I Blame The Farmers For Climate Change!

MANILA: I believe that climate change is here, and that it is natural but more so anthropogenic or man-caused, through the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from man's activities, such as running engines, vehicles and factories, as well as his destroying carbon sinks: forests and farms. More so the farmers' activities, as I will show you in a little while.

The experts are convinced that it is carbon dioxide that is the villain in climate change. The US EPA says (EPA, epa.gov):

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2014, CO2 accounted for about 80.9% of all US greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle – both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

So convinced that CO2 is the anti-hero in climate change is the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) who asks rhetorically (ucsusa.org): "Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse) gases?" (The image above is from their webpage.) The UCS says there are 2 reasons for this:

One, the UCS says, "CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue." That's according to the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Methane (2nd in abundance) and nitrous oxide (3rd) have higher heat-trapping abilities, says the IPCC, but are "simply far less abundant in the atmosphere and are added more slowly."

Two, the UCS says, "CO2 sticks around." CO2 has a long life, 100 years.

Physics World says, "The greenhouse effect is becoming more significant as a result of increased carbon-dioxide emissions from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels" (25 February 2015, physicsworld.com).

New Scientist says CO2 is responsible for two-thirds of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity (newscientist.com).

Now, here's your wake-up call:

The World Today says, "Greenhouse gases: Too much emphasis on carbon dioxide impact; more needed on ozone, methane, scientists say" (Michael Edwards, 20 November 2014, abc.net.au).

That's the problem with the experts in climate change, including the members of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC – they think they are always right. Well, they are wrong about carbon dioxide as The Greenhouse Gas Of First Worry. (The image above is just an illustration of the greenhouse effect.)

On my part, more than 5 years ago, already in 2011, I was arguing against the application of chemical fertilizers and for the use of organic fertilizers (see my essay, "Our Noah's Ark. Is Mayon Volcano the new Ararat?" 08 January 2011, A Magazine Called Love, blogspot.com). I said the use of organic fertilizers was to avoid greenhouse gas emissions.

And more than a year ago, in 2014 I pointed to nitrous oxide (N2O) as the paramount greenhouse gas in the world. In my essay, "Alliance For Climate-Smart Agriculture. Next, Client-Smart Agriculture!" (27 September 2014, A Magazine Called Love, blogspot.com), I said, calling for primate change as answer to climate change:

Primate change is doable. Like: When you add inorganic nitrogen to the soil, nitrous oxide is released; from this comes about 75% of total nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in 2012 in the US alone (US Environmental Protection Agency, epa.gov). My contribution to climate change tactics has been, from February 2007 onwards, learning from ICRISAT and the Web, to continue writing about what science can do in agriculture to reduce chemical fertilizers applied to reduce greenhouse gas emission, such as N2O. Nitrous oxide has a warming power on the atmosphere that is 300+ times higher than carbon dioxide. Stop the nitrous oxide suicide!

(I want to correct myself; there is some exaggeration there; the correct figure is exactly 298, rounded to 300, not 300+ as I wrote.)

Last month, I said in my essay, "Here's what we can do at once to fight climate change" (23 March 2016, BIAG, blogspot.com):

I read on Facebook the screaming headline at IFL Science: "Current Rate Of Increase In Atmospheric Carbon Is The Largest Since The Time Of The Dinosaurs" (Josh L Davis, 22 March 2016, iflscience.com). So what?! The carbon footprint is insane. Carbon dioxide is NOT the deadliest greenhouse gas (GHG). According to the US EPA, nitrous oxide contributes to global warming 300 times more than carbon dioxide; I (also) wrote about this more than 3 months ago (see my essay, "Philippines, We Need A New Secretary For Climate Change Agriculture," 15 December 2015, Frank A Hilario, blogspot.com). If you don't believe the US EPA, go to hell, where there is no climate change!

I'm not joking about the laughing gas (nitrous oxide). The Union of Concerned Scientists said (as cited):

Reducing oil dependence. Strengthening energy security. Creating jobs. Tackling global warming. Addressing air pollution. Improving our health. The United States has many reasons to make the transition to a clean energy economy. What we need is a comprehensive set of smart policies to jump-start this transition without delay and maximize the benefits to our environment and economy.

To help avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change, ranging from extreme heat, droughts, and storms to acidifying oceans and rising sea levels, the United States must play a lead role and begin to cut its heat-trapping emissions today.

That's the political approach. I like the personal approach of Arnaud Koehl: "Ask not what you can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for you" (19 January 2016, Grantham Institute, wordpress.com). He says:

Fighting anthropogenic climate change is a collective effort, which seems, at least on the surface, to provide few rewards to the entities that bear the costs of pitching in. In other words, the rationale to take action does not make sense from a selfish, individual perspective. In that respect, the Paris conference did not succeed in making the deal appealing to many of the organizations and citizens that actually have power to foster change.

If we want to spur people into action, we need to change tack, shifting from a "climate-centric" view (what you can do for the climate) to a broader outlook that gives greater weighting to the potential benefits for communities and individuals (what climate change can do for you).

And he lists those potential "co-benefits" – better health and a movement towards a more sustainable economy. He also says, "The principles set out at COP21 should, in my opinion, lead to better rewarding the private interests that create and seize opportunities to cut emissions."

Private interests: I personally will not wait for business to do something about climate change.

Climate change experts: The problem with climate change experts is that they insist that carbon dioxide is the major enemy, but it is not. A molecule of carbon dioxide has 300 times less greenhouse heating power than a molecule of nitrous oxide. The carbon-dioxide climate change experts are a laugh.

So, I keep on thinking of the laughing gas. There are how many millions of farmers in the world applying artificial nitrogenous fertilizers in their fields? And in the Philippines, I know that the farmers over-apply nitrogenous fertilizers.

In my country, there are 11 million employed in agriculture (farmon.ph); if we take only 5 million as farmers, the rest as farm workers, and if we assume that each of the 5 million farmers plants 1 ha of rice and apply 5 bags of nitrogenous fertilizers at 50 kg/bag per season (Roehlano M Briones, February 2014, dirp4.pids.gov.ph), that's 500 kg a year for 2 croppings. Now, 500 times 5 million equals 2,500,000,000 (2.5 billion) kg of nitrogenous fertilizers applied every year in the Philippines alone. Just think how much nitrous oxide Filipino farmers alone are contributing to global warming!

What can we do to help mitigate climate change? My proposal is:

To stop the production of nitrous oxide, immediately, ban all chemical nitrogenous fertilizers in farms and fields! No more applying of urea, ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, ammonium bicarbonate, and liquid nitrogenous fertilizers in farms.

Nitrous oxide can make you laugh but it is not funny.