2 ms·
> carbon footprint atrocious Instead of herbicides they apparently often burn the weeds off with giant mechanized propane torches.
by cma 3y ago
> carbon footprint atrocious
Instead of herbicides they apparently often burn the weeds off with giant mechanized propane torches.
- defrost 3y agoStubble burning in grain fields is routine, yearly, and doesn't increase atmospheric C02 (when smoothed over a year). https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/crops-and-horticulture/grains-pulses-and-cereals/crop-production/general-agronomy/stubble-burning https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/crops-and-horticulture/grains... Giant flamethrowers aren't required - the stubble will burn in any case if struck by lightening - it's a fire hazard and burning off increases district safety, promotes nutrient recycling, kills weeds. Swings, roundabouts - see the link for cons. As for carbon; crops capture carbon, burning releases the carbon captured. This is the literal 'natural' carbon cycle. The issue we have with climate and CO2 stems from a century of bringing to the surface millions of years worth of captured and sequested carbon from all the plants that went towards the billions and billions of tonnes of fossil fuel we've been burning through lately (past 50+ years).
- dredmorbius 3y agoThis is true. Though ag burning can be a major pollution hazard, most especially of fine particulate matter, as some in the US and Canada may be becoming more familiar with from wildfire. Which is to say that all methods, practices, and techniques involve trade-offs.