Now rice is being blamed for "climate change"

[jc456]

Their goal is mass starvation. That will depopulate!

there was the monument in Georgia Guidestones that said it. depopulate.

ensure humankind’s future survival:
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule Passion — Faith — Tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

To think they weren't serious the last decade needed to go forward with their lies.

 

[beautress]

I can't stand rice. Bleh.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Climate-smart agriculture is a pipe dream. It would never reach the production levels necessary to feed as many people as traditional farming methods currently do. Just as wind and solar would never attain the levels of energy-production the world gets through oil, gas, and coal.

What is strange is that there is a claim it improved profitability.

For as long as I have been around, improving profitability is always going to bring change.

Sounds like they just figured it out (something I have a hard time believing).

If there was a way to cut costs...they would have cut them....not wait for the global warming patrol to march in.

 

[Crick]

Rice has been cultivated in Asia for 12,000 years. 5,000 years earlier than the first cultivated wheat in the Middle East.

If cultivated rice were harmful to the environment, we probably would have noticed by now.

Methane has a lifetime in the atmosphere of about 12 years, versus the centuries for which CO2 will last, so there has been very little accumulation. No one is saying that rice agriculture is solely responsible for global warming and/or that it should be banned, just that it's another factor that will eventually need to be addressed. And as pointed out both in the OP's linked article and one of mine, programs already exist that address methane emissions AND increase yield. But you and yours instantly claim that liberals are attempting to induce mass starvation for population control. When the immediate (and often sole) response from your side of the arguments in this forum is almost ALWAYS unsupportable, bigoted fantasies like that, perhaps you ought to take a harder look at the adequacy of your position.

 

[Crick]

What is strange is that there is a claim it improved profitability.

For as long as I have been around, improving profitability is always going to bring change.

Sounds like they just figured it out (something I have a hard time believing).

If there was a way to cut costs...they would have cut them....not wait for the global warming patrol to march in.

You underestimate inertia.

 

[justoffal]

So let's ban one of the cheapest foods that the most impoverished rely on, to solve the "climate change" problem.

I'm pretty sure Asia will go along with this.

"The effects of changing climate—rising temperatures, more frequent droughts, floods, and intense typhoons—are devastating rice farms and farmer livelihoods. However, rice production itself has an impact on the climate: significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—methane, nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are byproducts of rice farming and the rice value chain.

Rice is responsible for 10% of global methane emissions, and in Southeast Asia, one the world’s major rice bowls, rice cultivation accounts for as much as 25-33% of the region’s methane emissions."

Greening the rice we eat

Anything that provides cheap sustenance has become a target for the globlist population hounds. I'm pretty shure China will give them the finger on this one. But wait! Next thing you'll see is BLM thugs standing at the grocery store exits terrorizing people who buy rice and taking it right out of their carts.

JO

 

[justoffal]

Methane has a lifetime in the atmosphere of about 12 years, versus the centuries for which CO2 will last, so there has been very little accumulation. No one is saying that rice agriculture is solely responsible for global warming and/or that it should be banned, just that it's another factor that will eventually need to be addressed. And as pointed out both in the OP's linked article and one of mine, programs already exist that address methane emissions AND increase yield. But you and yours instantly claim that liberals are attempting to induce mass starvation for population control. When the immediate (and often sole) response from your side of the arguments in this forum is almost ALWAYS unsupportable, bigoted fantasies like that, perhaps you ought to take a harder look at the adequacy of your position.

All energy transactions hae some kind of unavoidable entropy attached to them.... at some point we have to settle for whaever the cost is to survive.

 

[fncceo]

just that it's another factor that will eventually need to be addressed

You can only destroy civilization one step at a time.

I understand.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You underestimate inertia.

You don't know the answer to the question.

 

[jc456]

Methane has a lifetime in the atmosphere of about 12 years, versus the centuries for which CO2 will last, so there has been very little accumulation. No one is saying that rice agriculture is solely responsible for global warming and/or that it should be banned, just that it's another factor that will eventually need to be addressed. And as pointed out both in the OP's linked article and one of mine, programs already exist that address methane emissions AND increase yield. But you and yours instantly claim that liberals are attempting to induce mass starvation for population control. When the immediate (and often sole) response from your side of the arguments in this forum is almost ALWAYS unsupportable, bigoted fantasies like that, perhaps you ought to take a harder look at the adequacy of your position.

What problem does it present?