Greenhouse Gases
I have an interest in environmental issues and have read articles/watched documentaries highlighting different schools of thought.I can see the value in plant based food, creating animal and plant ecosystem style farms, moderating our domestic impact, reducing/eliminating fossil fuel usage, etc.
If you had to give up one thing, would it be animal products, or fossil fuels and why?
Comments (75)
I'll keep animal products as a source of food and part of the ecosystem.
Fossil fuels are made from decomposing plants and animals. These fuels are found in Earth's crust and contain carbon and hydrogen, which can be burned for energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas are examples of fossil fuels.
Living without fossil fuels will help the ozone layer. etc.
I'll keep animal products as a source of food and part of the ecosystem.
Fossil fuels are made from decomposing plants and animals. These fuels are found in Earth's crust and contain carbon and hydrogen, which can be burned for energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas are examples of fossil fuels.
Living without fossil fuels will help the ozone layer. etc.
Hi Jacs..
Imagine the disposal of solar panels and broken wind mills, electric car batteries and bodies.
Fisil fuel isn't the problem.
As for electricity, the way to go is nuclear plants.
You have touched on the real issue, however, one that surprised me enormously. It's the theme that seems to run through all the documentaries/articles regardless of the ethos being promoted.
Hi Jacs..
Does he know he takes second place after a lamb chop?
Reasons why, their gifts from God ...
could of sworn I told you that before
But since when have you ever listened to me
Reasons why, their gifts from God ...
could of sworn I told you that before
But since when have you ever listened to me
I would have thought the gift of the dominion over the Earth rather puts us in the position of being the guardians of the planet and it's inhabitants. That doesn't rule out utilising animal products, but it does kinda mean we are responsible for them, too, doesn't it?
I would have thought the gift of the dominion over the Earth rather puts us in the position of being the guardians of the planet and it's inhabitants. That doesn't rule out utilising animal products, but it does kinda mean we are responsible for them, too, doesn't it?
we've all indulged in making life easier for ourselves now we're paying the price for it.
or perhaps you don't think it was worth it... I do besides, planet earth is designed to end someday.
Forget about being a guardian of anything....
live it up whilst you can and stop fretting about what you can't control
we've all indulged in making life easier for ourselves now we're paying the price for it.
or perhaps you don't think it was worth it... I do besides, planet earth is designed to end someday.
Forget about being a guardian of anything....
live it up whilst you can and stop fretting about what you can't control
name one thing man hasn't screwed up by lieing about being in or having control.
i'll give government credit in one area; the amount of people that actually listen and follow every thing they're told, even when the "science" or what ever isn't followed.
name one thing man hasn't screwed up by lieing about being in or having control.
i'll give government credit in one area; the amount of people that actually listen and follow every thing they're told, even when the "science" or what ever isn't followed.
Quite the reverse, our governments support and subsidise current food production practises.
the thickest and richest greens i see are the areas that hold water longer, the drain bed for the septic tank, and the areas where my vehicles idle.
if co2 were so terrible and uncessary, the areas where my vehicles idle most, the bike and two different trucks, should be dead. not green and lush. the swamps in florida and other places wouldn't be so rich with life, plant and animal.
i think mankind, once again, has found a scheme where certain people get rich as long as people are willing to pay and buy into it.
then cause even greater harm in the long term under the guise of "control".
the thickest and richest greens i see are the areas that hold water longer, the drain bed for the septic tank, and the areas where my vehicles idle.
if co2 were so terrible and uncessary, the areas where my vehicles idle most, the bike and two different trucks, should be dead. not green and lush. the swamps in florida and other places wouldn't be so rich with life, plant and animal.
i think mankind, once again, has found a scheme where certain people get rich as long as people are willing to pay and buy into it.
then cause even greater harm in the long term under the guise of "control".
All plants and animals are made out of carbon, including us.
It's the excessive CO2 that rises up into the atmosphere (along with other greenhouse gases) that inhibit heat from the sun escaping.
Unfortunately, the plant life around your vehicle parks and septic tank aren't enough to sequester all the excess greenhouse carbon back into the soil where it belongs.
We are out of balance: we produce more greenhouse gases than we have plant life sequestering it back into the soil. Our industrialised animal husbandry, mono-agriculture practises, deforestation for food production, desertification of farming land due to chemical fertilisers, pesticides and over-tilling, over fishing, bycatch, deforestation of the ocean beds from dragnets, etc. - these things not only contribute to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but also inhibit sequestering carbon back into the soil.
If we stopped using fossil fuels today, our legacy of greenhouse gases would remain in the atmosphere and we'd still be feckin' everything up with the way we produce food.
So, why are our governments focussing on fossil fuels when it would be quicker, cheaper and more effective in reversing climate change if we address food production? The average American eats 49oz of animal produce per week, the average Austrian 45oz, but only 2oz per week per person is sustainable.
Why aren't our governments, or even activist organisations like Greenpeace saying we should reduce, or eliminate animal products in our diet?
.
I'm always reading and worrying about the state of things with the environment too!
I think every human being existing on the planet right now is guilty of some environmental crime, breathing especially!
But back to your question - people can be vegan / vegetarian / make all the 'responsible' choices to reduce their carbon footprint etc. but it's all too little too late when people have become over-dependant on oil-based plastic products, junk food, plastic wrapped everything and it will go on...
The pollution that humanity has caused is irreparable.
A 'throwaway' plastic bag takes at least 500 years to 'bio degrade'.
A bit like CS members!
I'm always reading and worrying about the state of things with the environment too!
I think every human being existing on the planet right now is guilty of some environmental crime, breathing especially!
But back to your question - people can be vegan / vegetarian / make all the 'responsible' choices to reduce their carbon footprint etc. but it's all too little too late when people have become over-dependant on oil-based plastic products, junk food, plastic wrapped everything and it will go on...
The pollution that humanity has caused is irreparable.
A 'throwaway' plastic bag takes at least 500 years to 'bio degrade'.
A bit like CS members!
If we achieved it with the ozone layer in the 80's, we can achieve it with the other eight boundaries.
Feel free to always worry and stop breathing if you think that wll help, though.
I would have thought the gift of the dominion over the Earth rather puts us in the position of being the guardians of the planet and it's inhabitants. That doesn't rule out utilising animal products, but it does kinda mean we are responsible for them, too, doesn't it?
God gave us animals to kill and eat so that we could sustain ourselves and live on this earth just as he gave us his son to kill and eat so that we could live eternally in the next life.
decomposition of plant life brings chemical energy – photosynthesis. In turn, fossil fuels in time be it methane, oil or natural fertilizer to continue the cycle
Meat or protein is needed daily for humans - Grassfed Beef or similar. Reminds me of PETA – People Eating Tasty Animals
False truisms from the past …
1960’s – Oil gone in 10 years
1970’s – Another Ice Age in 10 years
1980’s – Acid Rain will destroy all crops in 10 years
1990’s – The Ozone layer will be gone in 10 years
2000 – Ice caps will be gone in 10 years
Nothing Happened: but all resulted in more TAXES …
God gave us animals to kill and eat so that we could sustain ourselves and live on this earth just as he gave us his son to kill and eat so that we could live eternally in the next life.
I think my seemingly imminent apostasy was a hot topic in the staff room for many a school year.
I think the world is in a precarious place. They've been talking about emissions for years... Man created its own disaster!
But anyway, The Verve! Have a nice weekend lovely woman, x
I'd call you a sheep, but that would be reckless with this crowd.
Do you only eat animal products? Like, no vegetables at all?
I agree with you about large food corporations. They also wield a lot of financial power in US politics according to some. That might explain why environmental issues aren't being addressed in the food industry.
Quite the reverse, our governments support and subsidise current food production practises.
then they cut your jobs markets, cut education levels, ruin economies, then blame the other guy. all while select other donors and countries continue status quo and even collect tax payer dollars to bail their butts out.
that's just some of the damages. they use the weather and environment as leverage to create more damages.
All plants and animals are made out of carbon, including us.
It's the excessive CO2 that rises up into the atmosphere (along with other greenhouse gases) that inhibit heat from the sun escaping.
Unfortunately, the plant life around your vehicle parks and septic tank aren't enough to sequester all the excess greenhouse carbon back into the soil where it belongs.
We are out of balance: we produce more greenhouse gases than we have plant life sequestering it back into the soil. Our industrialised animal husbandry, mono-agriculture practises, deforestation for food production, desertification of farming land due to chemical fertilisers, pesticides and over-tilling, over fishing, bycatch, deforestation of the ocean beds from dragnets, etc. - these things not only contribute to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but also inhibit sequestering carbon back into the soil.
If we stopped using fossil fuels today, our legacy of greenhouse gases would remain in the atmosphere and we'd still be feckin' everything up with the way we produce food.
So, why are our governments focussing on fossil fuels when it would be quicker, cheaper and more effective in reversing climate change if we address food production? The average American eats 49oz of animal produce per week, the average Austrian 45oz, but only 2oz per week per person is sustainable.
Why aren't our governments, or even activist organisations like Greenpeace saying we should reduce, or eliminate animal products in our diet?
.
i don't see a single thing to trust with their so-called fossil fuel diversions.
even the models they project are speculated data input. they can input any thing they want. just like they did witrh the covid crap.
i watch the clear cutting taking place, it takes decades longer to grow back than it does to destroy.
some countries are already top in emission cuts. that is something that should be done naturally with innovations as they develop, not forced toxic alternatives that are even worse than what they're trying to cut.
green house gases are normal. swamps are considered that kidneys of the earth. there's a full ecosystem in place. it's not that we've exceeded any thing. it's more likely we destroy faster than what can be replaced or put back.
so the earth is warming, nope, it's cooling, no, it's warming. just call it climate change and we'll put any data we want to make it so.
the greener areas that stay around my exhaust pipes seem to be loving those fossil fuel out puts. i've see other things over the years as well. things that by definition and narrative should have completely killed off areas but instead they managed to thrive.
no. can't buy into the "climate change" stuff. more man made models to boot.
I don't drive, I've never been on a plane, I haven't used heating in my home for over 20 years apart from the occasional blast from a piddly little fan, I have a piddly little electric shower on a low setting, I don't use the gas supply to the property, etc.
Using public transport is my biggest deviation from having a easier life, especialy given the terrain and location of where I live. If there were no buses, it would have a massive impact.
I said earlier that I have been surprised by the documentaries and articles I have perused. Whatever ethos they explore, the message seems to point to food production practises contributing a huge impact on climate change - not only is poor practise feckin' up the planet, healthy practise can reclaim our eclogical equilibrium relatively quickly and easily. A change in food production practises may be a more powerful weapon than changing energy production practises.
I've also been surprised by the responses to ths blog given that commenters are almost exclusively more open to ditching fossil fuels than animal products. I'm left wondering whether people have really thought the consequences through - domestically I could easily function with the aid of a couple of solar panels, or via our numerous local windfarms, but it would be grim without public transport, or postal deliveries.
I stopped using dairy at age five, stopped eating meat at age 12, I've had a plant based diet for a few years. I eat yummy food and I don't feel I go without by any stretch of the imagination, but having said that, I'm not totally averse to some animal products in certain circumstances.
Given the same choice that I proposed above and with my personal experience, changing food production practises strikes me as having a much lower impact in terms of life style, as well as a more productive/immediate impact with respect to the environment.
I thought big food corporations wielding political clout through financial means was the source of governments almost exclusively focussing on fossil fuel reduction/elimnation, but it seems maintaining food culture is a lot more important to people than I anticipated.
Thank you for commenting everyone, it's food for thought.
Inequality, poverty, illiteracy, cruelty, greed, overpopulation… and so on, will remain. And I’m wondering, whether it’s all the consequence of inequality.
Think about that and see if you can figure out a better way to address what is a serious problem.
Inequality, poverty, illiteracy, cruelty, greed, overpopulation… and so on, will remain. And I’m wondering, whether it’s all the consequence of inequality.
I also think inequality may be key, but I'm still reading up about that. One thing is for certain from my exploration of our environmental predicament, everythng is interconnected and of equal value in a balanced ecosystem. If we cause an imbalance in one place, like killing all the top predators, or over-tilling soil, the particuar ecosystem starts to change and/or die. It therefore stands to reason that creating human inequality is an imbalance that is going to result in collective loss...and not just economically.
Think about that and see if you can figure out a better way to address what is a serious problem.
Why don't you express your opinion to help me see a different perspective? I would be grateful.