• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

How to REALLY reduce your carbon footprint (1 Viewer)

Wow, my wife is veggie for about 40 years and never yet bothered to replace her vital micro-nutrients and aminoacids from meat. Assuming what you wrote is trustworthy and not made-up complete garbage i’d Better warn her as she is surely headed straight for an early grave. Surprised she is still alive tbh.
Maybe she will be too stupid to understand though?

Anyway,
More veggie propaganda here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

In case anyone wants an alternative to pub bore drivel

james

I wish there was a simple like button. But, anyway, I find myself avoiding BirdForum a lot these days, and particularly anything that is not actually about a bird. It seems to have become a popular place for the pub bores as you say where anything that suggests people might have to change their ways is greeted with howls of indignation and Daily Mailesque "common sense".
 
Some good blanket statements/opinions on here re vegetarianism etc

I also remember a thread (on here?) where it was proposed that we should all eat more 'wild meat' in the UK as it was more sustainable. Until you work out there are only about 2 weeks worth of adult meals in the UK before there is no wildlife left ... ;)
 
Plastic bag use was never about carbon footprint - more about preventing waste buildup, so don't go merrily using lots of plastic again.

Regarding meat, the choices are not just between "ravening carnivore" and "strict vegan"; it is possible to reduce meat consumption greatly, especially beef. The right recipes can give you that hearty meal experience with some, but much less, meat.

The whole meat thing seems to be getting more polarized and quasi-religious, along with everything else it seems. Of course there are mainstream religions for which vegetarianism is part of the observance; I'm not referring to that. And there are other conscientious reasons you might wish to become vegan, aside from carbon footprint.
 
Last edited:
Plastic bag use was never about carbon footprint - more about preventing waste buildup, so don't go merrily using lots of plastic again.

Regarding meat, the choices are not just between "ravening carnivore" and "strict vegan"; it is possible to reduce meat consumption greatly, especially beef. The right recipes can give you that hearty meal experience with some, but much less, meat.

The whole meat thing seems to be getting more polarized and quasi-religious, along with everything else it seems. Of course there are mainstream religions for which vegetarianism is part of the observance; I'm not referring to that. And there are other conscientious reasons you might wish to become vegan, aside from carbon footprint.

Pretty much agree with all of this.

Re bags, we were on holiday in Nelson BC a few years back and the bags were hemp based, and therefore recyclable. Seemed a simple idea that would be easy to adopt.

Rich
 
We need two things which we definitely aren't getting :

ACTION, less hot air - the amount of new research demanded when we really know an awful lot about what we need to do is unbelievable; I propose non-transferrable carbon quotas. We have a good idea how much each person can use without causing problems, lets set that as a maximum. Then people can choose how they meet their quota.

Population REDUCTION, non-violent !
 
Wow, my wife is veggie for about 40 years and never yet bothered to replace her vital micro-nutrients and aminoacids from meat. Assuming what you wrote is trustworthy and not made-up complete garbage i’d Better warn her as she is surely headed straight for an early grave. Surprised she is still alive tbh.
Maybe she will be too stupid to understand though?

Anyway,
More veggie propaganda here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

In case anyone wants an alternative to pub bore drivel

james

That reads like a hatchet job from the veggie propaganda society (and this coming from someone who had a veggie pie the other day - they were all out of chunky beef ..... ).

Nothing really said of the land fertility and mulching benefits of grazing animals - that's how the whole kit and kaboodle evolved.
I've got nothing against anyone wanting to go vegan, but demonizing a natural process seems like self righteous quasi religious nuttery to me. It also assumes the whole climate thing is real .....

No doubt that intensive animal farming has deleterious impacts - but also a whole heap of unharnessed resources too. Solar power generating shade structures able to provide power and rainfall captured water, land use can include wind turbines which largely occupy airspace above, captured methane emissions biogas power, collected manure able to be composted with green waste to make soil and heat harnessed power just for starters - at least the footprint is efficiently small and not dependent on arable land for location.

Clearing virgin primary forest for either meat production or crops for vegans (or bioethanol crops) is the real issue. As is fallow ground and chemical and gmo farming. As is not restoring indigenous vegetation cores on previously cleared ground.

Concreting over previously cleared and used land and destroying the natural hydrology cycles is just sheer lunacy. As is the capitalist ponzi scheme.

We really should play the ball and not the man ...... :cat:




Chosun :gh:
 
That reads like a hatchet job from the veggie propaganda society (and this coming from someone who had a veggie pie the other day - they were all out of chunky beef ..... ).

Nothing really said of the land fertility and mulching benefits of grazing animals - that's how the whole kit and kaboodle evolved.
I've got nothing against anyone wanting to go vegan, but demonizing a natural process seems like self righteous quasi religious nuttery to me. It also assumes the whole climate thing is real .....

No doubt that intensive animal farming has deleterious impacts - but also a whole heap of unharnessed resources too. Solar power generating shade structures able to provide power and rainfall captured water, land use can include wind turbines which largely occupy airspace above, captured methane emissions biogas power, collected manure able to be composted with green waste to make soil and heat harnessed power just for starters - at least the footprint is efficiently small and not dependent on arable land for location.

Clearing virgin primary forest for either meat production or crops for vegans (or bioethanol crops) is the real issue. As is fallow ground and chemical and gmo farming. As is not restoring indigenous vegetation cores on previously cleared ground.

Concreting over previously cleared and used land and destroying the natural hydrology cycles is just sheer lunacy. As is the capitalist ponzi scheme.

We really should play the ball and not the man ...... :cat:

Just to be clear - you don't believe in the current accepted climate change scenario?

I don't really get you in many respects (said nicely ;) ). You are passionate about certain things from a conservation perspective, whereas others which don't impinge on you are summarily dismissed as totally irrelevant.

An Australia-centric view of the world and its problems isn't going to sort out the problems on a global scale. Bush meat and land size may not be an issue in Australia.

It's a human thing.
 
Just to be clear - you don't believe in the current accepted climate change scenario?

I don't really get you in many respects (said nicely ;) ). You are passionate about certain things from a conservation perspective, whereas others which don't impinge on you are summarily dismissed as totally irrelevant.

An Australia-centric view of the world and its problems isn't going to sort out the problems on a global scale. Bush meat and land size may not be an issue in Australia.

It's a human thing.
The jury is out for me still. Questions over lead/lag. The huge block of swiss cheese that is all the assumptions the 'science' is based on. The question of the heat delta from natural (orbital etc) cycles and it's effect on temperature. Then there is the politics - the holy grail of taxing air ....

We are having a ~2 year drought in this country and out of control fires (quite a few man lit) - the news vultures are having a field day - climate this - climate that - fear fear fear ........... ding ding !

No mention of the raped land - drained swamps and cleared vegetation. Eroded and dried land. Inappropriate agriculture leaving overgrazed range and fallow crop land. Artificially fertilised ground kills the soil biota, dries the land, and excess nutrient runoff destroys rivers and even the Great Barrier Reef. Completely destroyed hydrological cycle. Stuffed transpiration cycle means that moisture evaporates from the land and falls now at sea. Dust storms and erosion strip the degraded land of precious carbon and moisture laden topsoil. Diversion and harvesting of floodplain waters and over extraction from dammed and drained river systems has just about killed off most life over an area greater than several large European countries. Add to that the destruction of aquifers and spring dependent wetlands and plains by open cut and underground mining as well as coal seam gas and fracking. Further add to that rampant urban sprawl and gazzilions of tonnes of concrete trapping heat in what are known now as 'urban heat continents'. What were once a vital arterial network of creeks, alluvial flats, rivers and riparian vegetation is now just concrete drains.

And we wonder why the place is getting hotter ?!

Australia is not unique in this regard. Other countries may start from a higher base in terms of more fertile soil and higher rainfall - but the processes are the same. Britain is one group of countries among others, now seeing some of those chickens come home to roost ....

Worse still - the drivers are the same - capitalist greed and a giant ficticious ponzi scheme.

So yeah ....... I've got some doubts ....... :cat:

Don't worry about not getting me - lol ..... that's everyone (save for a few who are able to wander in and out of time and space).

It's not that I'm summarily dismissing certain parts of the pie - it's just that I'm able to see a more wholistic view. It really is tied to things far bigger than most people perceive such as creation stories etc. Science will catch up eventually and nail it all together with quantum physics.

We are all largely on the same side, just viewing through different lenses - some a bit clearer than others - but all interesting and valid nonetheless. :t:





Chosun :gh:
 
Maths isn’t my strong suit but I’ve calculated this at between 5-10 acres. With a margin of error of -+/- 10000000 %. :smoke:

Rich

If you were referring to BC as British Columbia earlier then some aspect of the hemp fibres would be as byproduct of the cannabis industry in Canada? (More land there anyway, yes)
 
The most effective way to reduce ones carbon footprint is to kill oneself. I am not at all convinced to protect climate by this thread. But any self-righteous climate protectionist can show others an example.
 
Global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The fertility for Food production has always depended on the carbon cycle. Artificial fertilizers have by-passed this dependence, their production is energy intensive.
The fossil carbon footprint of meat is system dependent. This is especially true of ruminant meat which can be high in feedlot or barley beef at one extreme, however because grassland sequesters carbon, grazing systems can have very low fossil carbon footprints.
In the UK until recent times farming had always involved livestock. From the enclosures and the agricultural revolution in the 1700s farmers maintained fertility to produce crops through the process of crop rotation. Common to all rotational systems was a period of grassland grazed by livestock. This phase increased soil organic matter through carbon sequestration and served to provide some control of weeds and diseases, raising the yields of subsequent crops, then the land went back to pasture and the process rolled on.
With very little in the way of inputs, farms sustainably produced meat, milk and wool, accruing fertility, and grain and vegetables utilising it. Crop rotation and mixed farming created and reliably conserved a range of habitats across the countryside for what we now call farmland wildlife. This could only work because it was carbon neutral.
While mixed farming is still necessary for organic systems, which by definition are dependent on the carbon cycle rather than high fossil carbon artificial fertilizers, it’s abandonment in conventional agriculture is the principle ‘change in farming practise’ that has led to declines in wildlife in the UK.
All grazing systems generate greenhouse gasses through the carbon cycle, which is natural, and inevitable, their fossil carbon footprint, however, is largely dependent on the amount of artificial fertilizers used in their management.
 
No, its straightforward nonsense. You can only grow vegetable crops by vegetable monoculture or the yield is laughable. You can grow meat in much higher biodiversity. Ask me which is better....

Unless there are Tories about you can even grow meat in the presence of foxes and badgers.

What you can't do in either case is support the numbers of people on the planet now let alone projected growth (how I hate that word beloved of economists and politicians bankrupt of wisdom or creative intelligence). And once you've said "OK, we have to reduce the numbers of people to sustainable" you've removed the desirability of intensive farming of vegetable monoculture and very much increased the desirability of pastoralism.

Which plainly leaves the only argument for vegetarianism - let alone veganism - as being the propaganda that eating meat is wrong. Which is a religious construct based on the idea that man is superior to animals (because once you accept that man is just an animal, eating meat becomes as acceptable for man as for any other animal.) Eating meat is natural. Eating vegetables is natural. Ideas of right and wrong in a moral sense belong in diet only in relation to conservation of species - avoidance of extinction.

John
Just remind me what your degree is in John because you clearly do not understand the science behind energy loss as you move up food chains? Estimated at 90%. This is not a recent discovery: I read papers on it as part of my ecology degree thirty years ago. Several people on my course, gave up eating meat at the time, due to this. Yes biodiversity is higher in mixed farming but the point is less land is needed for farming so more is available for other uses such as conservation. I would be very interested to know which scientific papers support your opinion. Feel free to quote them.

I have no ethical problem at all with eating meat. I do however have an ethical problem with people spouting stuff with no scientific evidence to back it up. Few people I know who chose to eat no/less meat for ecological reasons would want a complete stop to meat farming, just a considerable reduction.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top