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)
One thing is for certain from my exploration of our environmental predicament, everythng is interconnected and of equal value in a balanced ecosystem. .
If you remove some species from any part of the food chain, the other parts will suffer. If you remove a human being from the food chain, the other parts will flourish. Or am I wrong? (It's not my subject and I haven't read much on it, I'm afraid.)
If you remove some species from any part of the food chain, the other parts will suffer. If you remove a human being from the food chain, the other parts will flourish. Or am I wrong? (It's not my subject and I haven't read much on it, I'm afraid.)
We can't remove ourselves from the global ecosystem, other than by ceasing to exist on the planet.
What we can do is change our actions so that we become a symbiotic participant, rather than the purely predatory one that we have become.
Why don't you express your opinion to help me see a different perspective? I would be grateful.
You have to deal with the source of the problem. If a change can be made then do that. For example use additives in feed to reduce methane. Did someone mention seaweed. Find out what element of seaweed does this and produce it in bulk.
Or don't feed animals food that we could eat.
That never made sense to me.
If all else fails then ban production of those food sources. Not popular politically but governments have the power.
There are probably activist groups already working at this. Vote for politicians who support this.
Just a few thoughts on the matter, by no means correct or exhaustive.
We mostly factory farm which has all sorts of wide reaching consequences, such as run-off (urine/faeces, etc.) affecting marine and waterway ecology, overuse of antibiotics, importing supplemental feed from poor countries leading to the desertification of their land, and more. Suplemental food technology sounds like more of the same artificial animal husbandry to me, with who knows what environmental consequences?
There seems to be two, or three schools of thought concerning sustainable animal produce from what I've seen: one is poly-agriculture where small farms raise a diverse range of animals alongside a diverse range of crops creating mini ecosystems; one where animals are used as part of a scheme to re-establish ground cover and soil health in desertified areas (but I didn't understand how that was sustainable on it's own long term); & lastly no animal farming at all.
Whichever way we go forward, we can't sustain our current level of animal product consumption. I don't think we have a choice beyond reduce, or eliminate. Unless of course, we're preared to say feck you to our children and grandchildren.
(And I'm not saying that everyone has to eliminate just because that's my choice. I can see the value in poly-agriculture including animal husbabdary even if that's not within my personal ethical code of conduct.)
You have to deal with the source of the problem. If a change can be made then do that. For example use additives in feed to reduce methane. Did someone mention seaweed. Find out what element of seaweed does this and produce it in bulk.
Or don't feed animals food that we could eat.
That never made sense to me.
If all else fails then ban production of those food sources. Not popular politically but governments have the power.
There are probably activist groups already working at this. Vote for politicians who support this.
Just a few thoughts on the matter, by no means correct or exhaustive.
I kind of hear what your saying, but I deliberately asked people to theoretically choose because I wanted to see what would happen. I've heard much dissent on the blogs about reducing and/or eliminating reliance on fossil fuels and wondered how much that would hold given an alternative sacrifice.
In the documentaries I've watched and articles I've read, activist groups aren't dealing with food production at all. As I keep mentioning, politicians are under the big food corporations' thumb to the point that they make their own policies and laws, Greenpeace avoided interviews completely, the Marine Stewardship Council are paid for their blue ticks on product labels, but don't actually monitor enough (particularly by unbribable employees) to be able to guarantee what they guarantee.
If that's not enough, people who do try to monitor and speak out, whether that's rain forest clearing, marine bycatch, whatever, are getting shot at point blank range, or thrown overboard never to be seen again. The avocado industry in Mexico is as valuable and cut-throat to cartels as drug running.
We all have some level of consumer power, however. Collectively, we hold the bigwigs by the bollux.
As for feeding animals food we could eat, if we all ate a plant based diet, we'd only need a quarter of the landmass we currently use for food production to feed the whole world. We could rewild a huge expanse of land and still have wiggle room for some animal husbandry. It's a no brainer from my perspective, but my food culture is already plant based and that has evolved since I was five, half a century ago. Clearly, I'd underestimated the importance of food culture.
.......
The problem is whether we have enough time.
And I have realised, that I haven’t answer the OP question: I’d have no difficulties to give up on meat, as I prefer fish and sea food. But given over-fishing of the seas, one or another problem will remain.
I also checked meat consumption per country per capita, as you certainly did too, and now I wonder that there is a method to convince the population of the top meat consumers to change their behavior.
And I have realised, that I haven’t answer the OP question: I’d have no difficulties to give up on meat, as I prefer fish and sea food. But given over-fishing of the seas, one or another problem will remain.
I also checked meat consumption per country per capita, as you certainly did too, and now I wonder that there is a method to convince the population of the top meat consumers to change their behavior.
I didn't check average consumption of animal products according to country. The two figures I quoted were from a US and an Austrian documentary respectively. It appears they may have been underestimates, or out of date according to another source.
It appears only a handful of the very poorest African and Asian countries eat meat at a sustainable volume.
I didn't check average consumption of animal products according to country. The two figures I quoted were from a US and an Austrian documentary respectively. It appears they may have been underestimates, or out of date according to another source.
It appears only a handful of the very poorest African and Asian countries eat meat at a sustainable volume.
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.
Nice one Merlot
Keep yourself well strapped in lass cos there's a BIG ONE coming ....
then it will be God save us all
We all contribute, even those of us who think we have a small footprint. In one documentary, the maker talked about quick showers, reduced heating and other domestic savings, but calculated that one burger a week could blow that water usage and emissions many, many times over.
It was suggested that 2oz/50g of animal product a week is sustainable, so if little you is having more than a couple of prawns per week, you're likely having more than your fair share. You can have my weekly egg to go with them, mind.
We all contribute, even those of us who think we have a small footprint. In one documentary, the maker talked about quick showers, reduced heating and other domestic savings, but calculated that one burger a week could blow that water usage and emissions many, many times over.
It was suggested that 2oz/50g of animal product a week is sustainable, so if little you is having more than a couple of prawns per week, you're likely having more than your fair share. You can have my weekly egg to go with them, mind.
PS Meat consumption per capita by country search will give you USA on the second place with 124 kg / person (2020). Which divided by 365 will give you 340 gram per person and day. Every day. Kind of perspective :)
PS Meat consumption per capita by country search will give you USA on the second place with 124 kg / person (2020). Which divided by 365 will give you 340 gram per person and day. Every day. Kind of perspective :)
An average portion as part of a meal would be 120g so that's 3 meals per day every day for babies too.
Seems a lot.
An average portion as part of a meal would be 120g so that's 3 meals per day every day for babies too.
Seems a lot.
Nice one Merlot
PS Meat consumption per capita by country search will give you USA on the second place with 124 kg / person (2020). Which divided by 365 will give you 340 gram per person and day. Every day. Kind of perspective :)
This happens disproportionately in developing countries, as does deforestation and desertificaction of land due to growing animal feed crops to satisfy our demands and expectations in richer countries.
One documentary highlighted that piracy off the West Coast of Africa came about as a direct result of developed countries illegally trawling to feed the demand for fish, leaving indigenous fishermen with nothing to catch legally. We've stolen poor people's food out of their mouths and when they need to find other ways to survive we call them criminals. Not only is that morally reprehensible, it's systemic racism on a global level. It's not going to stop for as long as we continue to support it with our consumer power.
You mentioned in your first comment that inequality might be an issue with respect to greenhouse gases. It doesn't get any plainer than this, that you were dead right.
The UK could convert all it's animal farmland into forest and still have enough land to grown all the food we need. We don't need to steal food from, or exploit starving people to eat. We don't need to damage our environment to eat.
.....
We don't need to steal food from, or exploit starving people to eat. We don't need to damage our environment to eat.
If we're going to compare ourselves, we need to look at the shitty end of the stick as well in order to have a fair sense of perspective and equality.
I was just interested in comparing attitudes toward change in these two particular areas. As much as anything, I was wondering if criticism of Democrat fossil fuel policy might be revealed as being, at least in part, politically motivated.
I also expected that many people have vehicles out of necessity and not just convenience. And of course there are financial issues where lentils are cheaper than steaks; petrol cars are cheaper and currently more practical for many than electric.
I was just interested in comparing attitudes toward change in these two particular areas. As much as anything, I was wondering if criticism of Democrat fossil fuel policy might be revealed as being, at least in part, politically motivated.
I also expected that many people have vehicles out of necessity and not just convenience. And of course there are financial issues where lentils are cheaper than steaks; petrol cars are cheaper and currently more practical for many than electric.
As I understand it the aim was to halve emissions between 2020 and 2030 and then every decade thereafter to be on target with respect to global increase in temperature. Do we have time to develop that technology?
As I understand it the aim was to halve emissions between 2020 and 2030 and then every decade thereafter to be on target with respect to global increase in temperature. Do we have time to develop that technology?
Its never going to happen though. there is no profit in spending money and the almighty dollar rules the earth. There will be token efforts made which will amount to shit and it won't be until its too late before we realize that hey, maybe we should have done something sooner.
Its never going to happen though. there is no profit in spending money and the almighty dollar rules the earth. There will be token efforts made which will amount to shit and it won't be until its too late before we realize that hey, maybe we should have done something sooner.
I choose to invest in a number of these companies these with my consumer power. I choose to find more. My dollar is just as feckin' almighty as anyone else's.
We can do something, many things now. We don't have to wait for someone, or our governments to do things for us. They follow the trail of our choices and our money.
My Giant and I know well that we both don't eat lamb.
I choose to invest in a number of these companies these with my consumer power. I choose to find more. My dollar is just as feckin' almighty as anyone else's.
We can do something, many things now. We don't have to wait for someone, or our governments to do things for us. They follow the trail of our choices and our money.
Women always had the right to vote and black people always had equal rights.
Equal rights weren't magnanimously bestowed upon us, they were ours by default.
Equal rights were and are taken away from us.
Laws weren't made to give us rights. They were made to inhibit the continued and continuing theft of our rights.
If governments make laws with respect to environmental issues they will equally be about theft and assault. Our planet and it's inhabitants already have the right not to stolen from, or assaulted, or killed.
Women always had the right to vote and black people always had equal rights.
Equal rights weren't magnanimously bestowed upon us, they were ours by default.
Equal rights were and are taken away from us.
Laws weren't made to give us rights. They were made to inhibit the continued and continuing theft of our rights.
If governments make laws with respect to environmental issues they will equally be about theft and assault. Our planet and it's inhabitants already have the right not to stolen from, or assaulted, or killed.
Well something is gonna have to happen whatever it is because like I said, a lot of people don't like change and we have to change so something got to spark it.
If we're going to compare ourselves, we need to look at the shitty end of the stick as well in order to have a fair sense of perspective and equality.
Nonetheless USA with 124.11 kg / capita / year (2020) with their 330 millions vs Hong Kong with 137.08 kg / capita with their 7.5 million... what was it that "narked" you? Haven't we already agreed that it's a number game?
If we are going to change our behavior, we are going to compare ourselves with others. And we are going to ask some inconvenient questions.
- Yes, the climate change is real and it affects our planet. But if affects most the poorest parts and what is the reason for the richest parts to change their consumption pattern?
- Meat production is a huge industry. Why the beneficiaries of it would suddenly refuse their profits?
- A monoculture is a new plague and how are you to address that?
And I am not even an expert on the subject.
Nonetheless USA with 124.11 kg / capita / year (2020) with their 330 millions vs Hong Kong with 137.08 kg / capita with their 7.5 million... what was it that "narked" you? Haven't we already agreed that it's a number game?
If we are going to change our behavior, we are going to compare ourselves with others. And we are going to ask some inconvenient questions.
- Yes, the climate change is real and it affects our planet. But if affects most the poorest parts and what is the reason for the richest parts to change their consumption pattern?
- Meat production is a huge industry. Why the beneficiaries of it would suddenly refuse their profits?
- A monoculture is a new plague and how are you to address that?
And I am not even an expert on the subject.
It is a numbers game in as much as our contribution to unsustainability, or sustainability adds up, but if we are going to manipuate statastics it needs to be meaningful and fair. Comparing ourselves as individuals to whole nations in a bid to justify our personal unsustainability is madness, especially when there are undertones of discrimination.
As for the food industry, the most immediate action we can take is withdrawing our financial support from factory farming and mono-agricullture, especially those of us in the West who can afford to seek out alternatives.
Yes, it would be fantastic if governments stopped subsidising unsustainable farming practises and were no longer in the pockets of big food corporations who fund them to create bad policies, but ultimately our consumer choices fund it all.