Debt Rattle August 13 2025
- This topic has 46 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 3 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Push To Cut Livestock For Climate Goals (Due To Burping & Farting) Worries UK Farmers, Ecologists
Officials insist no mass cull is planned.
But farmers are concerned that it’s part of a growing push to reduce livestock levels, which could sacrifice traditional grazing and damage the fragile ecosystems it supports.
The UK’s net-zero policies go further than those of the European Commission, where cattle farms remain outside regulatory crosshairs until next year.
In February, the UK’s independent adviser on climate action, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), whose advice strongly guides government policy, recommended a 27 percent decrease in cattle and sheep numbers by 2040 in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the UK government, agriculture is the country’s largest source of domestic methane emissions, accounting for 49 percent of total emissions. Of this, around 85 percent of agricultural methane comes from cows and other ruminant animals through enteric fermentation and is released as mostly burps but also flatulence...
..Britain’s livestock farms, which are mostly grass-based, are integrated into the iconic patchwork countryside, with sheep and cattle grazing in open fields divided by hedgerows and stone walls as part of a complex natural ecosystem.
Alan Hughes, a fourth-generation tenant farmer who is part of the Farmers to Action agricultural rights campaign, told The Epoch Times that wider net-zero proposals on livestock ignore the ecological function of grazing. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/push-cut-livestock-climate-goals-due-burping-farting-worries-uk-farmers-ecologists Climate Physicist, Anastassia Makarieva explains that neither the questions nor the “answers” are straightforward. Is Extra CO2 Good/Food for Plants?
Reflections on the latest DOE climate report: If we shrugged off anthropocentrism, we would see that CO₂-enhanced growth is not proof of a thriving biosphere, but a sign of its fever.
We have now subjected the biosphere to a vast experiment — injecting enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels at a rate equal to about one-tenth of what the biosphere synthesizes each year. How did the biosphere respond? Global carbon budget assessments tell us: it began producing extra organic carbon — carbon that, crucially, nobody consumed! (Think about it: the biospheric production line has ramped up output, but no one has claimed the surplus. How should we interpret that? What does it mean?)
As a result, a biotic sink for anthropogenic carbon formed, so atmospheric CO₂ now accumulates not at 10 GtC per year as we burn fossils, but at a significantly lower rate. I’ve covered these processes in detail in two earlier posts, which I invite you to read:
New Global Carbon Data Revives the “Missing Sink” Problem
Nature is trying to fix our mess—it’s time to recognize its power
Here, it’s enough to note that many people — including the DOE report authors — take this as evidence that “CO₂ fertilization” has made the biosphere bigger. Dr. Craig Idso, for instance, illustrates his point with photos showing plants grown under elevated CO₂ concentrations becoming larger (see below).
But a recent study by Bar-On et al. (2024) in Science — unmentioned in the DOE climate report — shows that global plant biomass has not increased over the past thirty years. This means something else is happening on a planetary scale: plants don’t grow bigger but are producing extra material that the rest of the biosphere does not consume, so it accumulates somewhere — likely in soils or in dissolved form in the ocean. https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/is-extra-co2-goodfood-for-plantsPhoenixvoice,
As the resident Bitcoiner, I feel a duty to at least give a few counterpoints.
Learning to drive a car was difficult at first, but then I got the hang of it.
Using email for the first time was unfamiliar, but I figured it out.
Setting up online banking was entirely new, but now it is second nature.
Opening an online brokerage was a mindblowing experience in 1997, but no big deal now.How is Bitcoin different from any of these? Even a computer illiterate like me can get comfortable with it. Yes, the first time you send an onchain transaction, your thought is “I must have screwed this up,” but practice takes away the fear. Just practice with $5 transactions until you come comfortable with it. And if you never become comfortable with it, you can still leave the Bitcoin on an exchange or buy it through an ETF.
Becoming a Bitcoiner does not mean you need to stop using cash and debit/credit cards.
Yes, the earliest adopters have become wealthy through Bitcoin. But many of them cashed out long ago. They thought they hit the jackpot when Bitcoin hit $100. There are a few out there who still hold thousands of Bitcoin. But given that there have been three major 80-90% drawdowns since 2013, most of them sold at some point and then got back in at much higher prices. At least we can say that Bitcoin is a fair system. Everyone who holds it either bought it or put in the effort to go out and mine it. That’s unlike virtually every other asset in our modern fiat financial system.
Boogaloo said
At least we can say that Bitcoin is a fair system. Everyone who holds it either bought it or put in the effort to go out and mine it. That’s unlike virtually every other asset in our modern fiat financial system.
Yeah sure, that’s why it’s called mining, because it is so different to, say gold, silver, iron, oil, coal, forestry, real estate etc etc and basically every thing else. You obviously got the Ponzi scheme hype real bad. Fiat bad, bitcoin fantastic; same game, different crowd.
Celticbiker said
Don’t worry, D’s White Hats are going to save you at the last minute, just like a kosher movie.
I think the white hats got lost somewhere, Dr D says they have been coming to save us for many a year, but they still haven’t been seen. Maybe Superman will step in instead and get the job done.
aspnaz,
Do you actually believe what you wrote? Compared to the insiders with political and business connections, the general public does not have the same access to mining concessions, the best real estate, cheap government-subsidized financing, or opportunities to invest in early stage companies. The little guy is at a huge disadvantage — if he can even participate at all.
You use the word ponzi — but what do you mean by that? A ponzi is characterized by (i) a shady operator; (ii) lack of transparency; (iii) promising returns to new investors; (iv) funding those returns by investments from new investors; and (v) the certainty that the scheme will collapse without a constant influx of new investors. What does Bitcoin have in common with any of that?
Bitcoin is decentralized — who is the shady operator?
The blockchain is a fully audited and public ledger — where is the lack of transparency?
There has never been a guaranteed return — just a hope that Bitcoin replaced fiat currency.
Bitcoin never needs to collapse — it can go up forever as fiat currencies trend to zero.Perhaps you are using the word “ponzi” interchangeably with the so-called “greater fool” theory? But these are two different things. The greater fool theory posits that you buy something with the expectation that you will be able to sell it at a higher price to someone else. But isn’t this the expectation for all investing? Everyone expects to buy something scarce and desirable in the hope that someone in the future will be willing to pay up for a scarce and desirable asset?
I really do not understand your criticism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.