"Green" policies are destroying this country

Just to show that Organic can match production levels of conventional farming after an initial transition period (whilst the soil recovers from decades of conventional abuse):

"Facts from the 30-year study

• Organic yields match conventional yields.
• Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought.
• Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.
• Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient.
• Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases.
• Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional."

https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial/

A more detailed analysis paper

https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1094/CM-2013-0429-03-PS

What most studies on organics fail to account for when comparing productivity is costs per unit of production and the time needed for yields to rise to stable levels as soils and ecosystems recover. The other great advantage offered by organic agriculture is that it turns soils into net absorbers of atmospheric carbon so contributing to climate change targets.

.......................

"Soil erosion and loss of productive agricultural land under conventional systems is a crisis which is starting to undermine our whole food system.

"But beneath the feet of Iowa’s farmers, a crisis is unfolding. The average topsoil depth in Iowa decreased from around 14-18 inches (35-45cm) at the start of the 20th Century to 6-8 inches (15-20cm) by its end. Relentless tilling and disturbance from farm vehicles have allowed wind and water to whisk away this priceless resource. 

The same picture is seen on farms worldwide. Soils are becoming severely degraded due to a combination of intensive farming practices and natural processes. As the layer of fertile topsoil thins, it gets increasingly difficult to grow crops for food. Without altering agricultural practices and urgently finding ways to preserve soil, the global food supply starts to look precarious."

https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/follow-the-food/why-soil-is-disappearing-from-farms/

A rapid transition away from soil destroying conventional agriculture is absolutely essential if we are to continue to feed growing global populations.

Then there is the intrinsic risk of reducing diversity into monoculture crops with a few single varietys accounting for the majority of all food consumed. Lack of diversity makes a system unstable and vunerable to shock.

You don't seem to understand how subsides are used to achieve strategic objectives. Its the same approach in all fields - a premium is paid initially to encourage companies to build out the infrastructure. Fossil fuels have received similar subsidies and the worst offender for locked in long term subsides is the post child of the right - NUCLEAR. Not a single nuclear power station would be built in Europe without the government guaranteeing above market rates for the electricity. Corrib gas was only built because Shell was effectively offered a tax subsidy.

I am sorry but the quality of the debate here doesn't warrant the considerable effort needed to reference sources accumulated over many years. The quality of debate is frankly so low that most posts don't even warrant a response.

I respond when as I want to, I am here for entertainment not to please you.

Interesting, I'm going to have a read of those

Just an initial thought, I'm not a tillage farmer, reseeds are rare enough here and minimum disturbance......the plots of land that have been in my family for 4 generations now have the same depth of soil they had in my father's time....

Would this data regarding soil erosion be mainly related to large intensive tillage/crop/grain operations in places like the states?

BTW I'm not against the idea at all, I'm not a fan of supermarkets, industry, govts meddling over the years...its encouraged intensive production and returned less and less for the primary producer over time.....even some recent developments in the guise of reducing emissions look like they will encourage the opposite and/or certainly reduce the income for small/medium enterprises.

Yes it would be large scale tillage, Ireland is not a great example of soil erosion and productivity issues. However any area which leaves soils exposed for extended periods (such as the east of Ireland Arable) runs significant risk of erosion and I have seen top soil running down country roads after heavy rain. However even beef and dairy are energy intensive as they take regular energy intensive fertilizer inputs. Organic swards could reduce on farm costs and decrease overall cost per unit of production. This is an area which is been actively researched and promoted in Europe and Ireland.

The study I referenced is dealing with exactly the sort of conditions occuring in the bread basket of America - and shows that organic can match conventional in those locations.

Meta studies are very useful - but they drag in many studies which are suboptimal. They are designed as a jumping off point for future research and are comparable to the reading review carried out before practical research is undertaken. The project I have referenced is a highly controlled longitudinal study of real world outcomes on overall productivity - a better class of study in every way.

we are risking pushing the earth into a new climate equilibrium. One that suits reptiles more than Mammals

I think the period since humans evolved is a decent cut off point given that for most of that 3 billion years even the air was toxic

There are a few core climate deniers here who are dominating the debate, making the debate somewhat redundant overall. If they cannot even accept the basis of the debate been that we have issues of man made climate change, you will never ever get them to accept the proposed solutions to what they consider to be an imaginary problem.

Climate change requires us to cut emissions, which in turn requires us to change energy production, agriculture, heating systems, transport systems and urban planning. There is no debate possible if these are not considered to be issues in the first place.

Its all a waste of time really - these dinosaurs will never change.

You may argue unconvincingly that one study is a "better class of study"

However it would not past muster as an academic argument regardless for the following reasons.

Its a single study.

The study is not independent and therefore would be considered biased

The study area concerns production in one State in the US with large-scale intensive tillage production. That is not directly comparable to agriculture production here.

Arguing from the specific to the general in the case of organic vs conventional agriculture is of little value.

And there we go with the name calling of those you don't agree with "deniers" and "dinasaurs" 🙄

If you check- the thread title is "Green policies are destroying this country". It's not a climate change thread. Plenty of those already.

Neither is it a debate, its a discussion where if past form of this thread is anything to go by- you can expect to be challenged if what you post doesn't stand up to scrutiny and regardless of any position on the implementation of certain green policies in this country. Soap boxes => that away.

And no you don't have to be a "denier" or indeed a greta hater to understand that many green policies are badly thought out , poorly implemented and/or not fit for purpose

Same question I have been asking you for quite a while that has been answered with nothing other than meaningless jargon on installed capacity, loaded curves and sheerer curves etc.