Jump to content

The Global Warming Megathread

Do you believe human inflicted climate change is real?  

113 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe human inflicted climate change is real?

    • Absolutely, unequivocally.
      57
    • Maybe, i need more evidence
      20
    • Not at all, it's all made up!
      35
    • Whats global warming?
      1


Recommended Posts

the production of meat requires much more land, energy, and water than the production of plants.

 

a low-meat diet is exactly the way to reduce usage of water and energy,  and increase the actual amount of food available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the biggest threat to the animal population of the planet, people worry about climate, instead of plastic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ads36 said:

the production of meat requires much more land, energy, and water than the production of plants.

Not necessarily true as more land will also be needed to meet the demands of growing more plants to feed the people that have reduced their meat intake. Not sure how you get that meat requires more energy or water? Growing crops needs plenty of water and also uses energy in sowing, making fertiliser for them to grow, reaping, transporting, processing and getting it to you. A great deal of the fruit and vegetable crops get imported via lorries and planes which increases the use of energy and also produces plenty of C02, and yet people are happy to accept that when they buy stuff that is imported from the otherside of the globe.

 

18 minutes ago, ads36 said:

a low-meat diet is exactly the way to reduce usage of water and energy,  and increase the actual amount of food available.

No its not. There is plentiful amounts of food available already but it's the way it is managed and distributed around that makes a difference and the same also goes for water. Notice how much food waste we create and then chuck away. Globalisation has a lot to answer for as unless we deal with how it all works we have not got a cat's chance in hell of stopping global warming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, apelike said:

Not sure how you get that meat requires more energy or water?

Because animals eat food.

 

It takes a lot of energy and water to make the food to raise the animal to get a small amount of meat.

 

It's much more efficient to feed the plants straight to the human.

 

With an amount of land/energy/water you can grow enough plants to feed a human. You need much more land / energy / water to grow plants to feed to animals to produce meat to feed a human.

 

The self-sufficient vegetarian needs a lot less land / energy/water than the self-sufficient meat eater.

 

This is pretty basic stuff.

 

 I'm not advocating for all 7 billion (?8?) Humans to become vegetarian, merely a simple reduction in the amount of meat eaten by rich westerners. There are signs this is already happening...

Edited by ads36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, retep said:

Ignoring the biggest threat to the animal population of the planet, people worry about climate, instead of plastic.

 

I may have misunderstood your post so apologies...but the biggest contributor to climate change is CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.  Plastic also comes from fossil fuels, but only 4% of fossil fuels are used to make plastics. 90% of fossil fuels are used in transport, energy production and heating i.e. they're just burnt, and end up in the atmosphere. Plastic may be a  handything that people can campaign against, but it is a drop in the ocean in tackling the climate emergency. It is the rise in global temperatures that will account for major extinction events, not plastic production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stifflersmom said:

I may have misunderstood your post so apologies...but the biggest contributor to climate change is CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.  Plastic also comes from fossil fuels, but only 4% of fossil fuels are used to make plastics. 90% of fossil fuels are used in transport, energy production and heating i.e. they're just burnt, and end up in the atmosphere. Plastic may be a  handything that people can campaign against, but it is a drop in the ocean in tackling the climate emergency. It is the rise in global temperatures that will account for major extinction events, not plastic production.

Plastic is more than a drop in the ocean and will probably finish off the animal population,

https://climate.org/plastic-a-global-health-crisis/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ads36 said:

Because animals eat food.

 

It takes a lot of energy and water to make the food to raise the animal to get a small amount of meat.

 

It's much more efficient to feed the plants straight to the human.

That may apply to some beef but does not apply to a lot of other animals that are used for food. Plenty of grain is also grown for vegetable oils and bio-fuels so that will also have to stop. 

 

4 hours ago, ads36 said:

The self-sufficient vegetarian needs a lot less land / energy/water than the self-sufficient meat eater.

 

This is pretty basic stuff.

Yes it is basic stuff but there are not many self-sufficient vegetarians or meat eaters about. This country stopped being self sufficient in food in Elizabethan times so imports a great deal, and to reverse back would take a miracle.

 

4 hours ago, ads36 said:

I'm not advocating for all 7 billion (?8?) Humans to become vegetarian, merely a simple reduction in the amount of meat eaten by rich westerners. There are signs this is already happening...

Nothing wrong with being a vegetarian but sometimes the sums and reasoning behind it just don't add up. Just how much of a reduction in meat eating would be needed to make a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The meat argument is a complex one. We should certainly be looking to eat less beef, fewer dairy products and less chicken. Doing so would free up farmland, reduce emisssions and improve human health. It would have negative consequences in terms of employment though.

 

On the other hand, sheep farming is pretty benign, so eating more lamb shouldn't cause climate problems. It also make use of farmland which would otherwise be impossible to use for food production. It seems logical to me to support hill farmers.

 

As usual in these sort of things, gradual change is the key. Shifting from eating a lot of beef and cheese, to eating plants and maybe sheep, won't happen overnight. It will have to happen though. I'd expect to see governments taxing harmful foodstuffs more, as part of a strategy to reduce carbon emissions.  Much as they are currently priming the market for renewable energy and discouraging fossil fuel use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, apelike said:

there are not many self-sufficient vegetarians or meat eaters about. This country stopped being self sufficient in food in Elizabethan times so imports a great deal, and to reverse back would take a miracle.

Some homework for you :

 

google : allegory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rich are the main cause of global warming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

The rich are the main cause of global warming. 

Is then taking money from rich a solution? 😀

Edited by Branyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Car Boot said:

The rich are the main cause of global warming. 

Define rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.