Climate change has emerged as one of the defining challenges of our time. The Earth's climate is changing at an unprecedented rate, with far-reachi...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I should add, more issues on the farming side is the government's subsidizing of large agricultural operations that monocrop (they only grow 1 species of crop on the same land year after year). This method means that the soil must be amended with chemicals every year in order to provide the nutrients the crops need to grow - including nitrate-laden fertilizers and such, ammonia for corn, and more. If they practiced the traditional crop rotation and sustainable agriculture practices that some smaller farmer use, not only would they avoid using the toxic fertilizers that cause algae blooms and hypoxic water systems, but they would increase the health quality of the food and the ecosystem. However, there is a reason why they went to industrial practices in the first place - it (in the short term) increases yield and reduces loss due to insects and plant disease. But, the multinational seed labs (think Monsanto) are stuck in a race against nature to keep on top of the insect/disease thing, as those are living organisms that adapt year after year. That adversarial approach to agriculture goes against thousands of years of Human experience, and creates a downward spiral into worse and worse environmental consequences for diminishing advancements. For those of us who care about the quality of food we put into our bodies, this is appalling and unsustainable in the long term. It will eventually come crashing down.
I would agree with some of the points you have made. One of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases is large-scale (industrial) livestock operations. However, the government, in the name of "greener" initiatives, is squashing the sustainable small farmer and forcing through various levers the increasing adoption of what we call CAFO operations (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). Another area where government policies ignore science for pseudo-science to support a political agenda is zero-emission vehicles (pretty much all battery electric vehicles). They are pushing adoption of these, completely ignoring the big picture and all the details: 1) that almost all of these vehicles are powered by coal-fired electric generation, 2) the process of producing these vehicles, and materials use, cause much more harm to the environment than ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles, 3) The batteries have at most a 10 year lifespan, after which recycling is very difficult, and probably the real usable lifespan is less than 10 years; what do you do when you need new batteries? The cost of these are prohibitive, 4) Driving distance and hauling capacity are many times more efficient with ICE than BEV, and 5) Current ICE technologies are very environmentally friendly; the amount of CO2 released by ICE are relatively small, especially if we avoid using fuel adulterated with ethanol, which has its own set of political and ecological issues. So in summary, the interference of governments to push a political agenda that enriches special interest lobbyists is a big part of the problem. And that's mostly political, nothing to do with technology or science.