Opinion: The Carbon Dioxide ‘problem’ will be gone in ten years

George King, 09/06/2023

There are a lot of pensive discussions when you are part of a multi-generational farming family.  Tough times of droughts, floods, cattle crashes, ever increasing costs, commodity price squeezes, interest rate hikes and wool crashes as well as all the promotion of how virtuous country life is.  What is clear is that it all balances out in the end if you stay on your feet and keep a big picture approach.

Humans love a good scare campaign, from kids telling scary stories when camping to adults with manipulative self-interest campaigns.

  • 1960’s – no oil in ten years
  • 1970’s – Another ice age in ten years
  • 1980’s – Acid rain will destroy all crops in ten years and the world will starve.
  • 1990’s – The Ozone layer will be gone in ten years and we will all roast.
  • 2000’s – The ice caps will be gone in ten years.
  • 2010’s – It’s never going to rain again and cities will run out of water (thanks Flannery).
  • 2020’s – If we don’t reduce our carbon emissions the world will heat up causing existential extinctions and collapse of civilisation.

The Governments have acted as they always do, they take pressure from public opinion and weave that into their policy.  For centuries we have had doomsdayers standing on street corners preaching about the end of the world.  Now they have discovered a new more powerful and highly profitable online world where they can all get together and preach their rhetoric. Unfortunately for farmers we are on the receiving end of this now with livestock and cropping in the sights of the irrational green movement, and while ever we remain silent and divided we have to take what we are given.

The green policy is illogically limiting the amount of food available to civilisation in an environmentally destructive way.  The mathematics of their policies are even more concerning.

The world’s climate has been moderated by Green House Gasses (GHG’s) for the past 4.6 billion years. Water vapour is responsible for some 95% of the earth’s GHG’s, Carbon Dioxide accounts for 3.6% of GHG’s and Methane 0.45%.  Of the Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere human activity accounts for 3.7% of the annual emissions with the remaining coming from oceans, volcanoes and land.  Australia accounts for some 1.2% of global carbon emissions.  According to the ‘scientists’ we must reduce our carbon emissions by 7% per year or the world will cook.

So, our greenhouse contributions to the planet are:  3.6% (GHG) x 3.7% (human activity) x 1.2% (Australia) = 0.0016%.   And it gets better, we are told we need to reduce this number by 7% a year.  So, if we do this we may make 0.0015% difference to the world’s atmosphere.  For the old school it will make 15/10,000  (fifteen-ten-thousands) of a difference, it will be expensive, it will reduce available food and it will have an enormous negative effect on the environment because all the important issues of biodiversity, groundcover, aridification and water quality will be ignored.  Initially farmers will be most adversely affected.

It is insulting to the farming community to have extreme activists assert we are ruining the environment.  Science cannot understand the complexity of environments, because at the last analysis people are part of the environment and therefore part of the mystery they are trying to solve.  Farm businesses are the environment, farmers generally do the best they can by the environment within the confines of their financial limitations.

The previous scare campaigns whilst distracting were not catastrophic to our industry.  This Carbon Dioxide and Methane witch hunt has the potential to destroy farming families and the very fabric of rural Australia through an increase in green-tape and reduced margins.  Our industry leaders need to be stronger than has ever been required.  We need to say to our customers, yes, we appreciate your concern about Carbon Dioxide but there are bigger environmental concerns we want to address at the soil surface level.  Pandering to green extremes is not an option.  We must have the courage to say to them there is a point where their groundless misinformation will not be tolerated and there is a line they must not cross (farm invasions).

And for our city cousins, you are even more at risk, especially your most vulnerable.  The feel-good virtue signalling greenwashing won’t have you feeling good indefinitely.  Humanity needs a set amount of protein to survive, removing meat proteins does not negate the need for humans to source protein, it just means you will all have to fight over a smaller pie.  You will be unhealthier with limited access to animal proteins which provide essential bioavailable nutrients, you will be more anxious without the essential fats and amino acids for proper brain function.  You will be poorer because energy will become more expensive and more unreliable.  I hope the 15/10,000’s of a difference you might make to the atmosphere is worth all of this?

    1. “The entire Northern Polar ice cap … could be completely ice-free in five years,” – Al Gore in 2009 –
    2. In 2007, Professor Tim Flannery told ABC Landline “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. Aus Govts spent billions on desalination plants in the late 2000s ( and’s,salt%20and%20yielding%20potable%20water.
  • Reducing Carbon emissions:
  • Human activity produces about 29 gigatons of Carbon Dioxide (Co2) annually (3.7%) with lands and oceans absorbing about 40% of this Anthropomorphic (man-made) emissions with 60% compounding in the atmosphere.  Annually 750 gigatons (96.3%) moves through the carbon cycle by natural processes. 
  • Australia is the world’s 14th highest emitter, contributing 1.2 per cent of global emissions.


George King has contributed this article in his personal capacity as a cattle producer from NSW. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your comment will not appear until it has been moderated.
Contributions that contravene our Comments Policy will not be published.


  1. Chris Davis, 07/11/2023

    Nailed it George. Can’t fault a word.
    Thanks you for not getting me started on the Methane conjob though.

  2. Charles Jensen, 07/07/2023

    The one thing I never hear mentioned in this whole debate is limiting population. If we do not, then all of this discussion will be irrelevant.

  3. Joanne Rea, 13/06/2023

    This sort of intolerant pile-on is exactly what farmers face every day.
    I am willing to bet that almost none of these commentors have yet paid a significant price for their strident anti-farmer opinions.
    The expensive and unreliable electricity of late is the first that city people have to sacrifice. The burden of that will fall on the poorest in the community and businesses that have to compete on the open market.
    By contrast, farmers have been asked to make major sacrifices in their farming businesses while facing defamation and denigration at the hands of extremist groups who raise tax deductable funds.
    The unplanned rush to renewables has had proponents engage in wholesale environmental destruction which no farmer would think of doing.
    In North Queensland whole tops are being bulldozed off the top of mountains and pushed over the edge causing excess sedimentation (they don’t really believe that sedimentation is destroying the Great Barrier Reef) and destroying known homes ( I don’t use ‘habitat’ as much habitat does not contain the relevant species) of koalas and greater gliders. The turbines themselves will kill eagles.
    The Eungella pumped hydro will destroy the habitat of possibly the largest platypus colony on the continent.
    Many of the renewables industrial estates and associated powerlines cross, and destroy large areas of high quality agricultural land. Proponents tell farmers that a hectare of high quality agricultural land is the same as a hectare of sand or rock to them.
    That is no way to feed a growing population.
    I find the constant bullying of farmers, and particularly farmers such as George King, who is just trying to stand up for his industry, intolerant and inappropriate.

  4. George King, 13/06/2023

    This has clearly struck a chord, and a nerve with many.

    I am quite happy to be proven wrong, only the very powerful and very stupid don’t change their position when facts come to light which contradict their beliefs.

    I will however note that if I am wrong about Carbon Dioxide what is the world going to do about it? If you sat quietly and thought deeply about this the unfortunate answer is we are going to do nothing. Some people and some nations may reduce their carbon footprint but the developing economies will continue to grow emissions as they bring their population out of poverty.

    Industrial wind farms and industrial solar farms are on the whole not renewable, they take an enormous amount of carbon to construct. Running less livestock for misinformed environmental reasons will result in poor environmental and social outcomes.

    Stressing about a problem we have no control over is unhealthy and unhelpful. We can however exert an enormous influence over the worlds hydrology, the byproduct of this will be more stable weather system, more reliable food production, more stable communities and more stable geopolitics.

  5. Stuart J Milburn, 12/06/2023

    While I have a lot of respect for farmers there are errors here. I’m not sure where figures are from but I think author is confusing GHG abundance by weight with radiative efficiency. Kind of like saying a doona is 20% down and 80% feather. Maybe so but most of the warming still comes from the downs ability to retain heat.

    In the same way the CO2 in atmosphere may not sound like a large amount but is 75% of the warming. Google the greenhouse effect, or images of glaciers over the last 50 years and do your own research. While no glaciers in NSW you are likely to see more droughts and wildfires in your lifetime unfortunately.

  6. Richard Barnes, 12/06/2023

    Dear George, and readers.
    I am a paediatric doctor. The work I do is based on science. If your child were seriously ill, you would accept my advice.
    Here is a famous scientist journalist, David Attenborough, on climate change:

    • George King, 12/06/2023

      G’day Dr Barnes, all the more confusing having intelligent, educated and sound people on opposing ends of the discussion.

      I do think humanity collectively is powerless to affect carbon dioxide emissions but we have enormous ability to positively impact the water cycle through good land management. Carbon dioxide and water vapour are not the problem, the problem is they are in too high concentrations in the atmosphere and not in our soils.

  7. Ken Jacobs, 12/06/2023


    Your calculations are incorrect. Water vapour is in a feedback loop that is driven by other greenhouse gases. So as the world heats up evaporation increases and water vapour increases, further increasing warming.

    There is nothing gained by climate change denying. The key problem from my perspective is that we have no cost effective method of producing carbon neutral beef. We need to be able to measure our soil carbon sequestration without committing to sell our carbon credits.

    Secondly crop systems lead to loss of soil carbon that is never considered when comparing animal foods with plant based foods.

    In your roles we must drive the arguments, not deny the problem.


    • George King, 12/06/2023

      G’day Ken, of course you are right, environments function as an interconnected whole. I wholeheartedly agree with human induced climate change but disagree with the assertion carbon dioxide is the main driver.

      The water cycle has been broken globally due to humanities mismanagement of billions of hectares of land. For the past 50 years some farmers have been able to manage their land in a regenerative manner which increases soil carbon levels which increases the soils water holding capacity, reduces erosion, improves biodiversity and the health of the livestock produced.

      There’s no farming areas on earth which couldn’t be improved through management.

  8. Jim Egan, 12/06/2023

    We can’t just accept scientific research when it suits our purpose, and deny it when it doesn’t, when we deny reality we create problems for the future.

  9. Bob Todd, 11/06/2023

    You have just quoted % volumes of GHG and ignored the heating effect, and over simplified the whole problem. Also, Climate change under a range of different names has been scientifically identified as a problem for about 100 years, and it’s a slow beast to see a noticeable effect but it’s picking up now. It’s only in the last 10 years or so that any notice has been given by mainstream politicians. I agree that agriculture is maybe not as bad as fossil fuels, but every effort is required to reduce heating effects, or you won’t have any fields left cos they’ll be all charred after a decent el nino.
    I’m also concerned that your comments moderators are not giving a balanced view, or maybe these comments are indicative of regular readers of “beef central” ….

    • Graham Strong, 19/06/2023

      Thanks Bob for commenting here and providing counter-point to Kings opinions. They are minority opinions and do not speak for most farmers who are engaged with the issue of climate change.

  10. George Barry, 11/06/2023

    Last week I was fortunate
    Enough to see a rainfall chart dating 1860 to 1975 which showed wet years being up to 48 inches of rain to dry years being about 7 inches. I also have in my posession rainfall records from 1917 to 1983. The same thing here. 28 inches in the wettest year down to 7.5 inches in the dryest. So for over 150 years we have had the highs and the lows. Shows climate change is a hoax. First records are from Clare region and second from Lock Elliston area. George King is spot on the Nimbies

  11. Ray P Cooper, 11/06/2023

    I agree 👍

  12. Elizabeth britnell, 11/06/2023

    What can we do to help , and stop these numpties destroying our world and our farmers ?

  13. Ronnie Christie, 11/06/2023

    Some common sense, facts in prospectus…. thanks George

  14. Sledge Hammer, 11/06/2023

    What a load of… well I can’t say that because in would be food for fodder.
    This has to be an opinion piece because it’s so factually wrong. 10 years, 10 years, 10 years. No one credibly said oil would be gone in 10 years and sources never prognosed that. Thatcher yelled at the world about global warming (which was changed to climate change because of concervatist butthurt lobbyists) in 1978 as the greatest threat to mankind. The ozone layer was getting rooted but because of international activism it is forming again but not everywhere uniformly. And acid rain did destroy large swaths of agricultural land in Europe, where it was being monitored, not everywhere. As shown by this article, science tries to be exact with repetition and testing, opinion continues after into infinity

  15. Samuel Petts, 11/06/2023

    Amazing how you’ve misrepresented news reports as actual scientific data.
    If you can’t understand that CO2 and methane vibrate at a higher frequency and that water water increases due to temperature increases and not the other way around…. you shouldn’t have an opinion on climate.

  16. bill nicholas, 11/06/2023

    the ice is stll melting we need to do something. you people don’t believe thousands of scientists.

  17. Steven Murray, 11/06/2023

    Article needs correction.
    Scientists have been warning about the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions since at least the 1980s.

  18. Harry Robertson, 11/06/2023

    Be a good fella, stick to cattle producing if that’s what you can do and let the science we all rely on do the talking

    • Dale Stiller, 13/06/2023

      That is rather patronising and belittling. Cattle producers would be more than happy sticking to producing a good beef product if public vilification and government policy did not impose unnecessary expectations that ignore the science of the biogentic carbon cycle.

  19. Keith Melvin, 11/06/2023

    Timely reminder that denial is alive, if only in a zombie sense. No oil in 10 years? Well oil is finite, conventional oil production peaked over a decade ago. Now bitumen sand, natural gas liquids, and biofuel is termed oil, so as not to frighten the plebs. Ice Age? Science thought global dimming from pollution would initiate a freeze. Turned out the heating from greenhouse pollution dominated human caused cooling. We did something about acid rain. That’s why Europe and North America still have forests. We did something about ozone destruction too. That’s why you don’t need to wear spf 10000 now and the world isn’t being steralised with radiation. I could go on but it seems this publication likes uneducated knee jerking more than fact.

  20. Dave Price, 11/06/2023

    Wowsers, this is taking misinformation and bending the maths to the extreme, though everyone reading this actually wants to hear this. Your working is like a year 8 level and would get a fail in a test.

    In the 80’s we understood that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were destroying the ozone, drastic action by banning them has resulted in the ozone repairing itself.

    The carbon we need to reduce is from human emissions (first inaccuracy in your numbers), farming animals is a significant emission source for every country. Failure to reduce emissions so far is already proving to increase temperatures. Warmer air/water causes the atmosphere to hold more moisture, which increases extreme weather events. The earth can deal with the GHG it creates naturally, it is the human created ones that are pushing us to tipping point.

    Your soil level concerns will be pointless if your topsoil keeps getting washed away in flooding events, along with your stock.

  21. Stacy Gildenston, 11/06/2023


  22. Ferdie Sullik, 11/06/2023

    My feelings exactly. Why is the government bowing to uninformed opinion? I have always wondered why we have to pay so dearly for ” cheap renewable energy ” whilst exporting our coal so that our competitors can have cheap power on top of cheap labour

  23. John Napier-Winch, 11/06/2023

    As I am an environmentist I completely agree with all the information. I don’t vote for Greens as they lost the plot years ago. Save our farms.
    Cheers John

  24. Sue Barber, 11/06/2023

    Oh thank goodness! It’s such a relief to read opinion articles like this (excellent) one. I was legitimately starting to think there were no sane people left on the planet! Cheers! 👏👏

  25. Greg Giles, 11/06/2023

    Well put together, pity we can’t get the media and politicians to take their blinkers off.. Yes I can remember all those doomsday predictions which failed to eventuate.I also liked the one where we should basically get rid of cows because horror of horrors they fart and cotribute to the downfall of the atmosphere but funnily enough they forgot to mention anything about the human population doing the same . Keep up the good work and MAYBE MAYBE a politician or someone in the media might stop and think.

  26. Robert M Bell, 11/06/2023

    A good well reasoned article. A pity the politicians, burocrats, brainwashed elites and gen z won’t read it or believe it.

  27. Ali Ruhle, 11/06/2023

    Thankyou for your article George. Carbon is essential to all life on earth, it’s insane to think people are making plans to reduce it.
    I’m hopeful more people will see these lies and misinformation and be brave enough to say no more.

  28. laura lee, 11/06/2023

    figures appear to be wrong = carbon is 400 parts per million NOT 3.6%

  29. Andrew Manning, 11/06/2023

    George, based on the other comments here, congratulations on completely pulling the wool over your readers’ eyes. You are either a master manipulator, or you have absolutely no idea how greenhouse gases are affecting climate.

  30. Basim Faraj, 11/06/2023

    Dear George

    Thanks for your article. I hope this irrational madness will stop before it’s too late. CO2 is a gas for life. It’s not a pollutant. 97% natural and it’s greening our plant.

    With this scare, I am seeing the biggest fraud ever with public money transfer to private hands through massive unnecessary subsidies.
    It is more profitable than wars it seems and potentially more destructive.

    We should be focusing on solving pollution and provide affordable energy to our fellow humans. This will help reduce poverty and that is key to better living conditions and cleaner environment.

    Kindness regards,

    Basim Faraj (PhD)

  31. Robert Bealby (England,UK), 11/06/2023

    Oh how I agree with all this, there are several scientists who tell us the same but media and governments the world over ignore the true facts. Robert Bealby (UK farmer)

  32. Daniel Whitbread, 10/06/2023

    Well written factual article !!!
    Respect 🙌

  33. Denese Christopher, 10/06/2023

    We can add another catastrophe to the list. A.I. will destroy humanity by 2030. Apparently?

  34. Denese Christopher, 10/06/2023

    I totally agree with this gentleman. If he is correct our current energy policy is lunacy on steroids. If he is incorrect we still need reliable energy sovereignty to whether the predicated bad weather.

  35. Mike Introvigne, 10/06/2023

    Well done, George, if only people would listen to a true debate instead of the one-sided illogical rubbish we are fed by the media and our leftist governments trying to grab votes.
    Those that disagree with this ridiculous rhetoric are called the “FAR RIGHT” when in fact we have been “RIGHT SO FAR”, because logic and realism is on our side.

  36. Michael McKeon, 10/06/2023

    George, data can tell many stories. To me, it appears you have referenced that which suits your argument. Our national beef herd represents 10% of our total methane emission. Highlighting Australia’s contribution as a small % of global emissions suggests farmers should do nothing. There are many sensible strategies Australian farmers can adopt to minimise emissions. Not acting because we are a small part of the total equation is not good advice. The easiest thing consumers can do to reduce their carbon footprint is to consume less red meat. Consumers don’t blame farmers for climate change but they will expect everyone to do their bit. Denying you are part of the problem will hurt you in the long run. Accepting responsibility and implementing sensible strategies to reduce emissions will pay dividends.

  37. Rob Edgerton, 10/06/2023

    Irrespective of the CO2 effect, there is a massive direct heat input to the atmosphere from fossil fuel (and nuclear) use in transport and industry. That is simply due to the lack of efficiency of every human machine except the relatively recent brushless electric motor. Over 50% of heat released from combustion has gone directly into our atmosphere (or much lesser extent, water).

  38. David Gordon Mountseer, 10/06/2023

    This article is highly suspect.


    Such nonsense always attracts attention and adherents, usually of the unthinking/uninformed, certainly non-science disciplined.

  39. David Buswell, 10/06/2023

    George, an interesting read, however it is full of lies, misrepresentations and quotes taken out of context.
    I will pick a few of the many.
    Tom Flannery never said what you claim. The quote you provided was a widely disseminated quote of Andrew Bolt that was taken out of context.
    Tim Flannery’s actual words are here
    Then you go on seeming to claim that since we add only 2.22% to atmospheric CO2 per year there is nothing to worry about. But, you are forgetting this is a yearly amount that is compounding and the 30% going into the oceans is fine according to you. Acidification due to this 30% is slowing oceans currents and you will find that this will eventually affect your farm bottom line.
    With the amount of CO2 contributions from Australia may be smaller than some countries but on a per head of population basis we are the highest emitting OECD country and the 11th worst of all countries.
    If we count the countries with populations between 20 million and 30 million which all have similar emission levels the total emissions, with a lesser combined population than China, are higher than Chinas emissions. So the argument about us being small doesn’t work. It’s like me saying my total tax contribution is very small so it doesn’t matter if I don’t pay it.
    On another point, sure the amount of added CO2 is small compared to water vapour but it is the extra CO2 causing warming that is in turn causing a much bigger increase in water vapour.
    It is a highly complex science but multiple investigations from different perspectives based in different areas of science all lead to the same conclusion.
    You come across as someone who thinks that city dwellers are unaware and uncaring about the hardships farmers face every single day of every year. But please be aware that there are a very large number of us do care and do talk about it and believe that government must help farmers with climate adaption. We all need farmers.
    However ignoring climate science and repeating the lies from the Murdoch media does nothing to help the farming community in the long run.
    Currently the big problem for Australia is the gas industry that has the potential to increase Australia’s total emissions 5 fold as a minimum.

  40. Jan Medovarsky, 10/06/2023

    Back in 1975 I have been my first year in horticulture college.
    One of the first things we have been thought was the principle of glasshouse effect.
    Carbon dioxide can’t cause glasshouse effect.

  41. Graham Lovell, 10/06/2023

    At least the ozone hole is real. We are only holding our own and more needs to be done. For example, a new way of heating and cooling needs to be found that doesn’t involve F-gases.

    The diet of cattle in feed lots can be adjusted to reduce methane emissions.

    Carbon from coal-fired generators can be captured and used or stored.

    Real problems need real solutions,
    not false, ideological solutions .

    We will eventually need “net-zero” if coastal environments are not to be inundated. But this does not mean no CO2 and methane emissions. Advocates from both sides should follow the science. This would be a new and refreshing approach.

  42. Peter Scott, 10/06/2023

    Very well said. More people like you have to declare climate catastrophy for what it really is… a total hoax. IPCC leaders have admitted that climate action has nothing to do with the environment. It’s more to do with an attempt to achieve a socialist utopia! Good luck with that.

  43. Andrew Lytton-Hitchins, 10/06/2023

    Another thoughtful, well researched and articulated article George!!! … Brilliant … keep them coming.

  44. Wes Klett, 10/06/2023

    George, thank you for your well thought out piece and putting these comments to paper. In all subjects, it seems that we are left to deal with biased and uneducated snippets in the mainstream news that create hysteria. You have put this discussion in a succinct and intelligent manner. This and so many other topics always point back to my favorite quote – Simple Lies are Easier to Understand than Complicated Truths. Greatly appreciated by an American who has spent much time in your wonderful country.

  45. Ted Watkins, 09/06/2023

    George this is the most pragmatic sensible article read for a long time well done.

  46. Matthew Della Gola, 09/06/2023

    Wow. Just wow. This is refreshing and positive. Coming together as a collective industry and pushing back against this preposterous ideology might give us a chance. The big question is who will unite us all. Cheers Matthew Della Gola

  47. David Murray, 09/06/2023

    👍. Spot on!

  48. Grant Piper, 09/06/2023

    Excellent summary, but will be ignored by the climate change zealots. We are in the post-truth world, and the last 3.5 years shows what that means in practice.

  49. Michael J. Vail, 09/06/2023

    George ! 👏👏👏 Absolutely correct ! You’re spot-on there.

    Apparently educated people being led up the garden-path, by the nose, with eyes-wide-shut.

    Critical-thought seems to have escaped; and the pervasive, persuasive rhetoric as ‘noise’, seems to have become the ‘new science’ … with the Woke/Cancel Kulture crowd being the new fad that fools must follow.

    Reality-bites … hard …

    And it will.


    Good Luck, in influencing policy direction going forward, and I hope you may find similar courageous individuals and organisations that also will ‘bell the cat’, and continue to toll the bell 🔔 !!

    • Geoff Marr, 11/06/2023

      Nooooooooo… sorry, but with all respect… NO.

      Rejecting the science becsuse it is not convenient … sound familiar?.. isnt just a seriously dumb thing to do. Its damned foolhardy.

      I have PERSONALLY SEEN the ice-core evidence of the effects of MAN MADE CARBON DIOXIDE + MONOXIDE POISONING on the Antarctic ice.

      You can trace back MILLENIA and see the miniscule but measurable physical presence.

      Clearly defined, a line in the ice seperating pre and post industrial society, evidenced with SOOT FROM GEORGE STEVENSONS ROCKET. In the early 1800s in UK, coal soot began to float on air currents and eventually settled on the Antarctic ice.

      From that point on, to the present day, the ice has had chemical additives. This is caused not just by the chemistry of soot.. but its physical shape and size.

      Volcanoes vent tiny spherical powderpuff particles. Whereas, Manmade carbon and methane pollution thats vented from industrial and domestic chimneys is shaped like mini cornflakes. It too floats on air and water, however its dissoluble.

      When it settles on the ice.. and it most DEFINITELY does do so.. the ice does not compact as it has done since the dawn of time.

      Volcanoes leave their mark, but they dont change the way ice compacts. Whereas, manmade carbon flakes DO INDEED change how ice is laid down.

      Ancient ice is deep blue and as hard as steel. Recent ice is white fractured slush. And slush washes away.

      I was personally shown all this by CSIRO scientist Dr Perry whose son was in my year in highschool. This was in the early 1970s, when none of this was considered remotely controversial.. it was only ever treated with respect, because it was self evident truth, and the evidence was verifiable.

      I know people here on this site are concerned about the economics of farmlife. HOWEVER it is cutting off your own nose to spite your own face when you denigrate or ignore the science. Sooner or later its going to cost you a lot more.

      Floods and fires are FAR FAR WORSE over the course of my 66 years.

      As a lad, I recall our nation had perhaps 1 or 2 major fires a year. Now? It can be numbered in the hundreds, even in the thousands.

      And floods? Oh my lord. So many properties and many risks are now uninsurable.

      Consider this please, in any future activity.

      If its not emission-free, or at least toxin-free.. its probably best not done at all.

      Finance will require insurance. That insurance will become so expensive as to be unobtainable.

      So.. Please.
      Stop clearing trees, plant more. Stop degrading soil, carbon enrich it.
      Stop puncturing and draining aquifers, it takes millenia to refill. Stop damming the floodplain.. its not your water to seize/steal, and the water MUST also reach communities downstream.
      Stop overusing toxic chemistry. The life in the soil itself dies, and livestock either gets sick or develop immunity anyway.

      Farm runoff chemistry leaches into waterways and eventually the sea. Its PROVEN to damage our Reef. It KILLS our sea grasses and seaweed and EVERYTHING we love in the ocean depends on them.

      Our kids now cant effectively use many antibiotics due to being already stuffed full from chickens that have been pumped to bursting with excessive drug use.

      So many of our farming practices are hurting us. Please. Stop. Change to a fully sustainable model.

      Please.. its obvious now that illegal landclearing and floodplain damming is clearly visible, and toxic chemistry can be forensically traced back to source.

      No damage goes unseen.
      Public opinion is outraged.
      The courts wont be sympathetic. The 20th century started us all on a road to extinction.

      Mindsets and methodologies now need to leave the 19th century, and enter the 21st. Otherwise, extinction events may well include us all.

      Thank you for reading all the way.

Get Beef Central's news headlines emailed to you -