[Johann Sebastian Bach]

It's NOT plastic bag use.
It's flying.
It's eating meat.
It's good insulation.

A fascinating study, making some sense out of all the opinion flying around.

http://https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-reduces-our-personal-co2-footprint-we-have-clue-frank-bilstein/

Peter

[Chosun Juan]

Peter,

What is the baseline for the number of flights per year?
ie. If it is 1 then reduction by 1 flight is 100%.
If it is 4 then reduction by 1 flight is 25%.
If it is 10 then reduction by 1 flight is 10%.

It is interesting that the global airplane fleet is planned to Double !
ding ding !

I could be almost certain that the accounting on the "meat" line wouldn't have been carried out properly. P** is essential for building soil carbon .......



Chosun

[Farnboro John]

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan

Peter,

What is the baseline for the number of flights per year?
ie. If it is 1 then reduction by 1 flight is 100%.
If it is 4 then reduction by 1 flight is 25%.
If it is 10 then reduction by 1 flight is 10%.

It is interesting that the global airplane fleet is planned to Double !
ding ding !

I could be almost certain that the accounting on the "meat" line wouldn't have been carried out properly. P** is essential for building soil carbon .......

Chosun

The meat thing is just veggie propaganda. Before herds of cattle there were herds of Bison, Mammoth, Mastodon, horses, you name it. T'ain't the cattle that are wrong (though wild species would be better). Vegetable monoculture in all forms is wrong, human population growth is wrong, eating meat is fine. What we really need is a new attitude to eating people. Fancy a Chinese?

John

[Adey Baker]

Originally Posted by Farnboro John

The meat thing is just veggie propaganda. Before herds of cattle there were herds of Bison, Mammoth, Mastodon, horses, you name it. T'ain't the cattle that are wrong (though wild species would be better). Vegetable monoculture in all forms is wrong, human population growth is wrong, eating meat is fine. What we really need is a new attitude to eating people. Fancy a Chinese?

John

And if we all eat beans instead of meat to get our protein we'll be producing quite a lot more methane ourselves...('Blazing Saddles' times 7billion )

[jurek]

Nice example how 'climate panic' is dangerous, because it replaced protection of environment by reducing carbon footprint only.

Plastic bags create enormous problem with environmental pollution, danger to human health and direct danger to wildlife. But people looking at this figure would believe they are benign, because they don't make big carbon footprint. Plastic takes thousands of years to decompose, so carbon trapped in plastic is nicely excluded from atmosphere, right?

I assume extinction of all the world's endangered birds and mammals would not increase carbon footprint visibly, either?

[jurek]

Originally Posted by Farnboro John

The meat thing is just veggie propaganda.

Unfortunately yes. Plant products required to replace micro-nutrients and aminoacids from meat would produce enormous carbon footprint themselves. Veggies simply compare eating meat with eating grass, or at best eating corn and grain.

Not even starting to introduce finer points, which average veggie finds too difficult to understand. Most land used for raising livestock is impossible to convert to productive cultivation. The land used for extensive ranching of livestock for meat cattle - the least productive kind - is often the best habitat for wildlife, precisely because most carbon is unused by livestock so can nurtue wildlife.

[James Lowther]

Originally Posted by jurek

Unfortunately yes. Plant products required to replace micro-nutrients and aminoacids from meat would produce enormous carbon footprint themselves. Veggies simply compare eating meat with eating grass, or at best eating corn and grain.

Not even starting to introduce finer points, which average veggie finds too difficult to understand. Most land used for raising livestock is impossible to convert to productive cultivation. The land used for extensive ranching of livestock for meat cattle - the least productive kind - is often the best habitat for wildlife, precisely because most carbon is unused by livestock so can nurtue wildlife.

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/Envi...eat_production

In case anyone wants an alternative to pub bore drivel

james

[temmie]

Originally Posted by jurek

Unfortunately yes. Plant products required to replace micro-nutrients and aminoacids from meat would produce enormous carbon footprint themselves. Veggies simply compare eating meat with eating grass, or at best eating corn and grain.

Not even starting to introduce finer points, which average veggie finds too difficult to understand. Most land used for raising livestock is impossible to convert to productive cultivation. The land used for extensive ranching of livestock for meat cattle - the least productive kind - is often the best habitat for wildlife, precisely because most carbon is unused by livestock so can nurtue wildlife.

You seem to be very convinced of what you say, and bring up some "finer points, which average veggie finds too difficult to understand".

Let me first get this straight after coughing up a master thesis in soil chemistry, having had courses on topics including climatology, animal and crop production, soil degradation and land use as an environmental engineer:
a vegetarian diet will reduce carbon emissions significantly, yes. There is no question about it and if desired, I will link to various studies. If you find information in the opposite way, I invite you to share.

As you mentioned the shortcomings of a vegetarian diet in terms of missing micro-nutrients and amino acids: a vegetarian diet is balanced and healthy for most people without any need for compensating with food supplements.
I eat vegetarian for the last 6-7 years and I don't feel I am missing anything (my 2 kids are 3 and 5 and have never eaten meat, and they are super healthy). I happen to be a competitive cyclist and have won races. If that doesn't prove it can be done, I don't know what else to say. I won't say it will work for everyone. Some people won't take up enough essential nutrients with a vegetarian diet, but the same can be said for certain people that don't easily tolerate meat in their diets. That is something very personal.
It can more easily happen you miss out on essential nutrients and vitamins, especially if you would go full vegan (no animal products), I would think some nutrients are hard to get into your diet and have to be taken e.g. as pills, which is not what I would describe as a balanced diet, and not something I am aiming for personally.

Anyway, the message is that many 100ths of millions of Indians, and maybe already more Westerners prove on a daily basis that you don't need meat to stay healthy. If you want the message more pragmatically: just eat half as much meat and you won't miss your meat, but you will be as fine.

Next is the question if meat production is bad for the environment (and CO2 emissions). Well, another firm yes. Land used for raising livestock is indeed, at least historically and in the poorer parts of this world, for a great part, land that cannot be used for crop production.
But you are missing some context here: a lot of the land that is currently being converted for livestock (and has been converted), because of the growing demand for meat, was either forest or is currently being used for growing animal food crops (like soy and maize).
In other words: we use land perfectly suited for human food production, for animal food production. By feeding animals, most of the energy stored in that food is converted into heat (respiration, maintenance of the animal's body) and only a tiny part goes into the actual growth of the animal. I am not even talking about the fact that you need more than 1000 liters of fresh water to produce one 1kg of cow meat. The main message is that meat production is a very ineffective way of using the land in order to feed humans.

I has been calculated that all humans could be perfectly fed on 1/5th of the current agricultural land surface if we would go vegetarian (i.e. not even vegan). That means that 4/5th of the current agricultural surface could be converted into whatever was the original vegetation: forest, wetlands, grasland,...Just think about that: not eating meat would save the whole of the Amazon and much more.

And it's not only about forests: permanent grasslands capture quite a huge amount of CO2, and if that grassland is being plowed to grow maize for animal food (like is happening all over Europe), a lot of CO2 is released from the soil organic material.

Yes you can have good land use by e.g. grazing cattle in the vast open prairies of the American prairies. You better wouldn't use those prairies for something else. But even that 'ideal' image has its limits: more and more parts of the world are severely overgrazed. e.g. many African savannah parks experience daily clashes between the wild animals and the big herds of cattle farmers intruding. Overgrazing is threatening birds like Great Indian Bustard, Liben Lark, Jankovski's bunting and many more with extinction.

Instead of attacking a group of people for their behavior in a quite denigrating way, I invite you to come with arguments.

[jurek]

The problem is that when vegetarian diet includes diary products (not vegan), they are still produced by cattle or chicken. Which you evocatively described as bad for climate.

Much of your reasoning is weak because you mix completely different regions of the world and economies. It would make more sense if you concentrated on one area of the world. If you live in Belgium or Britain you normally buy beef produced in Europe. So your choices of eating meat don't affect conversion of land to raise meat cattle in other continents. You affect tropical biodiversity when you buy palm oil or coffee.

If one lives in Europe, then carbon footprint of diet and associated land use has little to do with the high-level ecological rules, such as that producing meat or diary takes more energy than grain. The system is skewed by regional and agricultural policy, with subsidies to produce more food than needed and artificially maintain low-quality agricultural land. Here you can help climate locally by lobbying to change agricultural politics, not paying farmers to produce more food than needed and let the low-quality agricultural land to return to wildlife.

And sorry, my low opinion about vegans comes from that I recently discussed with several preaching vegans, and they just could not understand that e.g. meadows in Europe are usually located on hills, mountains or near rivers, because this land could not be plowed for grain production. Or that biodiversity goes extinct primarily from habitat degradation not climate change.

[Sangahyando]

Originally Posted by jurek

And sorry, my low opinion about vegans comes from that I recently discussed with several preaching vegans, and they just could not understand that e.g. meadows in Europe are usually located on hills, mountains or near rivers, because this land could not be plowed for grain production. Or that biodiversity goes extinct primarily from habitat degradation not climate change.

Well, here in Northern Germany, there's a lot of pasture land on even ground, too. And for conservationists, it's a constant fight to keep farmers from turning it into agricultural fields (usually maize, for the production of "renewable energy"). Because the pastures, if properly managed, are critically important for Lapwings, BT Godwits, Curlews, and a number of other species typical for the region. Whereas the maize fields are notoriously poor in biodiversity and the only thing that thrives there is wild boar.
Maybe the adherents of the Church of Veganism want to explain how to ensure a healthy plant- (and fungi, or are they verboten, too?) based diet while still maintaining local biodiversity and importing as little food as possible. And taking AGW into account at the same time, of course.

[Chosun Juan]

People just aren't serious ......
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www....el-record/amp/




Chosun

[Simon Wates]

Well I can be smug then; I've been on 3 flights in 59 years. I do cherish my home-made burgers though!

[Nutcracker]

Originally Posted by Sangahyando

Well, here in Northern Germany, there's a lot of pasture land on even ground, too. And for conservationists, it's a constant fight to keep farmers from turning it into agricultural fields (usually maize, for the production of "renewable energy"). Because the pastures, if properly managed, are critically important for Lapwings, BT Godwits, Curlews, and a number of other species typical for the region. Whereas the maize fields are notoriously poor in biodiversity and the only thing that thrives there is wild boar.
Maybe the adherents of the Church of Veganism want to explain how to ensure a healthy plant- (and fungi, or are they verboten, too?) based diet while still maintaining local biodiversity and importing as little food as possible. And taking AGW into account at the same time, of course.

A lot of the maize will also be for cattle feed, though - and that highlights an important point in meat-eating diets: make sure you select locally raised organic grass-fed beef etc., rather than 'industrial' feedlot beef raised (often in horrific conditions like this) with intensively grown maize / soy feed.

[Chosun Juan]

Originally Posted by Johann Sebastian Bach

It's NOT plastic bag use.
It's flying.
It's eating meat.
It's good insulation.

A fascinating study, making some sense out of all the opinion flying around.

http://https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-reduces-our-personal-co2-footprint-we-have-clue-frank-bilstein/

Peter

So much wrong with this article .......

For starters it's written by a Management Consultant - first order of business ...... drum up more business !

Already people on this thread have drilled down to the core issues of Biodiversity and Sustainability.

There's been some dancing around Veggie Propaganda. Of course clearing virgin old growth for either cows or mung beans is not the way to go. In case there are those that think their alfalfa sprouts didn't also have parents - have a look at my avatar photo - have a good long look at it (it's in my gallery https://www.birdforum.net/gallery/sh...9/ppuser/92780).

Finally, several people have used the term 'land use' .......

Now imagine if instead of 'land use' you said,
'Mum use' , or
'Mom use' , or
'Mother use' ..........

Now ask yourself - is the picture becoming clearer ........ ???





Chosun

[Simon Wates]

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan

Now is the picture becoming clearer ........ ???

Come on Chosun, this is a forum full of people supporting the protection of nature, of course the picture is clear; but we don't need to imagine anything looking at a tree that just happens to look like something fanciful. We are (mostly) experts at looking at reality! The tone of antagonism coming through your post is not fitting here and not sympathetic to your often worthy causes - IMHO.

Persuasion is an art not to be force fed

[Chosun Juan]

Originally Posted by Simon Wates

Come on Chosun, this is a forum full of people supporting the protection of nature, of course the picture is clear; but we don't need to imagine anything looking at a tree that just happens to look like something fanciful. We are (mostly) experts at looking at reality! The tone of antagonism coming through your post is not fitting here and not sympathetic to your often worthy causes - IMHO.

Persuasion is an art not to be force fed

Simon, no antagonism was intended - yes I know that the forum is full of people that care about 'nature' - that sometimes give me hope - though sometimes seeing how far there is to go - great despair.

It's not that "a tree that just happens to look like something fanciful" ...... it IS something fanciful ! :) you'd be surprised what 'reality' really is ......

Whether through imagination or some other 'aha moment' process, consider a connection greater than what you are currently aware of, consider ways of manifesting 'reality' that operate on a far more fundamental level, consider a future that is altogether less remote than what you could imagine, consider realms where having multiple higher degrees is seen as no more impressive or advanced than a 2 year old child banging two building blocks together :) .....

Instead of remotely considering 'nature' or 'land use' consider your own 'Mother use' ....
Consider draining the life giving waters from her body ....
Consider clear felling limbs from her body ....
Consider strip mining the skin from her body .....
Consider digging giant holes in her belly .....
Consider abusing her for money, and then tossing her spent body aside ....
Consider pouring toxins down her throat .....
Consider polluting the air that fills her lungs .....

Would we really behave the way we do ...... ?

Perhaps some things unimaginable to ponder ......
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf0RrQ62jw8






Chosun

[Simon Wates]

Originally Posted by Chosun Juan

It's not that "a tree that just happens to look like something fanciful" ...... it IS something fanciful ! :) you'd be surprised what 'reality' really is ......

I'm constantly surprised....and by the way I do get you. (I love Mooji for example)

It wasn't a lack of respect for your thoughts, just wanted to point out that most on here do buzz about beauty

[Steve Babbs]

Originally Posted by Farnboro John

The meat thing is just veggie propaganda. Before herds of cattle there were herds of Bison, Mammoth, Mastodon, horses, you name it. T'ain't the cattle that are wrong (though wild species would be better). Vegetable monoculture in all forms is wrong, human population growth is wrong, eating meat is fine. What we really need is a new attitude to eating people. Fancy a Chinese?

John

A bit of research would clearly show it's not nonsense and I speak as a meat-eater. I doubt you'd find a serious scientist who disagreed but let's not stop science getting in the way of bashing people trying to reduce their carbon footprints. And yes I know mine is huge. Well done to the 'veggies' and non-fliers. I'm trying to have a more vegan diet. I have to admit I'm not doing so well on the not flying bit though.

[ClarkWGriswold]

Originally Posted by Steve Babbs

A bit of research would clearly show it's not nonsense and I speak as a meat-eater. I doubt you'd find a serious scientist who disagreed but let's not stop science getting in the way of bashing people trying to reduce their carbon footprints. And yes I know mine is huge. Well done to the 'veggies' and non-fliers. I'm trying to have a more vegan diet. I have to admit I'm not doing so well on the not flying bit though.

Vegan sausage rolls are lovely Steve.

[Farnboro John]

Originally Posted by Steve Babbs

A bit of research would clearly show it's not nonsense and I speak as a meat-eater. I doubt you'd find a serious scientist who disagreed but let's not stop science getting in the way of bashing people trying to reduce their carbon footprints. And yes I know mine is huge. Well done to the 'veggies' and non-fliers. I'm trying to have a more vegan diet. I have to admit I'm not doing so well on the not flying bit though.

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

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by James Lowther

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/Envi...eat_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".

[litebeam]

Agreed about the 'like'.... I, for one, have enjoyed reading the dialogue here.

[dantheman]

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 ...

[pianoman]

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.

[ClarkWGriswold]

Originally Posted by pianoman

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