Climate Change - a poll

[WigstonWanderer]

On 01/12/2023 at 09:13, Heathrow fox said:

My argument which I think you may agree with, is to make the required changes top downwards.Not bottom upwards which seems to be the route we will be taking.

The problem with bottom upwards is that even when consumers have every intention of “going green”, they often have little or no choice unless government regulation and support means that better options are available and affordable.

 

Here in Australia there is a huge uptake in rooftop solar power (understandably given the climate). This was initially driven by government incentives but is now a thriving, self-sustaining industry with much less support. However, the large amount of power being generated at the wrong times is causing problems for a grid system that wasn’t designed to work in this way. Part of the answer in my opinion would be for a much greater uptake of domestic batteries to store the excess solar power locally. I believe this would potentially double the effective amount of usable power generated in this way and take pressure off the grid. But this option, though attractive to consumers like myself, is just too expensive at present.

 

It would make sense for the government to kickstart the battery industry as they did with rooftop solar by offering subsidies. This is probably much cheaper than fixing the grid.

 

In a related topic, most people I know would gladly avoid plastic packaging if they could, but you just can’t get away from the stuff these days. Government regulation is required to ban it. I’m quite confident that modern industry would find less environmentally damaging alternatives, as is happening with plastic shopping bags.
 

 

Edited 2 December 2023 by WigstonWanderer

[WigstonWanderer]

6 hours ago, Wortho said:

Both points. 
Wasn’t there two hot periods millions of years ago? 
You seem to be a very knowledgeable person and I am you sure have lots of answers. I do respect your views.

Climate change over millions of years, hundreds of thousands of years, or even just a thousand years wouldn’t be a problem for civilisation as it could adapt on such a timescale. The problem is caused by the rapid rate of change as has been mentioned above.

Edited 2 December 2023 by WigstonWanderer

[Wortho]

Does anyone on here agree that global farming should be stopped, and that we should be eating lab grown meat and insects?

[Bellend Sebastian]

30 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Does anyone on here agree that global farming should be stopped, and that we should be eating lab grown meat and insects?

Is that what you're proposing, Wortho?

 

I'll be honest, I'm surprised. I don't think you'll get many takers

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

Agriculture and supply chains based on it are a big question when it comes to carbon emissions. Is it actually less costly in terms of emissions to import meat, vegetables and fruit, or instead rear it where it is to be consumed? You would think that the latter is better, but from what I've read it isn't actually that cut and dry, for a few reasons.

 

In any case, the elephant in the room remains energy generation and that is the priority issue.

[BKLFox]

54 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Does anyone on here agree that global farming should be stopped, and that we should be eating lab grown meat and insects?

This isn’t aimed at you Wortho as I guess you’re just putting it out there but to the hardcore activists that want a ban on any species being harvested for human consumption (solid or liquid) what do they then expect will happen to these species?
 

Let’s think cow but refers to everything pig, chicken, sheep etc etc if cows aren’t farmed where do they roam, who looks after them, how are numbers decided or are they not and they can just over populate or equally become extinct.

 

Its the last 2 queries in that sentence that I can’t get my head around just because either way goes against what we would want, over populate because they are left to their own devices will have more of them living longer with more burping and farting continuing to harm the ozone as stated by climate activists or they become extinct because they are not cared for which again doesn’t fit in to what animal rights groups are fighting for (assuming these groups want a total ban on animal to human consumption and not just to be free range and have better living quarters) 

 

Ive probably not worded that right but it’s just thoughts of the knock on effect, it’s easy to say stop eating animal meat but the knock on doesn’t ever get mentioned, why would the cow farmer hang on to his 8000 acre farm land if it can’t provide for him and I’m not sure it’s as simple as ok grow sprouts due to a multitude of things, surely they would just sell up & that land will become concrete and the care and grass the cows need is no longer there, leading to what?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, BKLFox said:

This isn’t aimed at you Wortho as I guess you’re just putting it out there but to the hardcore activists that want a ban on any species being harvested for human consumption (solid or liquid) what do they then expect will happen to these species?
 

Let’s think cow but refers to everything pig, chicken, sheep etc etc if cows aren’t farmed where do they roam, who looks after them, how are numbers decided or are they not and they can just over populate or equally become extinct.

 

Its the last 2 queries in that sentence that I can’t get my head around just because either way goes against what we would want, over populate because they are left to their own devices will have more of them living longer with more burping and farting continuing to harm the ozone as stated by climate activists or they become extinct because they are not cared for which again doesn’t fit in to what animal rights groups are fighting for (assuming these groups want a total ban on animal to human consumption and not just to be free range and have better living quarters) 

 

Ive probably not worded that right but it’s just thoughts of the knock on effect, it’s easy to say stop eating animal meat but the knock on doesn’t ever get mentioned, why would the cow farmer hang on to his 8000 acre farm land if it can’t provide for him and I’m not sure it’s as simple as ok grow sprouts due to a multitude of things, surely they would just sell up & that land will become concrete and the care and grass the cows need is no longer there, leading to what?

...and this is why no serious work on the subject advocates for what the "hardcore activists" are advocating for, because it leads to similar or same shitshows as you point out here. Whatever way things go the animals bred for consumption that exist now and in the near future end up suffering and dying, there's simply no way round it. Perhaps the best solution would be a gradual drawdown to a lower level (as opposed to no such animals at all) - which, in terms of the emissions caused by animal agriculture and that supply chain, we probably have time for.

 

WRT the last paragraph, the economic arguments are pertinent but I think they are mostly easier solved than the ethical ones. Same goes for oil and gas workers put out of work by advances in nuclear and renewable tech - yes, they need to be looked after, but that doesn't mean the change doesn't have to happen.

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Wortho said:

Does anyone on here agree that global farming should be stopped, and that we should be eating lab grown meat and insects?

Wouldn't have a problem eating lab grown meat or insects if it tasted okay and was cheap tbh. 

 

Most of this fake meat stuff around atm isn't too bad, but when it's priced higher than what it's supposed to be replacing then you're not gonna have much luck. 

 

I'm sure the world is smart enough to come up with better options eventually though. 

[BKLFox]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...and this is why no serious work on the subject advocates for what the "hardcore activists" are advocating for, because it leads to similar or same shitshows as you point out here. Whatever way things go the animals bred for consumption that exist now and in the near future end up suffering and dying, there's simply no way round it. Perhaps the best solution would be a gradual drawdown to a lower level (as opposed to no such animals at all) - which, in terms of the emissions caused by animal agriculture and that supply chain, we probably have time for.

 

WRT the last paragraph, the economic arguments are pertinent but I think they are mostly easier solved than the ethical ones. Same goes for oil and gas workers put out of work by advances in nuclear and renewable tech - yes, they need to be looked after, but that doesn't mean the change doesn't have to happen.

It’s certainly a noodle scratcher.

I’m not sure there will be a happy medium mind, it’ll certainly slide (I don’t want to use left or right of centre as sounds to political) wildly on the scale depending on which camp your head/heart is at.

Personally you can’t see past eventual extinction on the horizon after an initial drawdown idea leads to it being too expensive to farm or buy the product.
Then on the other side in layman’s term it’s a ‘quick win’ just like reducing opex in a company, they crunch some numbers, workout X leads to Y emissions & take the short term solution to a bigger issue.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67521051

 

Interesting article on attitudes towards this matter around the world and how difficult it can be at times to get scientific fact to be accepted.

[jgtuk]

28 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

This isn’t aimed at you Wortho as I guess you’re just putting it out there but to the hardcore activists that want a ban on any species being harvested for human consumption (solid or liquid) what do they then expect will happen to these species?
 

Let’s think cow but refers to everything pig, chicken, sheep etc etc if cows aren’t farmed where do they roam, who looks after them, how are numbers decided or are they not and they can just over populate or equally become extinct.

 

Its the last 2 queries in that sentence that I can’t get my head around just because either way goes against what we would want, over populate because they are left to their own devices will have more of them living longer with more burping and farting continuing to harm the ozone as stated by climate activists or they become extinct because they are not cared for which again doesn’t fit in to what animal rights groups are fighting for (assuming these groups want a total ban on animal to human consumption and not just to be free range and have better living quarters) 

 

Ive probably not worded that right but it’s just thoughts of the knock on effect, it’s easy to say stop eating animal meat but the knock on doesn’t ever get mentioned, why would the cow farmer hang on to his 8000 acre farm land if it can’t provide for him and I’m not sure it’s as simple as ok grow sprouts due to a multitude of things, surely they would just sell up & that land will become concrete and the care and grass the cows need is no longer there, leading to what?

It's not black and white though, livestock farming would not 'switch off' overnight, it would be a gradual process. The animals you speak of (at least in the form we recognise) have been designed and bred for one thing and the sheer numbers of animals being slaughtered for consumption is astronomical. If less people consume meat, less will be bred for that purpose, and so on - these aren't wild animals, they don't exist outside farming - and there might be an opportunity for native wildlife to exist and grow in numbers without being blasted out of the sky to protect livestock. You talk as though the farmed animals would just be released into the wild??

Farming (including arable farming to feed livestock) makes a substantial impact on global climate change (can't quote figures - @leicsmac will have access to this data I would imagine) so is definitely a consideration when these conversations occur (thats without having a moral stance on the way we treat animals as a commodity in the first place!)

I saw in the news yesterday that a group of people in S. Korea were out in force to protest the dog meat laws - we in the UK can't get our heads around the slaughter of 'pets' but quite readily accept the same of the 'non pets' that we eat?

DISCLAIMER:

Long term plant eater, no meat, fish or dairy.

 

 

 

[Dunge]

2 hours ago, Wortho said:

Does anyone on here agree that global farming should be stopped, and that we should be eating lab grown meat and insects?

No, not stopped. But there is an increasingly strong argument for lab-grown meat*, something that instinctively isn’t an attractive thought but could well be the lesser evil - and not just because of climate change but because there are just so many humans to feed now and only one Earth to cultivate.

 

*as well

Edited 2 December 2023 by Dunge

[Wortho]

What do the knowledgeable on here think of this?

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the #ClimateScam, in three and a half minutes: 

"[Six of the six] great ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. We have 0.04% of that gas in the atmosphere... Well that means nothing to me, because the atmosphere has changed in its carbon dioxide content from over 20% to now, which is really low in geological time. If we halved it, all plant life would die, and animals would die."

[jgtuk]

24 minutes ago, Wortho said:

What do the knowledgeable on here think of this?

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the #ClimateScam, in three and a half minutes: 

"[Six of the six] great ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. We have 0.04% of that gas in the atmosphere... Well that means nothing to me, because the atmosphere has changed in its carbon dioxide content from over 20% to now, which is really low in geological time. If we halved it, all plant life would die, and animals would die."

Now I’m definitely not an expert but… 

 

“Plimer was appointed to the boards of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments by mining magnate and climate skeptic promoter Gina Rinehart on January 25, 2012. [5]

As non-executive Director and Deputy Chairman of Kefi Minerals, Plimer owns over 5.4 million shares (as of January, 2016) in the mining company. [6], [7]” 

 

 

[leicsmac]

44 minutes ago, Wortho said:

What do the knowledgeable on here think of this?

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the #ClimateScam, in three and a half minutes: 

"[Six of the six] great ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. We have 0.04% of that gas in the atmosphere... Well that means nothing to me, because the atmosphere has changed in its carbon dioxide content from over 20% to now, which is really low in geological time. If we halved it, all plant life would die, and animals would die."

... the same thing thought when every individual talking head gets propped up to say something like this. If what he said was pertinent to the current situation, it would have been taken into account and quickly become scientific fact by the consensus of data and viewpoint.

 

Unless and until then, his words need to be treated as they are - an interesting viewpoint but one that shouldn't be taken as read without the backing of his peers.

 

NB. This particular quote again suffers from the problem a lot of similar individual viewpoints designed solely to satisfy confirmation bias do - it presents some facts, but frames them in a way that is incomplete and/or dishonest.

 

Edit: for people's consideration, beware the Gish Gallop.

 

https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/

Edited 2 December 2023 by leicsmac

[Wymsey]

Am I the only one who thinks vegan food tastes pretty bland?..

 

Have tried a few such foodstuff and they had hardly whetted the appetite.

Edited 2 December 2023 by Wymsey

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, jgtuk said:

It's not black and white though, livestock farming would not 'switch off' overnight, it would be a gradual process. The animals you speak of (at least in the form we recognise) have been designed and bred for one thing and the sheer numbers of animals being slaughtered for consumption is astronomical. If less people consume meat, less will be bred for that purpose, and so on - these aren't wild animals, they don't exist outside farming - and there might be an opportunity for native wildlife to exist and grow in numbers without being blasted out of the sky to protect livestock. You talk as though the farmed animals would just be released into the wild??

Farming (including arable farming to feed livestock) makes a substantial impact on global climate change (can't quote figures - @leicsmac will have access to this data I would imagine) so is definitely a consideration when these conversations occur (thats without having a moral stance on the way we treat animals as a commodity in the first place!)

I saw in the news yesterday that a group of people in S. Korea were out in force to protest the dog meat laws - we in the UK can't get our heads around the slaughter of 'pets' but quite readily accept the same of the 'non pets' that we eat?

DISCLAIMER:

Long term plant eater, no meat, fish or dairy.

 

 

 

Yes these animals are currently bred for what we use them for but weren’t created in a lab, if you take away what they are currently being bred for no one is going to pay their up keep in any numbers for them to simply exist.

 

Remember like everything in this world less means more expensive & that would be more expensive to farm and more expensive to purchase meat which in the long run will drop numbers to the point of why farm them at all.

 

I also don’t talk of an overnight here today gone tomorrow but once they are stopped being bred for human consumption it is realistically game over for that species, the delta between stop and extinction would be ?? mind.

[Zear0]

31 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Am I the only one who thinks vegan food tastes pretty bland?..

 

Have tried a few such foodstuff and they had hardly whetted the appetite.

Try living with one... 

[jgtuk]

32 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Am I the only one who thinks vegan food tastes pretty bland?..

 

Have tried a few such foodstuff and they had hardly whetted the appetite.

That’s rather a blanket statement 😂, I’ve been eating plant based food for years and there’s no difference in the amount of flavours, spices or textures that you can use. I don’t try and replicate meat as A. I don’t find it palatable B. It’s actually quite difficult. 
Notice that I’m avoiding the V word as it has negative connotations attached and it’s different to just eating a plant based diet. 
 

[Greg2607]

4 hours ago, Wortho said:

Does anyone on here agree that global farming should be stopped, and that we should be eating lab grown meat and insects?

I think everyone should think about growing some of their own food for sure.  It would make a huge difference to "food miles" etc. 

[jgtuk]

35 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Yes these animals are currently bred for what we use them for but weren’t created in a lab, if you take away what they are currently being bred for no one is going to pay their up keep in any numbers for them to simply exist.

 

Remember like everything in this world less means more expensive & that would be more expensive to farm and more expensive to purchase meat which in the long run will drop numbers to the point of why farm them at all.

 

I also don’t talk of an overnight here today gone tomorrow but once they are stopped being bred for human consumption it is realistically game over for that species, the delta between stop and extinction would be ?? mind.

Your first paragraph - I have no problem with less farmed animals, even to the point of extinction for some. If they offer nothing to the ecosystem they are part of and the alternatives range from some loss of native wildlife which form an important part of the ecosystem (plus at an extreme level, possible mass extinction) then I think it’s a necessary sacrifice. Don’t forget that this will be a slow process so I’m not advocating mass slaughter of livestock. 

Your second paragraph - I’ve no problem with that, with the hope that it accelerates the change from meat to plant (or artificial meat). 

Your third paragraph - again, I’ve no problem with that. Out of interest, where do you think they fit in a functional ecosystem (apart from killing them for food)? I can think of a handful of niche uses. A short drive away from my house and there’s wild goat living in the hills, maybe wild sheep would provide the grazing necessary for some breeding birds (might have to reintroduce a predator or two). Anyway, if we didn’t either kill or exploit everything around us and didn’t assume that we as a species are more important than all other living things then the world would be a better place. 
 

I HAVE NO SCIENCE TO BACK ANYTHING HERE 😂.
Just my personal thoughts. 

[Strokes]

5 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Is that what you're proposing, Wortho?

 

I'll be honest, I'm surprised. I don't think you'll get many takers

 

 

 

 

Well the nitpicker in me disagrees.

[Bellend Sebastian]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Well the nitpicker in me disagrees.

Always up for a tasty protein based snack

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67591422

 

Clare is studying the insects to understand how dengue spreads around the world - and how climate change is fuelling that spread. 

 

As leaders gather in Dubai for COP28 - the latest round of the UN's international climate talks - experts say global warming is already having a "profound effect" on global health.

 

Mosquitoes already cause more death and suffering to humans than any other complex organism - including humans themselves. Might not be the best idea to have even more ideal conditions in which they can thrive.

[Wortho]

The COP 28 president says there is no science behind demands of phasing out fossil fuels.

He said a phase out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”.

I wonder what the private jet travelers thought. And poor John Kerry (who hasn’t got a private jet, but his wife has).