How our innovative way of life heats the atmosphere, acidifies the oceans and what to do now

 "It is clear that technological change is most needed in some of the most important greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting areas: energy production (25% of GHG), agriculture (food production) (24% of GHG), industry (21% of GHG), transport (14% of GHG), construction (6% of GHG) and other sectors (10% of GHG).

 

    If we are more or less close to a decisive technological breakthrough in transport and energy (we have solar and wind power plants and electric cars and are approaching hydrogen-powered transport), then we lack scientific and technological progress in other areas. The industrial and agricultural sectors are particularly problematic. We don’t understand the industry and construction and don’t want to understand, so let’s talk about agriculture. After all, most of us have recently been from the farms.

 

 

    Earth feeder

 

    Here, let’s look at a vital agricultural sector. I say it is vital because without food we would not survive long.

 

    The food sector is already dominated by cereals, which account for 45%. world calorie intake. Meat, milk, fish, eggs make up just over 20 percent calories.

 

    In the agricultural sector we have several main objects of pollution: mineral fertilizers (both in their production and in themselves they are rich in GHGs); livestock (emits methane gas when passing gas); agricultural machinery (diesel); deforestation of forests, destruction of grasslands, wetlands (which emits large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere) and other activities that contribute to climate change.

 

    There are those who say that this is - let's move on to a plant-based diet and everything will work out. Unfortunately, this is just a radical myth. In the Vegan world, there are no more than 15 percent. (The number is already quite high, as even a third of Indians follow such a diet because of their religious beliefs). As we can see, we already get almost half of the calories from cereals, and animal-derived calories make up a much smaller portion of the calories. However, it is food of animal origin that is more proteinaceous and rich in the necessary vitamins and minerals.

 

    To follow the path of a vegan diet requires an extremely mixed plant diet, which should increase the consumption of vegetables, fruits, nuts, mushrooms and other plant foods very rapidly. If such a jump were extremely rapid, we would not be able to do without the growth of greenhouse gases, because we would need even more mineral fertilizers (after all, they are used primarily in crop production), even more arable machinery (even more diesel), and many more forests or grasslands. large plantations of cereals, legumes or other crops. We don't want that either. So this radical path is neither smart nor realistically possible. It is likely that the current set of plant and meat foods will remain similar to what we have today, all the more so as it relates to food consumption traditions and our culture.

 

    Reducing the effects of all these activities requires not radical bans and restrictions, but technological solutions that we do not yet have (or do have, but are not yet available to every farmer):

 

    • there is a need for biological fertilizers that are cheap and can be produced in extremely large quantities;

 

    • Feed and additives are needed for animals to reduce methane production in the digestive system.

 

    • the need for clean agricultural machinery (now almost all of it is powered by the most polluting diesel fuel);

 

    • There is a need for more balanced farming practices (regenerative farming) based on GHG sequestration (more on this later).

 

    All these and other necessary technological solutions are the things that need to be introduced, not just discussed, but also globally. A great deal of research is being done, but it is by no means achieving real practical application.

 

    There is also no mention of modern fertilizers that can actually reduce the use of mineral fertilizers. Will you say that is an insignificant goal? Example, if Lithuanian farms at least 15 percent. to reduce the use of mineral fertilizers, then tomorrow we will achieve the full ambition of Lithuanian agricultural GHG reduction, which has been set for us by 2030. In fact, we could even shelter any other percentage of GHGs from other sectors. But to achieve this, farmers need alternatives, new preparations. (Or maybe just ancient manure? But it requires hard work with forks ... (K.))

 

    Finally, little attention is paid to GHG sequestration. What is it? It is the process by which greenhouse gases are extracted from the atmosphere and locked in the ground. The best known example of sequestration is plants. Plants use atmospheric CO2 for the process of photosynthesis. In this way, CO2 is locked in the plant itself and, over time, in the soil. That is why it is said that in order to reduce CO2 emissions we need to plant significant more trees. However, there are other techniques that allow the sequestration process to be performed.

 

    Non-arable farming, well known to farmers, is one such technique. It is a technological process in which seed is planted in uncultivated land. What does this bring? This technique allows you to create a fairly thick crust of humus (rot, which forms a very important organic layer of the soil) in the soil. Humus is trapped in CO2, and sown crops use the minerals it contains. This method of farming not only traps (sequester) the carbon in the soil, but also allows the use of less mineral fertilizers, as a natural layer of minerals is formed. Such farming is much more sustainable and would make a very strong contribution to climate policy goals.

    However, it is complicated and expensive. Very often farmers do not follow this path because it is a high risk.

 

    The risk can be reduced by paying farmers for GHG sequestration, i. extraction of carbon from the atmosphere and trapping in the soil. Such funding schemes are already being tested in the US and some parts of Europe. Why is this not being discussed globally?

 

    There are also more technologies that allow atmospheric carbon to be returned to the earth efficiently. However, for some reason, all of them receive very little attention. This is an unforgivable mistake, as any technology that contributes to the common goals of climate change reversal must be used to its full potential."