Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Sunday 19th May 2024 08:23:58 PM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 

Home/Government/Politics

Forum Ask A Question   Question Board   FAQs Search
Return to Question Board

Question Details Asked By Asked On
Global warming or just breaking wind? ETWolverine 05/02/07
    Experts: Rice Farming Huge Source of Methane Emissions

    Wednesday, May 02, 2007

    Associated Press
    BANGKOK, Thailand —

    As delegates to a climate conference here debate how to reduce greenhouse gases, one of the problems — and a possible solution — lies in the rice fields that cover much of Thailand, the rest of Asia and beyond.

    Methane emissions from flooded rice paddies contribute to global warming just as coal-fired power plants, automobile exhausts and other sources do with the carbon dioxide they spew into the atmosphere.

    In fact, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting this week in Bangkok concludes that rice production was a main cause of rising methane emissions in the 20th century. It calls for better controls.

    • Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

    "There is no other crop that is emitting such a large amount of greenhouse gases," said Reiner Wassmann, a climate change specialist at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines.

    "Methane emissions are unique to rice," he said. "If Asian countries are exploring possibilities to reduce greenhouse gas, they have to look at rice production. I'm not saying it's the biggest source, but in Asia it's a source that cannot be neglected."

    It's the bacteria that thrive in flooded paddies that produce methane, by decomposing manure used as fertilizer and other organic matter in the oxygen-free environment. The gas is emitted through the plants or directly into the atmosphere.

    A molecule of methane is 21 times more potent than a molecule of carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas.

    Although carbon dioxide is still the bigger problem, representing 70 percent of the warming potential in the atmosphere, rising levels of methane now account for 23 percent, reports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    After decades of atmospheric buildup, methane — also emitted naturally from wetlands and from other manmade sources, such as landfills and cattle farming — has leveled off in the past few years.

    Some scientists credit changes in rice production, and some also trace it to repairs in oil and gas storage facilities that can leak methane.

    A 2005 study by U.S. scientists focused on China, which produces a third of the world's rice and where rice fields have shrunk by 24 million acres in the past decade as farmers shifted to other crops and abandoned marginal land.

    The study also found that nitrogen-based fertilizer has replaced manure, and many Chinese farmers are using less water on their fields.

    For Asians, modifying rice production might prove easier and cheaper than some of the other fixes proposed in the IPCC draft report, such as switching from coal to solar, wind power or other renewable energy sources.

    But despite the recent leveling off, the EPA projects that global methane emissions will rise again, as rice fields expand with growing populations.

    Wassmann said few countries have followed China's example, instead ignoring such solutions as periodically draining their fields or shifting to locations that need less water.

    Scientists say such measures pose the same challenge for poor countries as proposals to introduce environmentally friendly tilling methods or capping methane from livestock manure: Farmers often lack the funds and know-how to shift away from techniques in use for generations.

    "In the developing world, you really have to think first and foremost about providing population with food," said Pete Smith of the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, lead author of the IPCC report's section on agriculture. "You can't start thinking about climate mitigation if you have to feed your family."

    Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, shows both the promise and limitations of trying to make the industry greener.

    Most large mills here burn leftover rice husks for power — a more climate friendly source than coal or oil — and are increasingly selling excess power back to the state.

    "Instead of letting it rot in the fields and produce bad gas, we burn it and make use of it," said Rut Subniran, executive chairman of the Patum Rice Mill and Granary outside Bangkok. "This is good for the country because it can reduce our oil imports. It's good for the environment."

    But a few miles away, impoverished rice farmers have largely ignored government calls to periodically drain their fields to help reduce methane emissions.

    Busy harvesting the latest crop, some blamed tradition and habit, but others said draining the fields was just too costly.

    "The government has told us how rice paddies release methane," said Adisak Wantayachiwa, who farms 28 acres north of Bangkok. But most farmers "don't want to pay the cost of draining their fields," he said. "They would just rather keep them flooded."

    ----------------

    So... technology is not solely responsible for global warming. Agriculture, specifically rice paddies, which are a main source of a staple food product in most third world countries, are a major source of greenhouse gasses.

    So, what are we to do. We can't use technology because it causes carbon dioxide, and we can't farm because it causes methane. Can't raise cows, pigs or chickens either... they are also major sources of methane production. We also have to cork our own butts, since we also fart methane. How will we live?

    That is the idiocy of the whole eco-movement. They try to get us to change our lifestyles based on their biases, with no scientific proof to back up global warming or the greenhouse effect. But in order to comply with the restrictions they would have on us, we literally would have to kill ourselves off.

    Between you and me, if it came down to a choice of possibly dying off in a few hundred thousand years or definitely dying off now, I'll choose the first option. But that's just me; I'm selfish that way.

    Elliot

      Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 05/03/07 1:30 pm:
      Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder have a practical solution to cattle flatulence ......Our unworthy thought it may be more efficient and less costly to buy some Gas-X for the cows

 
Summary of Answers Received Answered On Answered By Average Rating
1. >>But in order to comply with the restrictions they would ha...
05/02/07 ItsdbExcellent or Above Average Answer
2. Methane, huh? Boy, have I been contributing to global warmi...
05/02/07 kindjExcellent or Above Average Answer
3. Curiouser and curiouser!?!...
05/03/07 captainoutrageousExcellent or Above Average Answer
4. I can't take it anymore !!! An inconvenient tooth . They ...
05/03/07 tomder55Excellent or Above Average Answer
Your Options
    Additional Options are only visible when you login! !

viewq   © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.   Make Us Your Homepage
. Bookmark Answerway.