agriculture' - such as commercial use of fertilisers by forestry, sporting facilities (like golf courses), amenity facilities, County Councils etc. 5) Every farm creates both removals and emissions. Only emissions from livestock, fertiliser and agricultural transport are counted in 'agriculture'. All the removals are counted in LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change & Forestry). So as an example, grass growing in a field is in LULUCF. But the second a cow eats it, it moves into 'agriculture'. 6) The 'decarbonisation' exception in reporting guidelines means that farmers who provide fuels to other sectors (such as cattle carcasses being used for biofuels in transport) are not recognised for the contributions they make already in 'decarbonising' other sectors because they are 'invisible'. Try for a second to imagine how you would feel if you were treated this way by your government. All the good you do is either invisible or in another sector where it doesn't count. All the bad you do is over-estimated, over-multiplied and double-counted. Farmers have every right to be angry. And every right to seek to have it corrected. And every right not to be taxed, denied essential services or otherwise penalised on the basis of figures that we know are wrong. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I spent 18 months researching and writing a book about it. For those in Ireland who would like to order the paperback and can't get it on the UK Amazon store, you can get it here: amazon.de/dp/B0CQDH5JRW

@NadalineW Well said

Whenever I hear environmentalists casually discussing their support for plans which involve giving up your income, activities and rights to your own property and relying on a benevolent government for 'rewards' as the entirety of your income, I wonder if they really can be that naive. Just look at the current situation: 1) Farmers in acknowledged and serious difficulty through circumstances that are not their fault. 2) Many still waiting for contracted payments that are way overdue. No clarity on when this will be fixed. 3) 3 days ago Martin Heydon says the government will not be found wanting in plans to help farmers. 4) 2 days ago Pascal Donoghue says he has no plans to provide extra funding to farmers. 5) Yesterday, Simon Harris says farmers will get a significant package in the coming weeks. 6) Right now, farmers are running out of money for additional forage or meal. Credit is being denied to many. No sign of anything being done for weeks if at all. 7) There are environmentalists crowing that this is all their own fault for causing climate change - and not just building greenhouses and growing fruit and veg at a huge loss and rewilding/reforesting to let everyone scamper all over their land (with total liability for anything that happens to them) in a plan reliant on 'rewards'. Any farmer that doesn't agree this is a sensible plan is a 'climate change denier'. 8) Meanwhile, emissions figures on methane from agriculture are wrong. They are vastly overinflated - over-estimated, over-multiplied and double counted with the CO2 that produced the methane. 9) This is largely undisputed by scientists, governments and other administrative bodies (although hotly disputed by environmentalists who shout that farmers should listen to the scientists while ignoring them themselves) who say they will get around to fixing it but it will take a lot of time in a slow moving process requiring huge amounts of research and peer review and other activities. 10) We're not supposed to ask why it is that the known-to-be-wrong figures were able to instituted quickly and put to use without any need for all that pesky research...or how it is that they justify proceeding to enforcing penalties without correcting the figures first. The whole situation is utterly farcical. Monty Python would struggle to improve upon it. Our government and international bodies have proven over decades that they can't be trusted. Environmental activists are busy proving that they have no sensible or real-world advice to offer and that they are incapable of admitting the truth if it doesn't suit them.

A very interesting letter to the editor @IrishTimes today on #climate and #Sustainability @drdairy50 @fleroy1974 @JoannaBlythman @KOSullivanIT @dpcarrington