Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't see the logic Fatty. How does a reduction in meat consumption = increase in ethonol production?

 

And no, you are right, ONLY going vegan, or ONLY doing one thing like driving a hybrid is not going to work. It has to be plural. It has to encopass everything. I am just asking people to look at one specific area, as it tends to be a touchy subject.

 

And you answered your own last comment. Vegans don't eat fish, partly because of that exact reason.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

I depends on your Vegan. I know plenty that eat fish. It is economics which you arent factoring into your theory. Farmings biggest bread winner at the moment is corn. IF you are a farmer being forced out the meat industry what would you plant. I sure as heck would plant corn. The soy bean price has risen because farmers are moving to corn. corn production is increasing to produce mostly fuel not food.

 

http://www.progressivefarmer.com/tabid/1212/Default.aspx

 

A good read on where farming is going. better to grow your own food at the moment. If you are growing your own food then your carbon foot print is lower than a person depending on food to be imported to the city. You are coming up with a very simple answer that really has a big domino effect.

 

I for one hardly use a car besides for work. That will change next year.

I try to burn dead wood for firewood and wood stoves

I dont eat much fish. if you cut out lunch I eat it 10 times a year.

I eat 4 plates of meat per week and 3 veg meals.

I dont liter

I grow my own food for 4+ months of the year. I was eating zucchinis everyday for 2 months... (yummy)

I make and freeze my own tomatoes and Im enjoying my sun pickles everyday after work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just do what you can. I'm glad you are doing what you are.

 

Oh, and by the way, just to be nitpicky, there are no "fish-eating" vegans, that is a contradiction in terms.

 

Vegan, by definition, means zero animal products, including honey and leather. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism

 

Vegetarian is used for all types of people, inclding lacto-ovo vegetarians (will eat dairy and egg), and pesco-vegetarians, who eat fish.

 

 

As for the economics arguement, it is null. If there was ever a mass movement to vegetarianism for environmental reasons, i can't see how the same people would just ignore the environmental problems of ethanol, because it is essentially the same problem, an inefficient use of resources.

 

Charging an activity as economically meaningless because it preserves resources that others will waste is a straw-man arguement.

 

But because such a mass-movement is a fantasy anyway, trying to think about the economic problems that might arise is also fantasy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i admire oyuki kigan's passion to "make things better".

sadly i dont have much knowledge about environmental threats

and im guessing it is more complex than i think.

 

read this correlation of "order and disorder" many years ago.

establishing order in one place tends to seem solving some problems (especially in a city)

but we are actually establishing disorder in somewhere else at the same time.

 

for example,

lets say i dont like pegions on my balcony. (i do not like them in fact..)

and so i buy some powerful spray to get rid of them.

but those pegions that used to annoy me will be annoying someone else.

and then i end up having problems with crows.

something like that, it just moves.

(sorry my example is not so good, never be good at explaining thing..)

 

not sure if eating less meat is the most effective and efficient way for us,

but i do get ur message that we need to talk and think about this because it is not only governments thing, nor environment conservation groups,

but its ours, each individuals, how we think about and do things even if its small, and at least be aware of this fact and be curious.

fish, animals, human, tiny creatures, furry creatures, trees, flowers, and our mother nature,

we dont act selfish so that we could co-exist.

 

but again, my view is it is not that simple so i need to know more about this and want to read some entropy book once again lol.

this thread got me thinking so thanks.

and also for organizing that event, making ads, and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We try to do our bit, with the house and the car and that, so our energy use is really low. We've got two kids though, so maybe that trumps all the rest.

 

Its terrible the way that most meat is "made" these days. In those feedlots with all the hormones and antibiotics and the runoff going into rivers. I suppose we must eat some of it, but it can't be healthy.

 

As for the global warming aspect, I think simply just substituting pork or chicken for beef makes a big difference, both in terms of the feed required per bodyweight and the methane one. The difference is something like 4kg of feed per kilo instead of 8kg of feed. We make our own bacon and its much tastier than any beef you can buy in the shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Fattwins
Thatis what they refer to themselves as


A vegan is someone who avoids using or consuming animal products. While vegetarians avoid flesh foods, vegans also avoid dairy and eggs, as well as fur, leather, wool, and cosmetics or chemical products tested on animals.

So you can advise you're so called vegans what it really means.
Link to post
Share on other sites

That pic is dated. I'm on some next-level stuff here Crazy_hat.jpg

 

but seriously, is that the best you can do? Talk shit about me, a lifeless geek who sits at a desk all day?

 

Or do you actually have an intelligent rebuttal to the meat eating issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing out the beard, eh?

 

Best I can do?????

Lifeless geek? didn't say that, but you prolly know yourself better than I. I only met you that one time a couple years ago...

 

I'll leave the room of intelligence and leave you here to wait for an "intelligant rebuttal" oh wiseman. grandpa

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a whole thread about the video a while ago, and there are a few posts in there about why the movie is flawed (especially because one of the main scientists they interviewed is actually supportive of the AGW theory, and was pissed about how he was s misrepresented on the issue).

 

George Monbiot also tears the movie apart, is you feel like searching for the article.

 

And Motherhucker, the beardfarming actually officially begins in November. ã²ã’ã¯å†¬é™å®šä½œå“ã§ã™ã€‚

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Oyuki, I didn't realise that there was already a discussion about it. I myself am quite skeptical about the whole man-made global warming issue so after I saw the video I was quite excited to show it to everyone.

 

Anyway the scientist you talk about is not the only scientist in the video, for example there is the director of the international artic research center who is Japanese, think his name is akasofu something, and who is quite against man-made climatic change.

 

I feel the film was picked on just for being against the main views on global warming prevalent on the media now. If you scrutinise other films, for example an inconvenient truth, to the point that this film was examined you are sure to find as many or more mistakes.

 

Regardless of which side you take on this issue, I think the film make some good points and many of the scientists in it do hold, quite boldly, their disagreement views.

 

Whenever someone base their argument on the consensus of a comunity, whether it be a comunity of scientists or a comunity of religious scholars, I am wary of the argument, since that "consensus" is usually quite subjective and more often than not is used to impose some idea or course of action on people.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't want to start a debate on this, like I wouldn't want to debate with a Christian person about his religious beliefs because there is not going to be an end.

 

Just let others know that there are also people (including scientists) who don't agree with the idea of man-made global warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: coldcat

Whenever someone base their argument on the consensus of a comunity, whether it be a comunity of scientists or a comunity of religious scholars, I am wary of the argument, since that "consensus" is usually quite subjective and more often than not is used to impose some idea or course of action on people.

Anyway, I wouldn't want to start a debate on this, like I wouldn't want to debate with a Christian person about his religious beliefs because there is not going to be an end.


Global warming data is derived directly from scientific research. General consensus about what the data means follows, and the overwhelming majority of scientists believe there is a link. To put the subjectivity of global warming consensus next to that of religion (a human invention for which no credible scientific research is possible) is like comparing the northern lights to ghost sightings.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Greenroome
Originally Posted By: coldcat

Whenever someone base their argument on the consensus of a comunity, whether it be a comunity of scientists or a comunity of religious scholars, I am wary of the argument, since that "consensus" is usually quite subjective and more often than not is used to impose some idea or course of action on people.

Anyway, I wouldn't want to start a debate on this, like I wouldn't want to debate with a Christian person about his religious beliefs because there is not going to be an end.


Global warming data is derived directly from scientific research. General consensus about what the data means follows, and the overwhelming majority of scientists believe there is a link. To put the subjectivity of global warming consensus next to that of religion (a human invention for which no credible scientific research is possible) is like comparing the northern lights to ghost sightings.



Greenroome, you make a good point but what we are seeing from the GW movement (or Climate Change movement, as it seems to be called now - a nice get around for the fact the we're not seeing as much "warming" as some people would like) IS an almost religious belief in the idea and a total rejection of the entirely legitimate practice of testing and questioning conclusions and the need to remain critical. It seems that to question the orthodoxy of CC immediately makes one some sort of stooge for the fossil fuel lobby. CC has now become a political touch stone and every adverse environmental event and I mean EVERY event, is linked to CC. Aust recently had Rudd standing in front of the long suffering lower lakes on the Murray River espousing the need for an ETS. The implication being that unless we established an ETS a national icon and vital resourse would be lost when the two could not be more distant from each other. El Nino and La Nina and water allocations have an effect on the water levels in the Murray several orders of magnitude greater than any CO2 increase - but Aust has a government that would have us believe that if we can achieve an incremental reduction in CO2 output, then the waters will flow again! It is just crazy that CC/GW populism has got to this level. The meaningful worst case scenarios for sea level increases for the next 100 years are measured in 10’s of centimeters but we’re still inundated by predictions of wholesale population relocation. Each month China increases its CO2 emission by an amount larger than Australian national annual CO2 emission - Nothing Aust does will have an impact on CC, but such is the political mileage to be gained from pandering to the CC mob that logic and common sense are subjugated to pointless symbolism as governments strive to prove how devote they are.

There would have been a lot of Australian who voted for Rudd because he agreed to sign up to Kyoto. And he did. What was the result?

I’m actually a little surprised no one has offered up CC as being at least partly responsible for the financial turmoil of the past couple of weeks. It must kill the environmental lobby that their environmental end of the world predictions are so easily pushed off the front page by financial end of the world predictions.


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...