The Global Warming Megathread

[apelike]

6 hours ago, ads36 said:

Stopping deforestation would be a great help.

 

And producing meat is very energy intensive, it has a significant carbon footprint. 

 

Producing meat requires a lot of land. And if we're going to get serious about this, we should be re-creating the forests and blanket bogs* These habitats are deep carbon sinks. So reducing our meat consumption has a double benefit : less energy consumption, and more carbon storage. It's one of the best things you can do.

 

(*Fantastically rich and useful habitats)

The problem is we are telling countries that they cannot do the same as we have been doing for centuries and unless we get involved financially to help them out it will keep being the same. Many of the world's problems such as shortage of water to grow food especially in arid countries can be sorted out but the will and money to do so never materialises. How will we stop the methane from being produced by growing rice in wetlands when many Asian countries rely on that for their staple food, they will also need to reduce their production but can't because of a growing population to feed. Eating less meat seems to be a sort of magic bullet being shot around as a way to control methane emissions and also a good sound bite......  but if people start eating more of a vegetarian diet including rice it could actually increases methane production that way instead. More land will also be needed for growing vegetables etc and that then gives the GM companies ammunition for countries to accept GM grown foods, another magic bullet when it comes to rising population and food security. The problem as I see it is that when it comes to meat production cutting it out and becoming vegetarian is not a real solution. 

 

Carbon sinks such a blanket bogs are good but not very practical in many countries for a number of reasons, the main one being adequate rainfall/water to keep them soaked.

 

Just to add.. Globalisation is on of the main contributors when it comes to energy consumption, carbon and CO2 production.

Edited December 3, 2019 by apelike

[ads36]

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.

[retep]

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

 

[apelike]

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. 

[ads36]

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 December 3, 2019 by ads36

[stifflersmom]

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.

[retep]

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/

[apelike]

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?

[Pettytom]

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.

[ads36]

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