Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Geez, what is so hard to figure out?

Look at the chart. Agriculture and land use are significant portions. Plus add on the fact that methane is 20% more potent that CO2, and stays in the atmoshere longer.

 

I'm not saying that all someone has to do is limit their meat intake to a couple times a week and everything will be hunky-dory. Its only part of the solution, as is Fatty's. Cleaning up just one sector is not gonna make a big enough cut. They ALL need to get more efficient.

 

All i am argueing for is that we cannot ignore the impact our diets have. If we truly believe that we need to live more gently on the Earth, then how our food is made (and transported) is extremely important. We have to look at ALL the aspects of our lifestyle. Not just how we move.

 

Which, by the way, i have not seen much immediate improvement in. Unless you are riding a bicycle, there is not magic cure for our transportation problem in the near future.

 

I agree we need it, but cutting down our participation in the meat buisness is immediate AND easy. Unless you want to argue that humans are so greedy that they won't give up chewing on a pigs rectum for 2 or 3 times a week, i don't see the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know you have passion about this man but you arent going to get the world to cut meat out of their diet.

Coming up with better power sources which will rise some to double what they are now. China fires up coal remember for power.

Cars that are hybrids or better electric. Heck My place would be great for an electric as I only need one long distance car and one short distance van. Those are more viable then getting people to eat less meat. They arent going to do it. The meat lobby wont let them do it. Price will go down if there is no demand and then people will just eat more of it. So you are talking about something that cant and wont happen mate. There is never going to be a meat tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Originally Posted By: Mr Wiggles
I think the issue here is simply a methane one. It has a much bigger warming effect than CO2.

I read somewhere that research is going on into less fart-producing cattle feed. There's also research into kangaroos, because their farts don't contain methane. Cattle fart testing doesn't sound like the most appealing of careers, but I wish the people doing it every success! Their work could have global implications.


Mr. Wiggs, wasnt that in one of the English langauge papers like Yomiuri Shinbun the other day? I saw that as well mate. Looks quite interesting, especially since it seems to be working.

Id love to see alternative energy resources become the leading energy suppliers - especially for cars.

Think one major problems with cars, i.e. gasoline, is that the oil industries arent going to give up squeezing every cent they can outta the market until reserves are gone....Especially with somebody like GWB in office it wont change.
Link to post
Share on other sites
 Originally Posted By: Oyuki kigan
then how our food is made (and transported) is extremely important.


This sentence probably sums up all the problems introduced by meat production.

More than 80% of beef produced ends up being sold in fast food chains. The rest of the meet is sold to the consumers through supermarkets restaurants etc. It takes 10 times the energy and results in 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions to have a meal prepared by a fast food rather than cook the same meal at home. Unfortunately people base more and more their diet on fast foods, rather than cooking at home. Thats were the "lifestyle" factor enters and that is also the reason why the demand of beef has gone that high.

So instead of starting a crusade against beef and tell people to change their lifestyles by eating less meet, call for something that makes more sense.

Stop eating at fast foods and prepare your own meal at home.

You can fill you lust for pigs and beefs rectum 2 or 3 times a week and help to reduce 90% of the greenhouse emissions caused by the meet production distribution and food preparation industry, by cooking a stake at home.

There is no reason why everyone in the world should turn to vegans.
In fact, even if we all turn to vegans, then the fast foods will turn to shelling soya burgers over a night. Which means that the industry will still produce the above mentioned amount of green house gasses.

So don't declare war to people eating meet, declare war to fastfoods.
Link to post
Share on other sites

holy shit, how many times do i have to say (as well as the head of the IPCC) that its IT NOT ABOUT TURNING PEOPLE INTOP VEGANS.

 

Geez, stop trying to blow everything out of proportion.

 

It is asking people to cut back on their intake, and you guys act like it is the end of the world. Whats the big deal? You are acting like i am asking you to give up breathing or something ridiculous.

 

Fast Food is part of the problem, but the base of the problem is the production of meat itself. If you wanna say that noone is gonna change their eating habits, fine. Thats your opinion.

 

But i have, and i don't see the big deal everyone tries to blow this up to be. If you feel threatened by the thought of cutting back on your meat consumption, thats your problem.

You still can't escape the fact that the meat we eat caused a hell of a lot of pollution, and that one way to deal with it is to eat less. If that bothers you, and you wanna focus on other industries instead, go for it. But don't exaggerate what i am saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And in case you didn't catch what Mr Pachuari, head of the IPCC said, here it is again

 

"Speaking at a press conference in Paris, he said meat was a very carbon-intensive commodity, a fact established by UN research showing that livestock production creates more greenhouse gases than all forms of transport combined."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think people are disputing what you are saying Oyuki, or the head of the IPCC, but convincing the world to cut back their meat intake because it will help the environment seems like something unachievable because it is a personal choice.

 

Having companies do the work for people i.e. making cars that produce less emissions, using cleaner fuel, building more energy efficeint buildings, better insulation etc will help with education process and at least make some small term gains in the global warming issue

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont eat fast food.

Ive had 1 mcds in 1.5 years.

I eat beef maybe once a month

I eat pork fish and chicken yes lots as that is in my lunch.

 

By cutting back you are asking a very many people to become vegans or damn close to it. My point is by taking away one sector of agriculture you will just add more too it in another way. Thus the footprint will in effect not really change. Do you really think people will eat 50% less meat? What would happen to the depleted fish stocks? Many people are becoming allergic to soy, wheat, nuts and rice. What do they get to eat in this grand plan?

 

Supply and demand, lets look at it for a second. You raise the price of meat. That price rises and people either except the price or they dont. If demand goes down so does the price. Only when the price gets too low will you see meat production fall off. You need the farmers to loose money before they can give up or cut back on farming. In fact, your grand plan more than likely not change. farmers geared towards meat production will switch to milk. Thus your gas and etc from the cows will not really go down. Switching a food source is not as easy as you make it seem mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Originally Posted By: Oyuki kigan
Fast Food is part of the problem, but the base of the problem is the production of meat itself.


So what causes increase or decrease in meat production?
That would be market demand.

Who is the BIGGEST meat buyer in the market that defines demand?
Fast food chains

Who has turn food into mass production?
Fast food chains

What would happen if the biggest buyer went out of business?
The demand would drop.

If the demand drops?
Then the irrational high meat production would drop to normal levels.

How do you take the biggest buyer out of business?
By boycotting its products.

How do you do that?
By STOP EATING AT FAST FOODS

So why is it so hard to understand? wakaranai.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites

it is ALL personal choice. Companies just try to follow, and make products to suit those choices. You support whichever companies or products you like with your money.

 

Meat is a choice you can make NOW. Like, even tonite if you want.

 

Talking about future technology that will supposedly solve our problems is not a choice we can make right now. Until it is, i will stick to practical solutions we can put into practice.

 

Whether you want to or not, i leave that up to you. i am only presenting my case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Originally Posted By: Fattwins
I dont eat fast food.
Ive had 1 mcds in 1.5 years.
I eat beef maybe once a month
I eat pork fish and chicken yes lots as that is in my lunch.

By cutting back you are asking a very many people to become vegans or damn close to it. My point is by taking away one sector of agriculture you will just add more too it in another way. Thus the footprint will in effect not really change. Do you really think people will eat 50% less meat? What would happen to the depleted fish stocks? Many people are becoming allergic to soy, wheat, nuts and rice. What do they get to eat in this grand plan?

Supply and demand, lets look at it for a second. You raise the price of meat. That price rises and people either except the price or they dont. If demand goes down so does the price. Only when the price gets too low will you see meat production fall off. You need the farmers to loose money before they can give up or cut back on farming. In fact, your grand plan more than likely not change. farmers geared towards meat production will switch to milk. Thus your gas and etc from the cows will not really go down. Switching a food source is not as easy as you make it seem mate.


Fatty, if yu feel comfy with your meat intake, that is your choice. I han't have much to say about it. It is certainly more Earth-friendly than many people li know.

Personally, i would not have a problem if people ate meat 2or 3 time a week like Tsondaboy said. But ultiately it is not my choice, i just present the info. However you want to take it is up to you.

As for your market theories, you have zero knowledge what would happen, just like myself. No one can predict how a society will adapt to less meat.

As for fish stocks, if they are so depressed, why not cut back on that too?

Unless you have a very specific (and rare, as far as i know) condition that doesn't allow you to eat grain, or where you need to eat animal protein for some reason, i see no problem with switching to vegetable protien for the majority of our food.

Will even 50% of people switch? I don't know. Nor do i really care at this point. I am just trying to do what i can.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oyuki, can you point me to the direction of the Paris speech, I am interested to read the whole thing and judge for myself.

 

I was able to locate the 2007 climate change report after the Bali convention from the IPCC home page, but in that report there are no estimations what would meat consumption reduction mean to greenhouse gas emissions. (I ve read it all)

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

 

And also the video presentation of Mr. Pachauri in Bali but also nothing about livestock managment there.

http://www.ipcc.ch/audio-video/pachauri-bali-video-message.mpg

 

So any links would be highly appreciated. thumbsup.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

i haven't seen the full speech myself. The articles i have read were from the Globe and Mail article i posted, and a slightly more in depth one i found on some environmental websites. Here it is

 

Lifestyle changes can curb climate change: IPCC chief

by: Marlowe Hood 18 January 2008

 

Don't eat meat, ride a bike, and be a frugal shopper -- that's how you can help brake global warming, the head of the United Nation's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change said Tuesday.

 

The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), issued last year, highlights "the importance of lifestyle changes," said Rajendra Pachauri at a press conference in Paris.

 

"This is something that the IPCC was afraid to say earlier, but now we have said it."

 

A vegetarian, the Indian economist made a plea for people around the world to tame their carnivorous impulses.

 

"Please eat less meat -- meat is a very carbon intensive commodity," he said, adding that consuming large quantities was also bad for one's health.

 

Studies have shown that producing one kilo (2.2 pounds) of meat causes the emissions equivalent of 36.4 kilos of carbon dioxide.

 

In addition, raising and transporting that slab of beef, lamb or pork requires the same amount of energy as lighting a 100-watt bulb for nearly three weeks.

 

In listing ways that individuals can contribute to the fight against global warming, Pachauri praised the system of communal, subscriber-access bikes in Paris and other French cities as a "wonderful development."

 

"Instead of jumping in a car to go 500 meters, if we use a bike or walk it will make an enormous difference," he told journalists at a press conference.

 

Another lifestyle change that can help, he continued, was not buying things "simply because they are available." He urged consumers to only purchase what they really need.

 

Since the Nobel was awarded in October to the IPCC and the former US vice president Al Gore, Pachauri has criss-crossed the globe sounding the alarm on the dangers of global warming.

 

"The picture is quite grim -- if the human race does not do anything, climate change will have serious impacts," he warned Tuesday.

 

At the same time, however, he said he was encouraged by the outcome of UN-brokered climate change negotiations in Bali last month, and by the prospect of a new administration in Washington.

 

"The final statement clearly mentions deep cuts in emissions in greenhouse gases. I don't think people can run away from that terminology," he said.

 

The Bali meeting set the framework for a global agreement on how to reduce the output of carbon dioxide and other gases generated by human activity that are driving climate change.

 

Pachauri also sees cause for optimism in the fact that, for the first time since the world's nations began meeting over the issue of global warming in 1994, "nobody questioned the findings of the IPCC."

 

"The science has clearly become the basis for action on climate change," he said.

 

In 2007, the IPCC issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.

 

Pachauri said it was too late for Washington to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the sole international treaty mandating cuts in CO2 emissions.

 

The United States is the only industrialised country not to have made such commitments.

 

But he remained hopeful the US -- under a new administration -- would be a "core signatory" of any new agreement.

 

"With the change that is taking place politically in the US, the chances of that happening are certainly much better than was the case a few months ago," he said.

 

At 67, Pachauri said he has not yet decided whether to take on a second five-year mandate as IPCC head. Elections take place in September.

 

On the one hand, he said, the experience he has acquired would serve him well.

 

But the advantage of retiring, he said with a smile, is that his carbon footprint -- the amount of C02 emissions generated by all this travels -- would be greatly reduced.

 

 

 

PS: i just learned that this is an AP article.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries, found what I needed in the agriculture section of the Mitigation report.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm

 

I particularly found this part funny, which is at the top of the conclusions above the meat consumption. ;\)

 

 Quote:

Trends in GHG emissions in the agricultural sector depend

mainly on the level and rate of socio-economic development,

human population growth, and diet, application of adequate

technologies, climate and non-climate policies, and future

climate change. Consequently, mitigation potentials in the

agricultural sector are uncertain, making a consensus difficult

to achieve and hindering policy making. However, agriculture

is a significant contributor to GHG emissions (Section 8.2).

Mitigation is unlikely to occur without action, and higher

emissions are projected in the future if current trends are left

unconstrained. According to current projections, the global

population will reach 9 billion by 2050, an increase of about

50% over current levels (Lutz et al., 2001; Cohen, 2003).

Because of these increases and changing consumption patterns,

some analyses estimate that the production of cereals will need

to roughly double in coming decades (Tilman et al., 2001; Roy

et al., 2002; Green et al., 2005). Achieving these increases in

food production may require more use of N fertilizer, leading

to possible increases in N2O emissions, unless more efficient

fertilization techniques and products can be found (Galloway,

2003; Mosier, 2002).

 

So consumption of cereals according to the official IPCC report might be a bigger problem than of meat! lol.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not posting the whole thing on here, it is too long, but here is a Worldwatch institute paper about land use, energy use, and animal agriculture.

 

http://www.thevegetariansite.com/env_animalfarming.htm

 

but here is a sample

 

"Large areas of the world's cropland now produce grains for animals. Wealthy meat-consuming regions dedicate the largest shares of their grain to fattening livestock, while the poorest regions use the least grain as feed. In the United States, for example, animals account for 70 percent of domestic grain use, while India and sub-Saharan Africa offer just 2 percent of their cereal harvest to livestock. (USDA FAS 1991)"

 

gotta go guys, i'll be back on Monday. Will i see any of you on Happo tomorrow?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Quote:
Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average.

 

\:o thats about 1.5 kg of meat per week!

 

Great read Oyuki, this is what I was talking about

 

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/index4.html

 

 

 

which also includes meat consumption in it.

 

I was reading a paper sponsored by Nasa yesterday, saying that from now on the Arctic ocean will lose it ice cover during the summer. shifty.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good read Oyuki - expresses my slant well.

 

Having grown up in Oz living for half of my time there on farms and in the countryside, I'm glad meat's not a part of my life now and hasn't been for years.

 

I'm commonly asked here why I don't eat meat - you know the ol' Ozzie beef thing - and most people seemed surprised when I explain that it's mainly because of the enormous land degradation that the stock industry has inflicted upon old oz.

Followed by the insanely out-of-balance sustainability of meat production esp factoring in the units of protein required to produce units of protein and the filthy amounts of water - THE commodity of the 21st C - required for such.

Followed by the anguish of the blood-lust rites of meat satiation.

Followed by the act of over breeding animals to over kill over.

Followed by don't believe that crap that you gotta eat meat to compliment a good red wine.

A nice pinot and tofu burger - ahhh!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger...

... seems to be the general logic surrounding the most frequent response to global warming.

 

People, it is said, will not change, so we need to make cuts and edits between the lines, to leave things as they are but with a friendlier, more sustainable motor coughing at full capacity under the hood. To power the motor we must discover a new fuel or mobile power supply at least. A softer, more expansive power supply that will radiate energy, just like the nuclear reactors have irradiated kilometers of soil, mega-liters of water.

 

I apologize for simplifying the arguments slightly, but they do tend to run more-or-less along the lines provided above, and to the tune of: Consumption is a decidedly human habit, and human habits can neither be changed, nor extinguished -- especially the bad habits. While this is a pointedly pessimistic thread of thought, it does not exclude hope, a hope for those contrivances, or rather their invention, since it seems almost as if the discovery of the oft-mentioned 'friendlier,' 'safer,' 'less-pollutive,' something is given much more thought than the actual 'something' itself.

 

In other words, it is the hope for more production and more consumption that feeds the pessimism. No wonder. I suppose it's just fanning that pessimism, and I don't mean to destroy what seeds of hope there are, but according to a life cycle assessment of Toyota vehicles the emissions resulting from vehicle and material production account for almost half (46%) of a fuel cell-based vehicle. The article doesn't mention how much that is in units of energy, so anyone who wants more information can have a look in this google answers thread. Good news for traditional fuel lovers: Toyota's gasoline vehicles release 72% of their life cycle emissions while being driven, relegating a mere 18% of their pollutive grab-bags to the manufacturing process. On top of manufacturing costs are the many habits which cars encourage, etc. I would go on, but the Rice Farmer blog details many of these with great exuberance.

 

Continuing on cars and habits, suburban-ism, drive-through windows, multinational corporations, tourism are all habits which have been developed and nourished to the point of gluttony during the last two centuries, plus or minus some decades. Many of the suburbs of manhattan were (more) local to the city and used public transportation until GM assisted in the eventual shut down of tram systems. Observe how our purchasing habits and communication habits have shifted and changed as we invented the telegraph, the telephone, the internet. Admittedly many of these changes in habit have done much more for environmental depravation than environmental conservation, but nonetheless they show that habit is nothing if not adaptable. All of this without even mentioning that the consume to produce more consumables social habit is predominantly of anglo-american culture, and that by assuming such a social norm we ignore countless other cultures, lifestyles, societies, solutions...

 

But ultimately, I agree that change is often a very individual decision, and a tough one at that. So if you are truly concerned about climate change, global warming, desolation of the natural environment (ourselves included), then you might at least change yourself, and by doing so show every other individual with whom you come in contact that there's another way to approach the issue than waiting for the next harder, better, faster, stronger thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...