Eating Meat And Climate Change

[stevenj]

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?

[naomi24]

Yes, we did have this exact discussion elsewhere. Nothing changes.

[New Judge]

//How do you even propose to tackle a reduction in the population?//

I don’t. I’m not sure that reductions in emissions will have any effect on the CC problem so whether it is achieved by population reduction or by per capita reduction is immaterial to me. My disagreement is with the campaigns that suggest people should live in the dark and not move any further than they can walk away from where they were born. Meanwhile they say absolutely nothing about excessive population increase which, however you make an argument, must have a profound influence on the problem.

//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.//

Then you take the wrong message. There’s plenty of people I care about who will be around long after I’ve shuffled off this mortal coil. The message I am promoting is that the measures being taken, as expensive and inconvenient as some of them are, will make not the slightest difference to the perceived problem. I’ve mentioned many times why the campaigns pee me off and why many involved are hypocritical. I don’t intend to go over them again.

//If (C02 produced per human) is zero, then (CO2 produced by humans) is also zero no matter how many humans there are.//

That is a circular argument. Leaving aside that it is simply impractical for CO2 production per human to be zero, if there were fewer humans it would not matter if those around produced a little more per head.

My position is this: I’ve changed near enough all my lightbulbs to the LED type (mainly of necessity). I recycle just about everything I can (and did so long before it became fashionable and then compulsory). I run a petrol car with the lowest possible emissions (not because of the emissions but because the car suits me) and I drive less than 3,000 miles a year. That’s about it for me. I shall continue to eat all the meat I wish. I shall heat my house to the temperature I am comfortable with. I shall continue to travel by air as and when the mood takes me (at present about five times a year, totalling about 20,000 miles). In short I have no intention of making any changes to my lifestyle whatsoever unless those changes suit me and mine or I am compelled by law to make them. Being continually lectured about how I am causing harm by going about my business simply gets on my nerves and has no impact on my habits whatsoever. I’ve no intention of reducing my meat consumption whilst my local Debenhams continues to heat the street using 25Kw of electricity (which they were doing as usual as I walked past earlier today) or while vast quantities of trees are being felled and processed into "clean" fuel before being shipped from the other side of the Atlantic. If others want to make futile adjustments to their lives which, in my view will make not a jot of difference whilst that’s going on, then good luck to them.