Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Eating Meat And Climate Change
Normally when I come to this site, it's about crosswords. This isn't.
I accept the reality of climate change and I try to do my bit in not destroying our planet. But I am not sure why changing our diet will help significantly. I like to watch nature programmes like Blue Planet and one of the things that's struck me is that animals in the wild, fish etc in the sea eat vast amounts of flesh. What they eat between them must surely dwarf what human beings eat. Or am I wrong on that front?
So,if we cut back but they continue,will it make any real difference. Or should we concentrate on other ways to tackle climate change?
I accept the reality of climate change and I try to do my bit in not destroying our planet. But I am not sure why changing our diet will help significantly. I like to watch nature programmes like Blue Planet and one of the things that's struck me is that animals in the wild, fish etc in the sea eat vast amounts of flesh. What they eat between them must surely dwarf what human beings eat. Or am I wrong on that front?
So,if we cut back but they continue,will it make any real difference. Or should we concentrate on other ways to tackle climate change?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stevenj. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Ive read reports that the UN expects the annual increase to decline by around 1 million every year//
Oh that's OK then. By 2050 it will only be increasing by around a million every week. But never mind. The two billion or so that will be added to the population between now and then will all be nice and "woke" and they won't exacerbate any of the problems said to be caused by humans. And salmon live in trees and eat pencils (organic variety only, natch).
Oh that's OK then. By 2050 it will only be increasing by around a million every week. But never mind. The two billion or so that will be added to the population between now and then will all be nice and "woke" and they won't exacerbate any of the problems said to be caused by humans. And salmon live in trees and eat pencils (organic variety only, natch).
There's a fundamental difference between arguing that human population is not a factor at all (which it is, as has never been in dispute), and between arguing that it is not a *major* factor. That seems to be a subtlety that is either being missed or deliberately ignored.
The point is that if, say, we collectively switched our electricity supplies to cleaner sources, improved farming methods, had more energy-efficient houses, cleaner fuel supplies for transport, changed diets towards eating foods that are less of a contributory factor, and so on -- all of these are choices that can be made and improve the situation without needing to tackle the population issue. All of them can be assessed to be more of a factor.
That is the point. There is no dispute that alongside this, tackling overpopulation is worthwhile for its own sake, partly because it would also go hand-in-hand with a general improvement in healthcare, women's health, and other numerous benefits. But to argue that this is the only, or the major, problem to focus on in order to tackle Climate Change is a position unsupported by any evidence I'm aware of. It's oversimplistic too, and perhaps it;s also an attempt to absolve Western nations, and their citizens, of their own responsibility for the present epoch of Climate Change.
The point is that if, say, we collectively switched our electricity supplies to cleaner sources, improved farming methods, had more energy-efficient houses, cleaner fuel supplies for transport, changed diets towards eating foods that are less of a contributory factor, and so on -- all of these are choices that can be made and improve the situation without needing to tackle the population issue. All of them can be assessed to be more of a factor.
That is the point. There is no dispute that alongside this, tackling overpopulation is worthwhile for its own sake, partly because it would also go hand-in-hand with a general improvement in healthcare, women's health, and other numerous benefits. But to argue that this is the only, or the major, problem to focus on in order to tackle Climate Change is a position unsupported by any evidence I'm aware of. It's oversimplistic too, and perhaps it;s also an attempt to absolve Western nations, and their citizens, of their own responsibility for the present epoch of Climate Change.
//Can just see a farmer trying to plough a hillside in the Lake District or Yorkshire Fells.//
Indeed. One of the arguments is that great swathes of forests are being cut down to provide pastures. That doesn't apply to the UK or to the countries where most of our meat imports come from (Ireland, New Zealand, Germany and the Netherlands). It may apply to Brazil (from where an increasing amount of meat is imported to the UK) and that country needs to think about its strategy but that does not make the case for decreased meat consumption in the UK.
As far as deforestation goes, a far greater threat is presented by the industry that supplies "biomass" (aka felled mature trees processed into pellets) which are carted 5,000 miles across the Atlantic to be burnt in a Yorkshire power station. The emissions from that process are actually about 10% higher than generating the same amount of electricity from coal. But because the source is laughingly termed "sustainable" (because trees will be planted to replace those felled) those emissions do not count towards the UK's total. The deforestation is not restricted to the USA. Vast swathes of forest in Eastern Europe are being destroyed for this purpose and I imagine that the land cleared for pasture falls somewhat short of the amount cleared for burning.
// The point is that if, say, we collectively switched our electricity supplies to cleaner sources, improved farming methods, had more energy-efficient houses, cleaner fuel supplies for transport, changed diets towards eating foods that are less of a contributory factor, and so on -- all of these are choices that can be made and improve the situation without needing to tackle the population issue.//
So it's back to the same philosophy, Jim. The one single factor that would probably do more to address the problem in the long term is quietly brushed aside - not even mentioned, never mind addressed. Meanwhile nations and people who do act more responsibly in addressing that problem have to make inconvenient, costly and possibly unpleasant adjustments to their lives to enable those less responsible to carry on remorselessly adding to the problem. Essentially the "developed" nations must make all the going whilst the less developed ones can carry on burning coal and knocking out copious quantities of children. Until that is rebalanced my weekly steak (and any other meat I fancy eating) stays on the menu.
Indeed. One of the arguments is that great swathes of forests are being cut down to provide pastures. That doesn't apply to the UK or to the countries where most of our meat imports come from (Ireland, New Zealand, Germany and the Netherlands). It may apply to Brazil (from where an increasing amount of meat is imported to the UK) and that country needs to think about its strategy but that does not make the case for decreased meat consumption in the UK.
As far as deforestation goes, a far greater threat is presented by the industry that supplies "biomass" (aka felled mature trees processed into pellets) which are carted 5,000 miles across the Atlantic to be burnt in a Yorkshire power station. The emissions from that process are actually about 10% higher than generating the same amount of electricity from coal. But because the source is laughingly termed "sustainable" (because trees will be planted to replace those felled) those emissions do not count towards the UK's total. The deforestation is not restricted to the USA. Vast swathes of forest in Eastern Europe are being destroyed for this purpose and I imagine that the land cleared for pasture falls somewhat short of the amount cleared for burning.
// The point is that if, say, we collectively switched our electricity supplies to cleaner sources, improved farming methods, had more energy-efficient houses, cleaner fuel supplies for transport, changed diets towards eating foods that are less of a contributory factor, and so on -- all of these are choices that can be made and improve the situation without needing to tackle the population issue.//
So it's back to the same philosophy, Jim. The one single factor that would probably do more to address the problem in the long term is quietly brushed aside - not even mentioned, never mind addressed. Meanwhile nations and people who do act more responsibly in addressing that problem have to make inconvenient, costly and possibly unpleasant adjustments to their lives to enable those less responsible to carry on remorselessly adding to the problem. Essentially the "developed" nations must make all the going whilst the less developed ones can carry on burning coal and knocking out copious quantities of children. Until that is rebalanced my weekly steak (and any other meat I fancy eating) stays on the menu.
Nothing will be done about population control because the root of the problem lies in the guilt soaked lands of a faded empire.
We'll just have to continue culling our own via crumbling health and social services and importing the fruits of the loins of the formerly oppressed as essential workers to drive our economy or somesuch political guff, until nature steps in and sorts it all out with a proper killer disease.
Surely nobody can believe that Sturgeon's Scottish visa nonsense is for the benefit of Serge, Hans and Pavel.
We'll just have to continue culling our own via crumbling health and social services and importing the fruits of the loins of the formerly oppressed as essential workers to drive our economy or somesuch political guff, until nature steps in and sorts it all out with a proper killer disease.
Surely nobody can believe that Sturgeon's Scottish visa nonsense is for the benefit of Serge, Hans and Pavel.
> Meanwhile nations and people who do act more responsibly in addressing that problem have to make inconvenient, costly and possibly unpleasant adjustments to their lives to enable those less responsible to carry on remorselessly adding to the problem.
What does responsibly mean ... below global average CO2 per capita?
What does responsibly mean ... below global average CO2 per capita?
//Can you explain to me how you arrived at that conclusion when I both mentioned *and* addressed the issue -- repeatedly?//
I’m not talking about you brushing it aside, Jim. I accept what you said. I’m talking about those who continually tell me I must not do this, I must not eat that, I shouldn’t burn this and I shouldn’t travel by that means. Those same people say not a dickie bird about excessive population growth.
//What does responsibly mean ... below global average CO2 per capita?//
No. I’m talking about over population. So those who limit themselves to two children maximum (and preferably fewer). I’m not concerned about average CO2 per capita. I have to be careful not to fall foul of the new "Science" Site Rules but reducing CO2 per capita doesn’t bother me one jot. I can recall plenty of information about how CO2 emissions places the world in peril. I've seen nothing to see how reducing them will reduce that peril.
I’m not talking about you brushing it aside, Jim. I accept what you said. I’m talking about those who continually tell me I must not do this, I must not eat that, I shouldn’t burn this and I shouldn’t travel by that means. Those same people say not a dickie bird about excessive population growth.
//What does responsibly mean ... below global average CO2 per capita?//
No. I’m talking about over population. So those who limit themselves to two children maximum (and preferably fewer). I’m not concerned about average CO2 per capita. I have to be careful not to fall foul of the new "Science" Site Rules but reducing CO2 per capita doesn’t bother me one jot. I can recall plenty of information about how CO2 emissions places the world in peril. I've seen nothing to see how reducing them will reduce that peril.
I’ve been thinking about meat-eating just now. I wouldn’t dream of eating cat, dog, mouse, mole or horse (although I think I might have eaten horse in France) but I love a steak and lamb chops. What’s the difference? They’re all animals. I’m going veggie, I think. I do love prawns and oysters though. Are they ok?
"'So, if there were no humans the problem would not exist' I'm not sure that's the case is it? I thought there was an underlying trend of increase as we're still emerging from the last ice age?"
I'm confident it is the case. The meteoric rise coincides with human activity, particularly industrial activity; not the slow crawl up from the ice age.
I'm confident it is the case. The meteoric rise coincides with human activity, particularly industrial activity; not the slow crawl up from the ice age.
//The meteoric rise coincides with human activity, particularly industrial activity; not the slow crawl up from the ice age. //
Agreed, OG. But if humans were not here (so the theory goes) it would not have happened. My theory is that if there weren't so many of them it would not have been so bad.
//OK so a fairer measure would be CO2 per square mile?//
I think you misunderstand, ellipsis.
I don't care too much what they do. I don't care what they burn, what they eat or how much wind they or their animals pass. There's simply too many of them. If those campaigning for lower pollution would campaign with equal zest for a reduction in the human population I may take them a little more seriously. But they don't. So I don't.
Agreed, OG. But if humans were not here (so the theory goes) it would not have happened. My theory is that if there weren't so many of them it would not have been so bad.
//OK so a fairer measure would be CO2 per square mile?//
I think you misunderstand, ellipsis.
I don't care too much what they do. I don't care what they burn, what they eat or how much wind they or their animals pass. There's simply too many of them. If those campaigning for lower pollution would campaign with equal zest for a reduction in the human population I may take them a little more seriously. But they don't. So I don't.
How do you even propose to tackle a reduction in the population? And, out of interest, where are you planning to start?
The CO2/capita is vastly more relevant than you are giving it credit for. Even if you still insist on going by population, it would tell you which countries to get rid of first...
The best that can be plausibly done about human population is to seek to reduce the growth rate. Paradoxically, that probably means widening access to healthcare, especially for women, and trying to tackle poverty. These are both things that would be at least potentially addressed by increasing International Aid.
Best get campaigning then, NJ.
The CO2/capita is vastly more relevant than you are giving it credit for. Even if you still insist on going by population, it would tell you which countries to get rid of first...
The best that can be plausibly done about human population is to seek to reduce the growth rate. Paradoxically, that probably means widening access to healthcare, especially for women, and trying to tackle poverty. These are both things that would be at least potentially addressed by increasing International Aid.
Best get campaigning then, NJ.
No, it's New Judge ducking the argument. His attitude (from this thread and others) is "Climate change may or may not be a thing, but it makes no difference to me either way. Whether it is or it isn't, I'm doing nothing and I'm all right Jack."
Not showing much in the way of leadership there. The message I take from New Judge is that there is nobody that he cares about once he's gone, and he doesn't expect to be around long enough for climate change (man made or otherwise) to make much of a difference to him personall. And if it does ... well, he's had a good run already, and better to have fun now and not worry about some future possible problem ...
We had this exact discussion about population on another thread only a few days ago. My post copied from there:
(CO2 produced by humans) = (number of humans) * (C02 produced per human)
If (number of humans) is zero, then (CO2 produced by humans) is also zero ... ignoring the CO2 produced by what we leave behind after we're all dead, anyway.
If (C02 produced per human) is zero, then (CO2 produced by humans) is also zero no matter how many humans there are.
In 1977, when the global population was 4.23 billion, emissions per capita were 1.19 tonnes of carbon per person.
By 2017, when the global population was 7.55 billion, emissions per capita were 1.34 tonnes. This over a time when most major economies reduced their output.
That means (7.55/4.23)*(1.34/1.19) = almost exactly twice as much CO2 is being produced by humans now as was being produced in 1977.
The United States is still the largest producer of CO2 per capita of all the world's major countries, by far. It is producing 16.24 tonnes per capita (down from 21.20tpc in 1977). China is producing 6.98 tonnes per capita (up from 1.37tpc in 1977). The UK is producing 5.81 tonnes per capita (down from 10.74tpc in 1977). And, as stated above, the global average is 1.34 tonnes per capita, so we're all well above that.
Not showing much in the way of leadership there. The message I take from New Judge is that there is nobody that he cares about once he's gone, and he doesn't expect to be around long enough for climate change (man made or otherwise) to make much of a difference to him personall. And if it does ... well, he's had a good run already, and better to have fun now and not worry about some future possible problem ...
We had this exact discussion about population on another thread only a few days ago. My post copied from there:
(CO2 produced by humans) = (number of humans) * (C02 produced per human)
If (number of humans) is zero, then (CO2 produced by humans) is also zero ... ignoring the CO2 produced by what we leave behind after we're all dead, anyway.
If (C02 produced per human) is zero, then (CO2 produced by humans) is also zero no matter how many humans there are.
In 1977, when the global population was 4.23 billion, emissions per capita were 1.19 tonnes of carbon per person.
By 2017, when the global population was 7.55 billion, emissions per capita were 1.34 tonnes. This over a time when most major economies reduced their output.
That means (7.55/4.23)*(1.34/1.19) = almost exactly twice as much CO2 is being produced by humans now as was being produced in 1977.
The United States is still the largest producer of CO2 per capita of all the world's major countries, by far. It is producing 16.24 tonnes per capita (down from 21.20tpc in 1977). China is producing 6.98 tonnes per capita (up from 1.37tpc in 1977). The UK is producing 5.81 tonnes per capita (down from 10.74tpc in 1977). And, as stated above, the global average is 1.34 tonnes per capita, so we're all well above that.
