Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special ‚Äď Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

How to REALLY reduce your carbon footprint

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 13th November 2019, 16:46   #26
citrinella
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: E.Lothian
Posts: 1,424
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 !
citrinella is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th November 2019, 08:41   #27
Farnboro John
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 13,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkWGriswold View Post
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
How much wilderness space would growing sufficient hemp take?

John
Farnboro John is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th November 2019, 11:32   #28
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 6,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lowther View Post
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 iíd 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
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 ......




Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th November 2019, 11:40   #29
dantheman
Bah humbug
 
dantheman's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 12,511
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
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 ......
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.
__________________
stithiansreservoirbirding.blogspot.co.uk/ - last update 10/11/15 - really rather remarkable still!!!
dantheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th November 2019, 12:24   #30
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 6,788
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman View Post
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 .......

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.





Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th November 2019, 12:43   #31
ClarkWGriswold
Carpe Carpum
BF Supporter 2020
 
ClarkWGriswold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Caerbannog
Posts: 9,359
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnboro John View Post
How much wilderness space would growing sufficient hemp take?

John
Maths isnít my strong suit but Iíve calculated this at between 5-10 acres. With a margin of error of -+/- 10000000 %.

Rich
__________________
"It's a million-to-one-chance, but it might just work" - Fred Colon, Carrot Ironfoundersson, Nobby Nobbs
ClarkWGriswold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th November 2019, 13:00   #32
dantheman
Bah humbug
 
dantheman's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 12,511
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkWGriswold View Post
Maths isnít my strong suit but Iíve calculated this at between 5-10 acres. With a margin of error of -+/- 10000000 %.

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)
__________________
stithiansreservoirbirding.blogspot.co.uk/ - last update 10/11/15 - really rather remarkable still!!!
dantheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th November 2019, 14:19   #33
ClarkWGriswold
Carpe Carpum
BF Supporter 2020
 
ClarkWGriswold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Caerbannog
Posts: 9,359
Blog Entries: 3
I was Dan.
__________________
"It's a million-to-one-chance, but it might just work" - Fred Colon, Carrot Ironfoundersson, Nobby Nobbs
ClarkWGriswold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th November 2019, 16:29   #34
jurek
Registered User
 
jurek's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Switzerland/Poland
Posts: 4,138
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.
jurek is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 15th November 2019, 00:35   #35
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
 
Nutcracker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 19,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by jurek View Post
The most effective way to reduce ones carbon footprint is to kill oneself.
Nope. Think of all the CO₂ produced by a decaying corpse . . .
Nutcracker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 15th November 2019, 07:27   #36
Farnboro John
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 13,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by jurek View Post
The most effective way to reduce ones carbon footprint is to kill oneself.
Logically that means the most effective way to reduce more than one's carbon footprint is.....

John
Farnboro John is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 15th November 2019, 10:53   #37
pianoman
duck and diver, bobolink and weaver
 
pianoman's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greystones, Ireland
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnboro John View Post
Logically that means the most effective way to reduce more than one's carbon footprint is.....

John
I believe the "Environmental" homicide defense was defeated in Case 32776 People vs. Jack D Slaughter 2015...
pianoman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th December 2019, 11:11   #38
Dry ice
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Exeter
Posts: 43
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, itís abandonment in conventional agriculture is the principle Ďchange in farming practiseí 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.
Dry ice is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 19th December 2019, 08:10   #39
Johann Sebastian Bach
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: hampshire, uk
Posts: 1,373
An article in British Birds on the dichotomy of world birding trips vs environmentalism.

https://britishbirds.co.uk/article/b...n-ornithology/

Peter
Johann Sebastian Bach is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 19th December 2019, 19:10   #40
Steve Babbs
Steve Babbs
 
Steve Babbs's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 3,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnboro John View Post
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.
__________________
Please visit my website at www.stevebabbs.com

@SteveBabbs
Steve Babbs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 19th December 2019, 19:45   #41
Farnboro John
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 13,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Babbs View Post
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.
Steve,

it cannot have escaped your notice that the path from vegetable matter growing in the soil to steak on the plate passes through but one change and - for instance - the energy required to cook a steak rare is considerably less than that for even a fairly finely chopped swede. And the fact also remains that a cow in a grass field bounded by hedges is set amid biodiversity whereas a field of whatever drenched in fertilisers and insecticides sets out to - and in a modern farm, as important ecological work tells us, succeeds in - eliminating biodiversity, invertebrate biomass and consequently that of all the wild species that depend upon it.

It is a mistake to depend too much on a single strand of reasoning when dealing with complex interactive systems - which is why the energy loss argument moves me not at all. It is plain that intensive vegetable farming by reducing the complexity of ecosystems to a minimum must be an awful thing.

Better by far to stick to mixed farming and let the human masses starve until there are no more masses - before they have destroyed everything, which they will inevitably do if pandered to by fools who think that it must be possible to feed them all without even defining an "acceptable" limit to the total human population that would then allow conservation and farming planning at the landscape scale.

Instead it seems to be accepted that no limit will ever be placed on human population growth: in which case there is no hope for wildlife and ecosystems now or in any conceivable future. Without immediate powerful population control there is no possible aversion of the climate change emergency or any other aspect of human over-population - emptying the oceans of fish, putting all land under the plough or hoof, eliminating all possible competitors from top predators to invertebrate crop eaters, concreting over the land not farmed for buildings and so on.

So frankly its impossible. Governments can't save the planet because they pander to the people: even the diabolical, inhuman despotism of China has given up on its one child policy, and anywhere that votes count is only concerned to get more of them by promising the earth - literally.....

Get on a jet and go and see it while its there. There's no point bothering with hope for the future. Anthropocentricity has eliminated it.

John
Farnboro John is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 19th December 2019, 22:55   #42
jurek
Registered User
 
jurek's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Switzerland/Poland
Posts: 4,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johann Sebastian Bach View Post
Not the highest point of BB.

First, BB should not publish a blatantly promotional stuff from a man financed by SNCF (French Railways). Even stating clearly his background. Big companies which stand to profit from climate panic: wind turbines, burning trees as biomass, nuclear power plants, gas pipelines, railways etc. give big money to climate activists.

Second, BB is silent about the obvious way out: offseting the carbon footprint. Especially, that excellent way of carbon capture is replanting forests in bird reserves supported by Birdlife in Britain and abroad.
jurek is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th December 2019, 00:30   #43
opisska
Jan Ebr
 
opisska's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Warszawa
Posts: 1,466
I am fascinated by the lengths to which meat-eaters go to defend themselves. The evidence that meat industry is a huge contributor to global warming is so ubiquitous that if people invested as much effort into looking for it that they invest into spewing nonsense in order to justify their taste for meat, they would, well, not do the later. I mean the OP of this thread has shown numbers and half of the responses they got were just vague opinions about "how things are". The whole point is that yes, we can of course have pastures and animals on them to be eaten (if your morals are compatible with that) with a comparable environmental effects to the original natural populations that we killed off in the past, but that's nowhere near the scale of meat consumption that is happening right now. But really, what fascinates me the most is how invested people are in being able to eat meat and I have absolutely no idea how that happens to otherwise seemingly normally functioning adults - I just don't, for me it's such an irrelevant thing in my life. Yeah, I will eat meat if it is convenient - when someone presents it to me or there is no other nice choice in a place I went to with friends etc. but I am not actively looking for it nor buying it for cooking at home, because if I go to that kind of effort, why not go for a vegetarian option, or even better a vegan one if such is easily available.

Anyway, I really like the study, it shows me that I am, indeed, saving the planet as we speak - look how much can you do by taking one less flights a year, so the amount of good I am doing by lowering my yearly amount of flights to 31 from last year's 35 is absolutely immense!
__________________
Birds: world 2160, WP 561, gWP 598 (#1 Czech WP and gWP birder!*), bird photos
Mammals: 257, mammal photos
* and my wife is #3 in both
opisska is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th December 2019, 12:09   #44
Sangahyando
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kiel
Posts: 1,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by opisska View Post
I am fascinated by the lengths to which meat-eaters go to defend themselves.
And I'm fascinated by the lengths to which chequebook birders go to defend themselves.


Quote:
Anyway, I really like the study, it shows me that I am, indeed, saving the planet as we speak - look how much can you do by taking one less flights a year, so the amount of good I am doing by lowering my yearly amount of flights to 31 from last year's 35 is absolutely immense!
Is this satire or just a case of a misplaced decimal point?
Sangahyando is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st December 2019, 10:01   #45
Johann Sebastian Bach
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: hampshire, uk
Posts: 1,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangahyando View Post
And I'm fascinated by the lengths to which chequebook birders go to defend themselves.
Ditto.

The "get on a plane before it's all gone" is one of the most selfish, ignorant posts I've read on here. Even if it was satire, it's going to be taken seriously by those who've no intention of reducing their life-list dominated ethics.

I'm not trying to "flight-shame" or to be holier-than-thou. But while the futile arguments go on about what's causing our species' extinction, our eco-system dies a little bit more and atmosphere-strangling behaviour remains unchanged.

Trump's view is that he doesn't care about the world after he's dead, so he's no interest in climate-change arguments. At least he's an honest idiot!

Peter
Johann Sebastian Bach is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st December 2019, 10:55   #46
opisska
Jan Ebr
 
opisska's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Warszawa
Posts: 1,466
I am actually not saying that my flying around isn't selfish, but that doesn't make the butthurt reactions of meat eaters any less absurd, because they seem to lack any comparable self-reflection. Every time I read something like "we have the natural right to eat meat" I feel like taking a flight somewhere and back jusst ti take a piss on it.
__________________
Birds: world 2160, WP 561, gWP 598 (#1 Czech WP and gWP birder!*), bird photos
Mammals: 257, mammal photos
* and my wife is #3 in both
opisska is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st December 2019, 23:28   #47
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by jurek View Post
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.
Here, here.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st December 2019, 23:32   #48
Cyclops
1 eyed tree hugging nature nut!
 
Cyclops's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Darlington,County Durham
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnboro John View Post
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
Spot on!
__________________
Latest lifers-Gannet;Razorbill,Scarborough July '06; Little Egret, August '18

I ain't no twitcher, I just like birds
Cyclops is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st December 2019, 23:38   #49
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by opisska View Post
I am actually not saying that my flying around isn't selfish, but that doesn't make the butthurt reactions of meat eaters any less absurd, because they seem to lack any comparable self-reflection. Every time I read something like "we have the natural right to eat meat" I feel like taking a flight somewhere and back jusst ti take a piss on it.
What hubris.
What do you know about another persons 'self reflection'?

Will throw a extra steak on the barbi just to further irritate you...
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd December 2019, 11:49   #50
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
Here, here.
Except it's 'Hear, hear'... Nevertheless, I wish you a Merry Christmas and an enlightening New Year!
MJB
NB Corrected, thanks to Litebeam...
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy

Last edited by MJB : Sunday 22nd December 2019 at 18:11.
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature reserve installs domestic turbine in effort to reduce carbon footprint (RSPB) BF Newsroom Latest news from the RSPB 0 Wednesday 19th February 2014 11:05
RSPB aims to reduce carbon footprint with wind turbine (RSPB) BF Newsroom Latest news from the RSPB 0 Friday 6th September 2013 00:20
RSPB announces wind turbine plan to reduce its carbon footprint (RSPB) BF Newsroom Latest news from the RSPB 0 Friday 20th April 2012 00:15
Twitching and your carbon footprint. Mannix Birds & Birding 132 Sunday 6th February 2011 20:17
My Carbon Footprint Capercaillie71 Conservation 8 Monday 12th February 2007 14:32

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.29374695 seconds with 40 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:20.