Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism for climate change?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...456
Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:Lord Stern has been quoted as saying we all need to go vegetarian to save the planet
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece
br>
some interesting points raised, as well as the fact that on the radio they were saying the average family dog produces the same carbon footprint as a small car - 0.8 metric tonnes per year due to the high meat and cereal diet dogs have.

Is this really a viable option? meat (essentially fish) is the main reason we have such highly developed brains, should we stop to save the planet or are there much better ways to go?


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete Topic

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:How would we know how much Co2 to sequester? and what if we act like it's gone and it dissolves and comes back? that would be like a time bomb. Dry Ice is soluble so that part of the sea would surley die as carbonic acid was formed. so the cure to Global warming would be to poison the sea? seems a pretty bad idea to me wink

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Pinatubo's eruption cooled the planet by 0.4 ...

mankind is quite good in blowing things up, so we could... sacrifice two or three mountains and things would be back to normal...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:The idea IIRC, was that the intense pressure at the bottom of the sea would prevent the C02 from dissolving. It's just another idea in a long line of technofixes.

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoutI adapted the idea from an English university professors. His plan is to freeze giant dry ice torpedos out of manufactured CO2 and bomb those into the bottom of the seabed. High pressure+ cold temps+CO2 being re-sequestered.

Stout, thanks for the explanation. I wasnt sure what mountain hemlock story was about. Its probably a realistic as clean coal. I suppose, we will have to consider nuclear power too.


Originally Posted By: Mynci...The one question I have regarding climate change (which is a fact and humans contribute towards it ) is what happens when climate change occurs and it is NOT driven by humans? ...

Mynci, I think that people are trying to deal with anthropogenic climate change, thats why we are cutting back on emissions. Yes, I agree there is no guarantee. What do you suggest, do nothing? Create a hostile barren wilderness for the future generations of humans, and all other life forms on the planet.

Originally Posted By: WoodlandApples

reasons why climate change is a good thing:

1. The warmer weather means that the rock climbing season is extended as the rock is always drier and the weather nicer.

2. I read somewhere that it will push the southern hemisphere weather patterns up closer to the equator. This means that for a while, Australia will get New Zealand snow. I could live with that.



WoodlandApples,

I think you could be mistaken about the climbing - Heat-affected climber rescued, and the snow - Australian ski fields on slippery slope.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

WoodlandApple
WoodlandApple

addict
Location: Australia
Member Since: 1st Dec 2009
Total posts: 474
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone I think you could be mistaken about the climbing - Heat-affected climber rescued, and the snow - Australian ski fields on slippery slope.


NOOOoooooooooo!!!!!!!!! shocked

but on a serious note that climbing article was a load of rubbish, that is not the way it happened. The guy in question was way hungover, and the climb he was on (he wasnt mountain climbing like the article suggests, it is only 80 metres high) is directly in the sun all day. He didnt bring enough water and was not wearing any suncream. The temperatures were not at 40 on that day, otherwise I would have needed rescuing too as I was climbing just around the corner. (though I was in the shade)

Holy Crap, further investigations confirm; I was on the same climb as this person on that day! (just earlier in the morning).

I dont recall ANY heicopters and he was rescued by the Arapiles rescue squad, not the police. The Arapiles rescue squad is just the fancy name given to local climbers who have been given beepers.

That article is misrepresenting user error as climate change.
The skiing one is not true too, I work at Bulla and I can say that the snow condition is much worse in Australia than that frown

EDITED_BY: WoodlandApple (1261014169)
EDIT_REASON: added a last comment


sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Delete

WoodlandApple
WoodlandApple

addict
Location: Australia
Member Since: 1st Dec 2009
Total posts: 474
Posted:although, it did snow at Mt. Kosciouszko just two weeks ago so maybe.....

nope snow in Australia is dying.


sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:trying to cope with climate change/ trying to reduce emissions by turning (back) to nuclear power (IMHO) is not a feasible alternative - especially when the aim is to leave an equally nice space to grow up for future generations.

as it has been proven, the long term problems created by nuclear power (plants) might be as bad or become even worse than the current way of generating energy.

Thus: Go solar!

one problem in finding a solution to the problem is that different people do have different "ideas" on how to tackle the problem... many of them are not practicable or shift the problem to other areas, create other environmental problems or just push it a little further down the alley...

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1261042811)
EDIT_REASON: wording


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: WoodlandApplesThat article is misrepresenting user error as climate change.
The skiing one is not true too, I work at Bulla and I can say that the snow condition is much worse in Australia than that frown

Fair enough.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:Stone - I'm not suggesting creating a barren wilderness. just because the planet is warming up does NOT mean the planet will become one. What I would like someone to look into is how we COULD live if that happened. just because the temperature is going to increase doesn't mean the planet will become a barren wilderness. Humans may farm it and develop it into one but raising CO2 is unlikely to be the cause.

What I'm saying is even if we combat anthropogenic climate change are we really then going to attempt to anthropogenically maintain the planets temperature? keep it fixed in our comfort zone. what would be the effects of trying to cool the planet? we'll save the polar bears but what about the creatures who thrive in the warmer climate are we to sentence them to extinction because it's not the temperature WE want or is it just because we have fallen in love with some endangered species because we feel responsible. We need to accept we can't save everything and trying will only lead to unexpected results. Yes cut back on emissions and pollutants we mustn't poison the planet. but we must remember in our haste to save ourselves and a select few who are we actually condemning because the climate is moving the way they would like, are they any less important than us?


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:^_^ ... >_> ... <_< ... ~_~

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:does anyone remember chernobyl? massive disaster nasty peice of work terrible radioactive fall out 1986 an evoronmental nightmare.

now 23 years on
http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chornobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm
br>
We could go back 100 years, use lots of coal create smog and kick start that global cooling everyone worried about before we cleaned the air up.

What I'm essentially saying is do we REALLY think every government on earth is going to come to resolution? or are we more likely to end up fighting for resources again like we did at the dawn of humans. deer get culled to protect the herd (because we killed off the wolves) we have no predator to thin our ranks, we support the weak and infirm and have extended our lives to more than double what they were just 3000 years ago. Limit child birth in EVERY country. Stop aid to third world countries. let evolution kick back in and let those who CAN survive, survive. It's callous but it's true the more human lives we try to save the more we will end up killing. we can't save everyone.


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:ouch.. I really wouldn't go as far.

For me it would already be enough NOT to support oppressive regimes which enslave, exploit and torture their own people in 3rd world countries and emerging markets... that in itself would already diminish poverty and suffering.

and it should not be forgotten that "aid" going to those countries quite often comes in form of money - which they then got to spend on goods and services originating in the donating countries.

its quite easy to say: let them die... maybe we should start a full scale war as to speed up the process and shorten the suffering... ? umm


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:Well done Tom now you've got it right! wink

we are animals, animals are territorial, Survival of the fittest. nuke them and turn it into a nature reserve.

Ok so what I said seems a little extreme. but the point is the earth has finite resources and can only support a certain level of life.
Animals (including humans) need those resources to live.
Whilst alive those animals will reproduce and will increase their populations unless acted upon by external pressures (predators, disease, misfortune. lack of food)
This increase in populations will need more resources BUT the sources are finite.
Evolution kicks in and those most suited to survival will get those resources (In the animal kingdom it's those most suited physically) however Humans as animals are also taking those resources.

We want to save all the animals and all the people, who honestly thinks that's possible? Animals will end up extinct it happened before and it will happen again we have to accept that some will go - no one cares about the 100's of species of insects that go extinct but may have a more serious effect upon our lives than a panda (Bee's, ants etc who keep flora etc ticking over, the planets gardeners.) what we care about are those we enjoy looking at or who have a good press agency and get on TV. I don't want to see tigers or pandas only in pictures but I would rather that than every insect on the planet died - put your wants and hopes aside and look at the facts can it be done yes or no? Look at chernobyl and tell me the Nuke wouldn't be better for the planet than the people. Trying unsuccessfully to live in an area that cannot suuport them, birth rates through the roof, due to infant death, and the need for workers. If they were animals we would have captured them and put them in a zoo or park for their own safety. but because they are human we ship in huge amounts of aid, money, clothes, equipment which at the same time adds to climate change - which is contributing to their suffering due to desertification - which I know everyone believes is caused by global warming. etc etc.seems to me to be making things worse not better.

think of Humans as animals with the same rights and tell me what you would do to humans if they were an animal?

EDITED_BY: Mynci (1261067863)
EDIT_REASON: forgot ironic wink after 1st line


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Nuclear power is the only way to go.

Sure solar's all nice and romantic like, but have you ever tried to run your house on solar? Fridge, stove heating, hot water all suck way more energy than you can harvest from a rooftop full of solar panels.

All this green energy amounts to nothing more than putting a band aid on a brain tumour.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: MynciStone - I'm not suggesting creating a barren wilderness. just because the planet is warming up does NOT mean the planet will become one. What I would like someone to look into is how we COULD live if that happened. just because the temperature is going to increase doesn't mean the planet will become a barren wilderness. Humans may farm it and develop it into one but raising CO2 is unlikely to be the cause.

Mynci, we are creating a barren wilderness. Thats what is happening in Australia and Africa, for example. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are the cause. Check out this Climate Change: FAQ

Originally Posted By: MynciWe want to save all the animals and all the people, who honestly thinks that's possible? Animals will end up extinct it happened before and it will happen again we have to accept that some will go - no one cares about the 100's of species of insects that go extinct but may have a more serious effect upon our lives than a panda (Bee's, ants etc who keep flora etc ticking over, the planets gardeners.) what we care about are those we enjoy looking at or who have a good press agency and get on TV.


Mynci, you are speculating about things that may or may not happen in the future. All Im saying is we need to do something now to reduce the rate of global warming. You only need to look at the rate at which the glaciers and poles are melting to see that. Sea-levels are rising, and we are experiencing more and more extreme weather events. You talk about evolution, well its is survival time now, not in 20 yrs. It will be way too late then.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:okaaay... yesterday I was feeling a little belligerent sorry wink

And I'm saying yes the dry equatorial and southern area will probably desertify because it's expanding the edges of what is already there, but if everything gets warmer then colder areas become more temperate, ice melts and plants can grow. the planet won't immediately turn into a desert of sand.
I think we have different perspectives based upon our home climate. you are seeing drier more desert like effects but it's just plain getting wetter here. Yes it's warmer but we are having so much more rain and snow than we have had for the passed 15 years. Talk of hose-pipe bans have disappeared and we now have regular floods.

What I'm saying is I can't see us slowing global warming especially by political means. it's too big a lifestyle choice for everyone. the governments can't agree because they don't want to disadvantage their own countries after financial disaster to growing 3rd world economies which supply most of our produce and take a lot of our money. Giving them extra to become "green" will essentially bring them up to our level of technology whilst they maintain huge resources the west covets is going to be a massive stumbling block, no matter what we say we aren't a global community yet, we are a globe full of communities and some of those don't get on.
We're all still using our computers wink our TV's, refridgerators and millions of Xmas lights. It's not just about the energy we use it's about the amount of people using it. the easiest way to cut carbon footprint in half is to half the population. Green energy is good but it is also very expensive to start up especially in private homes. The requirements for politicians is to make tough choices that their electorate will NOT like and I don't see them doing that - It risks their own Job and that of their party.

I'm not talking about 20 years time. I know we're screwed now. WORLD POPULATION NOW - 6.8 Billion
WORLD POPULATION 30 YEARS - Estimates say 9 billion.

So even if we halve emissions today in 1 day and keep peoples emissions constant in 30 years they will be way back up again as the 3rd world develops and more people are born. population is increasing exponentially birth rates are coming down but not quick enough. it's not enough to talk about emissions it's the people making them that is the problem. and all those people will need places to live, food to eat which will mean more farms more trees cut down more animals for meat, more fish being caught. less space for other life which will be restricted to the places we don't want to live.

I know it all seems negative but even if we do drop emissions is there any proof that CO2 uptake will counter what has already occurred? If not then addressing emissions is bailng out the sea with a thimble even though it still needs to be done. I'm not someone who doesn't believe I'm someone who thinks we are not focusing at all the issues, only the surface and that many people don't realise and it is our ability to stay alive that could be our greatest problem.


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:is this thread anywhere still about "vegetarianism for climate change" or just plain offtopic confused2

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:If you notice in my last post I did mention more meat needed for more people, if population increases so do food requirements we can cut emissions but if birth rates continue at approximately 2 for the western world and higher for developing countries more meat will be needed to feed them all so some emissions will increase regardless of green energy. it has wandered a little I admit wink

I maintain that the lifestyle changes required to combat climate change be it emissions or dietary choices are too severe for many to accept. Laws will be required and i don't see governments cutting their own throats and risking their jobs to enforce what will be required even if it is to save the planet. People may want to think globally but it will take soomeone special to stand up and make the required changes even though they know it will be the end of their job. After so long with a Labour Government I can't see the conservatives risking letting them back in by enforcing laws that will inconvenience the entire population. Brown could do it now but he won't, even knowing he'll probably lose next year. And I doubt he could get the laws passed his own peers who will want to keep their jobs.


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoneMynci, you are speculating about things that may or may not happen in the future. All Im saying is we need to do something now to reduce the rate of global warming.

like? ... 'cause turning to veg even right NOW (as in this very instant) will not have effects right NOW. you know that quite well, sir.

"prediction models ... have shown that ... could[/] reduce..." at some given time in the future, after the industry has realized that the demand for meat is declining and adjusted.


Stout: Is solar power for you in Canada

Canadian Solar FAQs

Usable solar power does not necessarily require a hot climate. Don't fall for the nuclear lobbyists slogans.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:update:


Non-Https Image Link


seems the ball is back in our half wink

ditch the dog...

dogs and their carbon footprints


Non-Https Image Link

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1261206108)
EDIT_REASON: dogs


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: MynciWhat I'm saying is I can't see us slowing global warming especially by political means. it's too big a lifestyle choice for everyone. the governments can't agree because they don't want to disadvantage their own countries after financial disaster to growing 3rd world economies which supply most of our produce and take a lot of our money. Giving them extra to become "green" will essentially bring them up to our level of technology whilst they maintain huge resources the west covets is going to be a massive stumbling block, no matter what we say we aren't a global community yet, we are a globe full of communities and some of those don't get on.

Fair enough, so its too difficult, lets all just give up.

Originally Posted By: Mynciand all those people will need places to live, food to eat which will mean more farms more trees cut down more animals for meat, more fish being caught. less space for other life which will be restricted to the places we don't want to live.

Perhaps, we will need to reduce meat and fish consumption. Did you read the Lancet article in Eating 30 Percent Less Meat Good For Health, Planet? The study was part of a series in climate change.

Originally Posted By: MynciI know it all seems negative but even if we do drop emissions is there any proof that CO2 uptake will counter what has already occurred? If not then addressing emissions is bailng out the sea with a thimble even though it still needs to be done. I'm not someone who doesn't believe I'm someone who thinks we are not focusing at all the issues, only the surface and that many people don't realise and it is our ability to stay alive that could be our greatest problem.

Mynci, fair enough on the population growth, its a major issue. I dont think you can separate climate change from population growth.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Quote:Usable solar power does not necessarily require a hot climate. Don't fall for the nuclear lobbyists slogans.

I did not, I repeat...did not..receive a briefcase of cash for making the above post. wink

Yes, solar can "help out" but given the overall demand we as consumers place on our power requirements, solar can only provide a fraction of those demands.

Like wind power, solar is an acceptable supplement to fossil fuel and the need to store power for those times when power isn't actively available is a very big hurdle to overcome.

Personally, I like hydroelectric myself. Sure the initial costs are high from both an environmental and capital perspectives but once it's up and running, really, it's the bees knees.

So given that we all want lots of available power and most of us are reluctant to sacrifice lifestyle for the environment, I'm sayin' nuclear power is the best option for us as a planet to meet our energy "needs"


Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:well the planets screwed - just got these figures from work laugh3
stop driving, stop flying stop smoking and I doubt it'll make a difference - best bet is to stop buying stuff it's worse for the planet than a car that does 100g/mile CO2

Carbon footprint of 1 x 20 foot container from Tokyo to UK = 1,937Kg CO2
Average 5-7000 twenty foot units per ship

total = 13,559,000 Kg CO2 per vessel - that's 13 million tonnes per ship, 1 per week and there are many other lines... not sure which country a vessels footprint partakes of but it can't be UK's because UK's carbon footprint is only supposed to be 500 million tonnes per year, Not japans either so is it split or is this something that hasn't been considered because it isn't the footprint of a particular country?

The above figures are what my companies green boffs have worked out from distance, weight, fuel consumption etc as part of Kyoto accords as we try to reduce carbon emissions and promote green energy. We run approx 50 of these vessels per year (1 per week) not including bulk cargos or passenger cruises (literally tip of iceberg)

that would make =

650,000,000 Kg of carbon dioxide per year just for 1 vessel loop - Carbon footprint figures must be WAY off... and we do several loops and are not even the biggest in the UK

The above doesn't cover Vessels from India or USA and canada only Far east to Europe transport.

This is for you're toilet roll, toys, coats, bags, shoes, clothes, bicycle parts, plastic bags, prawns or other exotic or non EU foods, anything fair trade generally because it comes from developing world, almost anything you buy in the UK as a major importing country.

to be fair the above figures vary depending upon weather and tides and the amount of cargo on each ship as well as the speed they travel. Just thought some of you would like to know that driving a car is nothing compared to carbon footprint of buying shoes and eating prawns or rice. Can we eat the cows now?


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:Just so you know that would require 1.5 billion trees to offset at a rate of 21Kg per year absorption.

and it doesn't include the return trip to Japan...


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Page: 1...456