wallaceeffect

I haven't seen the documentary, but it is a false dichotomy to say modern agriculture versus fossil fuels? Modern agriculture relies on fossil fuels the same way any other modern industry does, from transportation of the final product to production of inputs (fertilizers, insecticides, etc.) to the fuels the machinery use to run. And the greenhouse gas sources that are unique to the ag sector, such as methane production from ruminants, are a product of consumer demand, not a feature unique to the modern agricultural system. If we changed the fuel mix used to produce ag products, but maintained the demand for beef, that methane would still be produced.

It is also because, what exactly do you expect a body like the UNFCCC to do? Production of methane by agriculture has already received vast amounts of attention from the scientific ad policy communities (see /u/mindrelay's comment). But as a simple fact of biology it is impossible to reduce methane emissions from cattle without reducing demand, i.e., creating laws forbidding people from eating beef. You can create policies that encourage people to do this, but increasing demand for meat is a runaway worldwide phenomenon well-known to be concurrent with increases in income. China in particular is driving increased demand as its economy transitions, but a richer world in general just means more meat consumption. Encouraging everyone in the world to eat less meat is a massive undertaking that is unlikely to have the impact needed unless it carries the force of law, which in and of itself contains massive ethical issues. Should we also forbid or discourage people from eating rice, since (global rice production is responsible for 12% of methane emissions, compared to enteric fermentation's 16%?)[http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/cycle.html]

The other fact is that methane, as a greenhouse gas, is perfectly able to be incorporated in a carbon taxing or capping policy just like those usually proposed (which usually tax or cap "carbon equivalents" rather than simply CO2). In the case of climate change policymakers would always rather focus on finding a solution that covers EVERY contributor to the problem rather than chipping away at enteric methane here and energy efficiency here. People working on comprehensive climate policy are by definition also working on the methane problem. It doesn't need special attention.

Get a stick sunscreen for your face, ears etc. and a spray for your body. No stickiness! (You still have to spread them around tho)

Hi Debra--I used to be a DC resident and I absolutely loved the Freer/Sackler. I'm a lay person, but I always liked that the gallery covered such a range of topics, media, geographic areas and time periods in such a small footprint. Can you give some insight into how exhibits are chosen, whether you actively try to "balance" representation in the museum, and so forth?

Thanks for your great work!