• 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.

Birding/Twitching and Global warming (1 Viewer)

Nope, that's not a good idea. But yes, do insist that palm oil is sourced sustainably. Point here is that oil palm is (by quite a long way) the most productive edible oil crop; to produce a tonne of palm oil it needs only about a third or a quarter of the land needed to produce a tonne of sunflower oil or rapeseed oil. If we banned the import of palm oil, we'd have to quadruple (or more) the area under other oilseed crops, thus causing even greater ecological damage.

I'm guessing you haven't been to the tropics and seen the absolute catastrophe that has taken place, with lowland evergreen forest - the most biodiverse habitat - replaced with palm oil monoculture. Putting more arable land under rapeseed in the UK, for example, is going to have negligible effect on global biodiversity.
 
Nope, that's not a good idea. But yes, do insist that palm oil is sourced sustainably. Point here is that oil palm is (by quite a long way) the most productive edible oil crop; to produce a tonne of palm oil it needs only about a third or a quarter of the land needed to produce a tonne of sunflower oil or rapeseed oil. If we banned the import of palm oil, we'd have to quadruple (or more) the area under other oilseed crops, thus causing even greater ecological damage.

Unfortunately corruption makes it too easy for some producers to declare palm oil sustainable when it actually isn't. Apparently.
 
I'm guessing you haven't been to the tropics and seen the absolute catastrophe that has taken place, with lowland evergreen forest - the most biodiverse habitat - replaced with palm oil monoculture. Putting more arable land under rapeseed in the UK, for example, is going to have negligible effect on global biodiversity.

I was about to write exactly that!

Just stand in the terminal at KL airport and look from there, all you can see is palm oil plantations.

Large, fruit producing companies like Del Monte have also got a lot to answer for.
 
I'm guessing you haven't been to the tropics and seen the absolute catastrophe that has taken place, with lowland evergreen forest - the most biodiverse habitat - replaced with palm oil monoculture. Putting more arable land under rapeseed in the UK, for example, is going to have negligible effect on global biodiversity.
There isn't more arable land available in UK to put under rapeseed, as the other arable land is already needed for other crops - it would necessitate converting non-arable into arable.
 
There isn't more arable land available in UK to put under rapeseed, as the other arable land is already needed for other crops - it would necessitate converting non-arable into arable.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Farmers plant whichever crop makes them the most profit, not on some vague notion of "need" . If it is rapeseed or sunflowers, that is what they will plant. If you actually believe that the palm oil plague in the tropics is a positive thing because of its high yield, then you have absolutely no clue. Palm oil is literally driving a mass extinction crisis in SE Asia. Together with the cage bird trade, they are a far greater immediate extinction crisis than climate change.
 
You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Farmers plant whichever crop makes them the most profit, not on some vague notion of "need" . If it is rapeseed or sunflowers, that is what they will plant. If you actually believe that the palm oil plague in the tropics is a positive thing because of its high yield, then you have absolutely no clue. Palm oil is literally driving a mass extinction crisis in SE Asia. Together with the cage bird trade, they are a far greater immediate extinction crisis than climate change.
Nope. If farmers in UK plant more oilseed on existing arable land, they'll grow less wheat etc., and that means either (a) ploughing up nature reserves in UK to plant wheat, or (b) importing it, thus ploughing up hitherto protected natural remmnants elsewhere. I did you will note say palm oil needs to be certified sustainable: I am not excusing the habitat destruction in SE Asia. Yes, I'd agree, enforcement of sutainability regulations do need serious action.
 
Yes. I bird more locally and have almost given up long distance twitching - although I would have no problem with four in the car it's often one in the car by the time us weekend people can go. I am tempted by the nighthawk but the only one I could face going is by plane and I'm not sure my conscience will allow that. My mileage in ten months was about 3000 which I guess is less than most birders. But I'm not going to preach as my carbon footprint is still huge due to foreign trips.

The foreign wildlife watching thing is complicated: I'm off to see gorillas next year which are probably only still there due to foreign tourist. Ecotourism does offset to some extent but I am still full of guilt. Will I give up? Probably not as I would shrivel up and wither without it but I will continue to try to reduce my impact in other ways - although there are times when I swear I will cry if I see another bean or lentil.

Re palm oil it really is not as simple as some people make out. That's not my opinion it's that of the WWFN.

"Palm oil is an incredibly efficient crop, producing more oil per land area than any other equivalent vegetable oil crop. Globally, palm oil supplies 35% of the world’s vegetable oil demand on just 10% of the land. To get the same amount of alternative oils like soybean or coconut oil you would need anything between 4 and 10 times more land, which would just shift the problem to other parts of the world and threaten other habitats and species. " See here: https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/8-things-know-about-palm-oil
 
The human "need" in terms of volume of any given crop is driven by human numbers and the crisis that needs solving is human population growth. Everything else is pratting about pretending that isn't the issue.

Only measures that treat the cause, not the symptom, will ever solve the problem. Humans are a pathological epidemic on the planet.

Non-breeding humans are entitled to do what they like birding-wise. Breeders can be divided into:

- one child: on course to halve population. Acceptable. Tick in box. Birding travel can approach level of non-breeders.

- two children: maintaining current human population. Unhelpful but perhaps susceptible to breakthrough science (titters disbelievingly behind hand). Permitted local patch (which is all they will have time to do while bringing up offspring anyway.)

- more than two children: selfish planet wrecker. Its not even like the offspring will inherit anything worthwhile (certainly not the Earth, for a start!) Boo hiss. No birding travel permitted.

John
 
Globally, palm oil supplies 35% of the world’s vegetable oil demand on just 10% of the land. To get the same amount of alternative oils like soybean or coconut oil you would need anything between 4 and 10 times more land

https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/8-things-know-about-palm-oil

Lowland tropical rainforest easily has 10 or more higher biodiversity than e.g. European lowlands where soybean and rapeseed are grown.

And most of palm oil plantations are freshly converted from rainforest, while crops in Europe are on land which was converted centuries ago, and recently freed from food farming as it became more efficient.

Actually, this brings me to something I realized recently. Both of my home counties - Poland and Switzerland - together contribute less than 1% to the CO2 emission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Whether everybody in my homeland will live in wooden sheds and wear goatskins, or conversely, everybody burns coal and takes 100 air plane trips per year - will not significantly change the global CO2 emission. Whether the fight with global warming will be won or lost depends not from us, but what billions of people in Asia and Africa will do. The biggest growth in CO2 production will be in the Third World, because of sheer number of people living here.

The most efficient way to cut CO2 production is to introduce energy-saving technologies to the tropics. And not least because so little is being done there. People still use inefficient wooden stoves, dump millions of plastic bottles on roadsides and so on. I was in Indonesia and I saw whole shoals and islands of plastic rubbish formed at river mouths in seaside towns. People have not even the basic recycling. So much can be achieved there so easily. Whether it is good or bad, such things do not exist in Europe or the USA, nor so simple means can cut CO2 production easily in Europe or the USA.
 
Last edited:
Re palm oil it really is not as simple as some people make out. That's not my opinion it's that of the WWFN.

"Palm oil is an incredibly efficient crop, producing more oil per land area than any other equivalent vegetable oil crop. Globally, palm oil supplies 35% of the world’s vegetable oil demand on just 10% of the land. To get the same amount of alternative oils like soybean or coconut oil you would need anything between 4 and 10 times more land, which would just shift the problem to other parts of the world and threaten other habitats and species. " See here: https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/8-things-know-about-palm-oil
Even more clear than I'd thought! [post #20]
 
The human "need" in terms of volume of any given crop is driven by human numbers and the crisis that needs solving is human population growth. Everything else is pratting about pretending that isn't the issue.

Only measures that treat the cause, not the symptom, will ever solve the problem. Humans are a pathological epidemic on the planet.

Non-breeding humans are entitled to do what they like birding-wise. Breeders can be divided into:

- one child: on course to halve population. Acceptable. Tick in box. Birding travel can approach level of non-breeders.

- two children: maintaining current human population. Unhelpful but perhaps susceptible to breakthrough science (titters disbelievingly behind hand). Permitted local patch (which is all they will have time to do while bringing up offspring anyway.)

- more than two children: selfish planet wrecker. Its not even like the offspring will inherit anything worthwhile (certainly not the Earth, for a start!) Boo hiss. No birding travel permitted.

John
Well said!
As a non-breeder I feel some entitlement to gloat 8-P
 
Whether everybody in my homeland will live in wooden sheds and wear goatskins, or conversely, everybody burns coal and takes 100 air plane trips per year - will not significantly change the global CO2 emission. Whether the fight with global warming will be won or lost depends not from us, but what billions of people in Asia and Africa will do. The biggest growth in CO2 production will be in the Third World, because of sheer number of people living here.
This does though miss out the importance of setting a good example: people in poorer countries will quite reasonably say "If those rich b*stards won't cut their CO2 per capita, why should we?"
 
The human "need" in terms of volume of any given crop is driven by human numbers and the crisis that needs solving is human population growth. Everything else is pratting about pretending that isn't the issue.

Only measures that treat the cause, not the symptom, will ever solve the problem. Humans are a pathological epidemic on the planet.

Non-breeding humans are entitled to do what they like birding-wise. Breeders can be divided into:

- one child: on course to halve population. Acceptable. Tick in box. Birding travel can approach level of non-breeders.

- two children: maintaining current human population. Unhelpful but perhaps susceptible to breakthrough science (titters disbelievingly behind hand). Permitted local patch (which is all they will have time to do while bringing up offspring anyway.)

- more than two children: selfish planet wrecker. Its not even like the offspring will inherit anything worthwhile (certainly not the Earth, for a start!) Boo hiss. No birding travel permitted.

John

Bold bit is very true.
Wrecking the planet on an individual level is very expensive, time-consuming, and hard work. There is no rest for the wicked.

What if you have murdered people!? Mass Genociders and war-mongers must be the ultimate environmentalists.
 
Bold bit is very true.
Wrecking the planet on an individual level is very expensive, time-consuming, and hard work. There is no rest for the wicked.

I believe these days it is called "crowd funding". ;)

What if you have murdered people!? Mass Genociders and war-mongers must be the ultimate environmentalists.

You'd think so, but looking for quick solutions I thought of taking out the world's biggest cities with nukes: you get into diminishing returns too quickly to make it an effective course of action given the numbers needing to be removed. So I don't think mass murder really works. Keeping it zipped and going birding instead is much better. :t:

John
 
The human "need" in terms of volume of any given crop is driven by human numbers and the crisis that needs solving is human population growth. Everything else is pratting about pretending that isn't the issue.

Only measures that treat the cause, not the symptom, will ever solve the problem. Humans are a pathological epidemic on the planet.

Non-breeding humans are entitled to do what they like birding-wise. Breeders can be divided into:

- one child: on course to halve population. Acceptable. Tick in box. Birding travel can approach level of non-breeders.

- two children: maintaining current human population. Unhelpful but perhaps susceptible to breakthrough science (titters disbelievingly behind hand). Permitted local patch (which is all they will have time to do while bringing up offspring anyway.)

- more than two children: selfish planet wrecker. Its not even like the offspring will inherit anything worthwhile (certainly not the Earth, for a start!) Boo hiss. No birding travel permitted.

John
Nice one, and I agree (easy as a non-breeder)
 
I believe these days it is called "crowd funding". ;)



You'd think so, but looking for quick solutions I thought of taking out the world's biggest cities with nukes: you get into diminishing returns too quickly to make it an effective course of action given the numbers needing to be removed. So I don't think mass murder really works. Keeping it zipped and going birding instead is much better. :t:

John

:)

Well you could reduce the carbon footprint considerably with a Biolog.. actually we should stop here before one of us gets a knock on the door.. (probably me!)
 
Using valuable land to grow a cash crop as biofuel is crazy imo. Much better growing food. St Greta and her fellow Children of the Damned need to spend time protesting in India, China and Russia - that would be interesting to say the least particularly the last two.

I cycle and walk as i do not possess or can drive a car.

I mainly bird local - which is unproductive and boring but that’s the way it is.

I do not travel 15-30 miles away and call it my ‘local’ patch.

My local patch(es) are within a 5 mile radius of home but generally within 1.5 miles are regularly covered and anything of note reported.

I am not anti-car or twitching but when i did twitch extensively in the 80’s it was seldom done without a full carload of 4-5 people which made it cheaper and more of a laugh.

The amount of birders i see as singles in a vehicle depresses me but they appear not to want or need company and quite happy with their SatNavs, iPhones and Social Media stuff - so who needs company...

I travel on average 3 times a year short-haul generally hand-luggage but sometimes with a folding bike. The latter cuts down on Carborne emissions etc and when abroad we use public transport.

I do not intend to stop flying as it is the only decent birding i get:C

I prefer to harmonise my lifestyle with regard to Carbon footprint every day of the year with things like watering the vegetables with sink waste, house insulation and cycle locally for all needs not even using buses.

High profile finger-waggers in London or the Head Office of probably the most corrupt and wasteful organization in the known World, i.e. the UN, is not the real World and the real one still has to turn.

Good birding - whatever your mode of transport:t:

Laurie -
 
Last edited:
I always find it extremely weird seeing birders in cars, often alone, driving through nature areas and not even leaving their cars to watch/hear birds. I understand the whole "mobile cabin" thing, but not driving through whole regions to "score" as many birds possible, and in the meantime helping destroy that same nature. It's high time fuel cars become obsolete, but even the electrics need to have electricity produced, the "green" electricity needs solar panels and wind turbines produced...All those cars eeeeverywhere, people growing more lazy by the day, they don't even bike on their own anymore but need help from electricity there as well. Just to get further faster with as little effort as possible, insane.

Personally, I don't have a driver's license. Never had enough income to afford it, nor a car, and I don't miss it one bit. Ok, that few times there's a neat bird somewhere and I can't get there because of bad weather...(more often it's just fulltime job hindering) Or when it's a pain to find bikes for rent somewhere abroad. Yes, where I would go flying, when I once finally will, that's a minus for me.

I travel through the Netherlands by train, with a 24" folding bike, which I even go out camping with. It takes more effort to get somewhere, which can be frustrating with our winds and rain, but also very rewarding while in the meantime I know I worked on my health. For bigger transport? A large trailer that goes behind the bike. Hauled a small tree with it from 25km away the other day.

Would I buy a car when I could afford it? Yes, I guess so. But I would choose it carefully, electric/fuel combo, and would not quit the train/bike routine and keep the car for only when I can't reach a patch or twitch by bike. Mainly it would be great to have a driver's license so I can hire cars on holiday to drive the longer distances and mountainous areas. But in most places public transport, bike hire and legwagon do the tric.
 
The human "need" in terms of volume of any given crop is driven by human numbers and the crisis that needs solving is human population growth. Everything else is pratting about pretending that isn't the issue.

Only measures that treat the cause, not the symptom, will ever solve the problem. Humans are a pathological epidemic on the planet.

Non-breeding humans are entitled to do what they like birding-wise. Breeders can be divided into:

- one child: on course to halve population. Acceptable. Tick in box. Birding travel can approach level of non-breeders.

- two children: maintaining current human population. Unhelpful but perhaps susceptible to breakthrough science (titters disbelievingly behind hand). Permitted local patch (which is all they will have time to do while bringing up offspring anyway.)

- more than two children: selfish planet wrecker. Its not even like the offspring will inherit anything worthwhile (certainly not the Earth, for a start!) Boo hiss. No birding travel permitted.

John

:t:

If I were the dictator of the world, I would make the rules that two offspring per couple would be maximum. This is how the population on Earth will begin to decline slowly but surely.
 
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