Cont: Global warming discussion V

[dann]

One person going vegetarian or vegan, even one day per week, reduces their carbon footprint significantly.

I wasn't aware of this, but it makes sense:
"BP crafted the 'carbon footprint' as a way to make people blame themselves for climate change instead of oil companies."

Your Carbon Footprint is an actual scam.
We've got a big ol' task ahead of us and it's important to start our collective engines (figurative, not literal) on reducing our government's fossil fuel use. It's going to take an effort on the scale of the new deal (but like a ... I dunno, green one or something) and we'll need to keep climate change front of mind for the foreseeable future if we want to have a shot of pressuring corporations and government into doing the right thing.

Here is a commentable google doc of the sources. Please check it out: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AKR2j4CymosDtmfEoDt2geSCtk9QoyyXBb2QdBj4jkE/edit?pli=1.

Some reading to do:
The Merchants of Doubt: https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
All We Can Save: https://www.allwecansave.earth/
The Uninhabitable Earth: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate: https://thischangeseverything.org/book/
Why Your 'Carbon Footprint' Is a Lie (Climate Town on YouTube, Aug 12, 2020 - 9:53 min.)

Climate Town are the ones with the other YouTube video The Troll Army of Big Oil. (They only got better since 2020. There are still some rookie mistakes in the old video. Nice to follow their learning curve.)

For those of you who don't like videos:

ersonal virtue is an eternally seductive goal in progressive movements, and the climate movement is no exception. People pop up all the time to boast of their domestic arrangements or chastise others for what they eat or how they get around. The very short counterargument is that individual acts of thrift and abstinence won’t get us the huge distance we need to go in this decade. We need to exit the age of fossil fuels, reinvent our energy landscape, rethink how we do almost everything. We need collective action at every scale from local to global – and the good people already at work on all those levels need help in getting a city to commit to clean power or a state to stop fracking or a nation to end fossil-fuel subsidies. The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good.
Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hook (Guardian, Aug 23, 2021)

 

[dann]

Poultry has no where near the footprint that red meat has and oigs are not ruminants

More than all the rest of the mammals in the world by weight combined....that includes wild animals.
[qimg]https://wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/sites/default/files/styles/top_banner_mobile/public/article_main_image/RM_main_2.jpg?itok=8FjDngDW1714435200072[/qimg]
The beef for a single burger is something ridiculous

then of course there is methane.....eat kangaroos.

I was surprised to see that CO₂ emission from chocolate is almost as bad as beef. Coffee, too. And that farmed prawns are worse than lamb, goat and beef from dairy herds.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The point is, there are not millions of people going vegan, any more than there are millions of people giving up their fossil fuel driven life style.

Roger nailed it.

The drop in red meat consumption is so small that it's hard to measure the effect.

Show me some numbers that show a global trend that is moving away from global meat consumption.

The numbers we have show the opposite .

 

[Stout]

Yeah, people in rural California are finding out about that.

We're finding out about that here in Canada as well. Zombie fires is the latest buzzword. Yet I read an article yesterday where Canadians are finding it cheaper to fly to Europe to see Taylor Swift than seeing her here at home...and they're doing it, climate change be dammed.

There's willful ignorance for sure, but that's no excuse not to get the message out loud and clear.

What we need is a 'road map' like we had with Covid. It was a lot easier to handle being locked down when you knew what progress was being made. We should be doing the same with GHG emissions. We need to know exactly how much to reduce emissions and where, and what the measures currently being applied are doing to meet that. Ideally there would be a dashboard tracking it on a daily or weekly basis that everyone can monitor. Then when we are not meeting the goals we can insist on more being done.

It's suicide for any activist to get the message of the scale of the reductions needed. A climate lockdown might be what's actually needed but talking about that in the media is going to bring on all sorts of negative reactions. I'd like to see someone try it though. Just to prove my hypothesis.

The surprising thing is how quickly people adapted to the 'draconian' rules. Most weren't stressed because the government paid employers to keep their wages coming in, and 'essential workers' kept the supermarket shelves full. For most of us it was like a paid holiday (Not me though, as a 'casual' worker I got nothing! Luckily I got an 'essential' job which paid enough to keep the wolf from the door).

Same here, the free government money kept a lot of people going. There was a fair share of stupid as well, like the no evictions rule that allowed residential rental tenants to keep that free government money while telling their landlords to take a hike. My neighbour lost out big on this but he's a rich guy, so he wasn't financially damaged. Other landlords weren't quite so lucky as those no eviction rules didn't apply to people who had mortgages and were counting on the rental income from their suites to cover their mortgage.

 

[Stout]

Murderer!

I know eh? The irony of destroying the very thing I was going to see didn't escape me so I just brought up one of those stupid "individual changes don't make a difference articles" read it a few times, then called my travel agent. For extra good measure I shook my fist at the corporate logo on the side of the fuel truck that was filling up my plane.

It doesn't all have to go, we just have to cut back enough that sinks will get us to net zero.

You know what I mean right? Not all of it, literally, but a massive chunk. I Covid lockdown sized chunk.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I wasn't aware of this, but it makes sense:
"BP crafted the 'carbon footprint' as a way to make people blame themselves for climate change instead of oil companies."

False dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to take action as an individual, to live more sustainably, whilst putting pressure on fossil fuel companies and governments to make changes too.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The point is, there are not millions of people going vegan,

Yes, there are.
Once again, you are inventing "facts" in an attempt to justify your personal cynicism and apathy.

any more than there are millions of people giving up their fossil fuel driven life style.

In anticipation of yet another effort to move the goalposts, what lifestyle changes would you say fit that definition?

Roger nailed it.

No, Roger didn't.
You have still failed to account for the rise in global population- despite having this pointed out to you by Pixel42 and myself, and despite my having posted data proving this point.

Show me some numbers that show a global trend that is moving away from global meat consumption.

You have shifted those goalposts already. I have already posted figures showing a drop in meat consumption in the US, Europe and South America. Now you demand "global" figures, and only so you don't have to admit that things are changing, and changing for the better. Have you even looked at the figures I posted?

The numbers we have show the opposite .

No, they don't. Those figures are not per capita. The figures I have posted, which are per capita, support the idea that meat eating, especially red meat, is declining in many areas. Moreover, I have shown information that climate concerns are a major motivator for this, and that individual reduction of meat can have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Once again, you have ignored all of this, and continue to cling to your gloomy prejudices. If you accept the reality of what is happening around the world, you will be much happier!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The topic is Global Warming..

You have offered nothing to show that some trendy dietary changes are having a measurable impact on rising Global temperatures, when the facts are that increased meat consumption is contributing to increasing GHG 'S the population notwithstanding.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The topic is Global Warming..

Thank you. I am aware of that.

You have offered nothing to show that some trendy dietary changes are having a measurable impact on rising Global temperatures, when the facts are that increased meat consumption is contributing to increasing GHG 'S the population notwithstanding.

You are conflating two different issues: measures taken to achieve net zero emissions, and a fall in global temperatures.
Temperatures will continue to rise for 20 years even after we reach net zero. Demanding an immediate effect is misguided.
What we need to do is to work towards net zero, so that after this has been done, temperatures will eventually start to fall. Reducing emissions, by whatever means, is how we achieve that goal. Reducing red meat consumption is one way of doing that.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explain...op-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Reducing red meat consumption is one way of doing that.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explain...op-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/

Reducing the consumption of legumes would probably have a greater impact on Global Warming than reducing red meat consumption. Why no outcry against beans?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I was surprised to see that CO₂ emission from chocolate is almost as bad as beef. Coffee, too. And that farmed prawns are worse than lamb, goat and beef from dairy herds.

Need to be careful here. The chart shows GHG emissions per kilogram of product. To get actual GHG emissions you have to take into account consumption rates. A '12 oz' steak weighs ~340 grams. That's equivalent to 34 cups of coffee.

Mind you, any reason to cut down on chocolate and coffee is a good one.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Reducing the consumption of legumes would probably have a greater impact on Global Warming than reducing red meat consumption. Why no outcry against beans?

Evidence?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

False dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to take action as an individual, to live more sustainably, whilst putting pressure on fossil fuel companies and governments to make changes too.

And just living more sustainably itself puts pressure on.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Reducing the consumption of legumes would probably have a greater impact on Global Warming than reducing red meat consumption. Why no outcry against beans?

We're at the stage where it's clear no amount of actual, scientific evidence will change your mind.
You have been making an impossible demand and, when shown that your impossible demand is impossible, you sidestep and start on another tangent altogether.
Nothing will ever persuade you. That much is clear. Enjoy your cynicism and apathy.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Never mind your impossible/unrealistic demand that people stop eating (red)meat to mitigate Global Warming..

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Thank you. I am aware of that.



You are conflating two different issues: measures taken to achieve net zero emissions, and a fall in global temperatures.
Temperatures will continue to rise for 20 years even after we reach net zero. Demanding an immediate effect is misguided.
What we need to do is to work towards net zero, so that after this has been done, temperatures will eventually start to fall. Reducing emissions, by whatever means, is how we achieve that goal. Reducing red meat consumption is one way of doing that.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explain...op-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/

Never mind your impossible/unrealistic demand that people stop eating (red)meat to mitigate Global Warming..

Naughty.

 

[Stout]

Reducing the consumption of legumes would probably have a greater impact on Global Warming than reducing red meat consumption. Why no outcry against beans?

Protein. You can get all your daily protein requirements from beans and rice which is why these two foods make up a huge percentage of the diets of peoples living in developing nations. Take Brazil for example. Just a couple of years ago we were all shaking our fists at those Brazilians for burning down the amazon rainforest to make space for more cattle so they could eat burgers just like we do.

 

[8enotto]

There are climates and cultures where agriculture is near impossible, the people there live almost entirely on animal protein foods. There also are places like where I live that agriculture is possible year round for fresh produce.

There is no one size fits all remedy for anything, much less the huge global issues like global warming.

Also nutritional demands of any healthy population requires proteins, and that means animal sources are the best sources in some regions.

To just eliminate red meat consumption in the tropical to four seasons regions would require a large increase in agriculture production and transportation as well as governmental cooperation on a scale we have never achieved yet.
We as a species aren't capable of that right now. The increased transport needs is not green either.

Sensible solutions applied regionally make more sense.6

 

[8enotto]

Dupe

 

[The Great Zaganza]

One size fits most would be vertical farming and floating farms.
Food production is probably not a limiting factor.