4 ms·
Why should this be the takeaway from the paper, as opposed to the fact that an additive to the silage can reduce N2O emissions by up to 99%?
by analyte123 2y ago
Why should this be the takeaway from the paper, as opposed to the fact that an additive to the silage can reduce N2O emissions by up to 99%?
- rgmerk 2y agoGood luck with trying to persuade farmers to apply that additive. Unkess there’s something in it for them that they can’t get by just claiming they’re applying the additive, farmers won’t do it. There is no industry in the world more allergic to regulation than farming, despite the fact that most of themp farmers in the developed world (and much of the developing world) are heavily subsidised by the city dwellers they complain about.
- analyte123 2y agoIf the additive actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and there is a working emissions trading system anywhere in the world, and the additive costs less to use than the reduction times the current carbon price, they could get paid for applying the additive.
- pjc50 2y agoThey could also get paid to apply the additive and not bother.
- rgmerk 2y agoPrecisely, and a substantial fraction of farmers wouldn’t bother.
- cassianoleal 2y agoNext step, make it legally required to apply the additive. Like filters in chimneys, catalytic converters in cars, etc. and have fines attached to not using it. If that doesn’t work, increase fines and/or add criminal charges and prison.
- rgmerk 2y agoEnforcing laws on farms is challenging, often to the point of futility, and particularly when you’re talking about large-scale ranches.
- hedora 2y agoWhy not put the additive in the feed at the factory that produces it?
- whaaaaat 2y agoYou mean... a field? I get that farming has gotten industrial, but there's not like, a "alfalfa factory" out there pumping out silage.
- ara_ohanian 2y ago[dead]