|
|
Post by sandypine on May 22, 2024 9:24:15 GMT
I would agree although that is not the argument. The aim is to reduce cattle because they emit GHs, which they do, but no different to that which would be emitted if they did not exist. Without meat, I don't think the brain functions correctly. You would know if you had experiences with groups who are vegetarian for some cult-like reason. It leaves them very spaced out and incapable of calculating things. It is why the rulers like the idea, since stupid populations are easy to lie to. This is why I believe they are doing this. If they were actually for real and genuinely worried about methane they would not let it all bubble up from the North Sea where the slapdash drilling techniques have hit vast pockets of methane. This has been bubbling up for decades. It has been argued that humans increased their brain function because they were able to break open bones to get to the marrow quite efficiently and that was excellent brain food. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 22, 2024 9:38:11 GMT
The UK imports around £3bn of animal feed per year into a UK market for animal feed worth around £9bn a year. Rearing and exporting and consuming less flesh would be likely to address many UK environmental and health problems… Again agreed, however the argument used is that beef production produces methane which increases the Greenhouse gases so we must restrict it/ban it to save the planet. That balance is a fallacy. The other arguments as regards health, animal welfare and quality are all different but cogent issues. If vegetation exist anywhere they will produce greenhouse gases through natural processes. If you re-wild an area currently used for animal feed in the short term you may reduce emissions but within a few years the differences will be negligible where the natural processes of decay and re-generation take over Is it your contention that if humans weren't around, and the Earth was left to itself, the amount of methane being produced wouldn't change?
The Global Methane Assessment (GMA) conducted by the joint effort of the United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition revealed that anthropogenic methane accounts for 60% of the total methane emission, with 90% coming from three main sources: agriculture (40%), fossil fuel (35%), and waste (20%).
While I don't discount the idea that nature operates on equalising cycles and that the totals of locked up and free elements remain the same, I can understand the proposition that human activity frees up more of the "stored" elements and releases them into the environment.
Breeding and keeping many more of certain types of animals magnifies what happens in nature in addition to creating larger concentrations of animals onto specific areas where they increase concentrations of nitrogen on the topsoil and also in water...
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 22, 2024 9:42:15 GMT
Without meat, I don't think the brain functions correctly. You would know if you had experiences with groups who are vegetarian for some cult-like reason. It leaves them very spaced out and incapable of calculating things. It is why the rulers like the idea, since stupid populations are easy to lie to. This is why I believe they are doing this. If they were actually for real and genuinely worried about methane they would not let it all bubble up from the North Sea where the slapdash drilling techniques have hit vast pockets of methane. This has been bubbling up for decades. It has been argued that humans increased their brain function because they were able to break open bones to get to the marrow quite efficiently and that was excellent brain food. I has also been argued that as humans initially migrated along the shore lines, their intake of seafood and thus iodine was a major factor in brain development... |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 22, 2024 9:49:28 GMT
Without meat, I don't think the brain functions correctly. You would know if you had experiences with groups who are vegetarian for some cult-like reason. It leaves them very spaced out and incapable of calculating things. It is why the rulers like the idea, since stupid populations are easy to lie to. This is why I believe they are doing this. If they were actually for real and genuinely worried about methane they would not let it all bubble up from the North Sea where the slapdash drilling techniques have hit vast pockets of methane. This has been bubbling up for decades. It has been argued that humans increased their brain function because they were able to break open bones to get to the marrow quite efficiently and that was excellent brain food. Yes and if we look at it scientifically, there are apparently 7 base chemicals the body needs to survive, and out of those it can synthesise the rest. It turns out the optimum dietary requirement in humans is exactly the proportions these are present in meat. Where for a vegetarian they may have a right fiddly job selecting all the right vegetables to get that balance right, where for those who eat meat, they will satisfy a perfect balance from one source. In fact a pure vegetarian would find it impossible to get a source of B12, but the way they get around it is to eat some sort of mould or fungus, which is not technically a vegetable anyway, but no one so far has started a mushroom rights campaign, so philosophically that makes it OK.
We can see vegetarianism has been promoted by the radical socialist system for a lot longer than than one knew about climate change. I used to get it myself because I had friends who were brainwashed into being vegetarian. None of them I would regard as having stable minds. One day they freaked out that I had cooked a lamb chop on their grill since a tiny bit of lamb chop might have contaminated their vegetables. That's the kind of people they are. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 22, 2024 9:56:24 GMT
Cereals, fruit and veg for human consumption are already grown in the UK. I'm not suggesting that there should be no livestock or that all meat eating should be banned — just reduced... Which is OK if you have a solution for replacing the amount of food it would reduce in the food chain, it's all very well saying it needs reducing in the quest of net zero, but you have to have a viable alternative, as world population is growing not falling. Many developed countries are seeing birth rates declining and populations ageing. For some economists, this is sounding alarms as they don't see the future workforce able to provide for the needs of the elderly.
It's predicted that by 2050, over three-quarters (155 of 204) of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time; this will increase to 97% of countries (198 of 204) by 2100.
The world is approaching a low-fertility future. Although by 2100 more than 97% of countries and territories will have fertility rates below what is necessary to sustain population size over time, comparatively high fertility rates in numerous low-income countries, predominantly in Western and Eastern sub-Saharan Africa, will continue to drive population increases in these locations throughout the century. This “demographically divided world” will have enormous consequences for economies and societies...
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 22, 2024 10:00:28 GMT
Again agreed, however the argument used is that beef production produces methane which increases the Greenhouse gases so we must restrict it/ban it to save the planet. That balance is a fallacy. The other arguments as regards health, animal welfare and quality are all different but cogent issues. If vegetation exist anywhere they will produce greenhouse gases through natural processes. If you re-wild an area currently used for animal feed in the short term you may reduce emissions but within a few years the differences will be negligible where the natural processes of decay and re-generation take over Breeding and keeping many more of certain types of animals magnifies what happens in nature in addition to creating larger concentrations of animals onto specific areas where they increase concentrations of nitrogen on the topsoil and also in water... There may be something i'm missing here. but i don't understand this position. The carbon found in the bodies of animals all comes from the atmosphere. Unless the animal in question is eating redwood trees, all this carbon was taken from the atmosphere recently. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 22, 2024 10:00:44 GMT
Which is OK if you have a solution for replacing the amount of food it would reduce in the food chain, it's all very well saying it needs reducing in the quest of net zero, but you have to have a viable alternative, as world population is growing not falling. Many developed countries are seeing birth rates declining and populations ageing. For some economists, this is sounding alarms as they don't see the future workforce able to provide for the needs of the elderly.
It's predicted that by 2050, over three-quarters (155 of 204) of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time; this will increase to 97% of countries (198 of 204) by 2100.
The world is approaching a low-fertility future. Although by 2100 more than 97% of countries and territories will have fertility rates below what is necessary to sustain population size over time, comparatively high fertility rates in numerous low-income countries, predominantly in Western and Eastern sub-Saharan Africa, will continue to drive population increases in these locations throughout the century. This “demographically divided world” will have enormous consequences for economies and societies...
I guess then it is all in one of those crystal balls they keep coming up with. The race to reduce populations. Which is a bit off track, I asked what is your viable alternative to reducing food levels in the food chain in the chase of net zero, in all honesty you don't have one do you? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 22, 2024 10:02:07 GMT
It has been argued that humans increased their brain function because they were able to break open bones to get to the marrow quite efficiently and that was excellent brain food. Yes and if we look at it scientifically, there are apparently 7 base chemicals the body needs to survive, and out of those it can synthesise the rest. It turns out the optimum dietary requirement in humans is exactly the proportions these are present in meat. Where for a vegetarian they may have a right fiddly job selecting all the right vegetables to get that balance right, where for those who eat meat, they will satisfy a perfect balance from one source. In fact a pure vegetarian would find it impossible to get a source of B12, but the way they get around it is to eat some sort of mould or fungus, which is not technically a vegetable anyway, but no one so far has started a mushroom rights campaign, so philosophically that makes it OK.
We can see vegetarianism has been promoted by the radical socialist system for a lot longer than than one knew about climate change. I used to get it myself because I had friends who were brainwashed into being vegetarian. None of them I would regard as having stable minds. One day they freaked out that I had cooked a lamb chop on their grill since a tiny bit of lamb chop might have contaminated their vegetables. That's the kind of people they are. Love it or hate it, Marmite has added B12. So, alongside their nut roasts and tofu salads, some vegetarians may like Marmite and cucumber sandwiches washed down with hot Bovril Marmite... |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 22, 2024 10:08:12 GMT
It has been argued that humans increased their brain function because they were able to break open bones to get to the marrow quite efficiently and that was excellent brain food. We can see vegetarianism has been promoted by the radical socialist system for a lot longer than than one knew about climate change. I used to get it myself because I had friends who were brainwashed into being vegetarian. None of them I would regard as having stable minds. One day they freaked out that I had cooked a lamb chop on their grill since a tiny bit of lamb chop might have contaminated their vegetables. That's the kind of people they are. Yes. The arguments for vegetarianism (ie not killing things etc) often differ radically from the real reasons people actually adhere to it. Somebody worried about killing animals is not going to be concerned about 'contamination' |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 22, 2024 10:29:52 GMT
Many developed countries are seeing birth rates declining and populations ageing. For some economists, this is sounding alarms as they don't see the future workforce able to provide for the needs of the elderly.
It's predicted that by 2050, over three-quarters (155 of 204) of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time; this will increase to 97% of countries (198 of 204) by 2100.
The world is approaching a low-fertility future. Although by 2100 more than 97% of countries and territories will have fertility rates below what is necessary to sustain population size over time, comparatively high fertility rates in numerous low-income countries, predominantly in Western and Eastern sub-Saharan Africa, will continue to drive population increases in these locations throughout the century. This “demographically divided world” will have enormous consequences for economies and societies...
I guess then it is all in one of those crystal balls they keep coming up with. The race to reduce populations. Which is a bit off track, I asked what is your viable alternative to reducing food levels in the food chain in the chase of net zero, in all honesty you don't have one do you? Why would we reduce food levels (other than personally, perhaps for health reasons)? I'm suggesting what might be found to be alternatives.
India is one country that survives even though 40% of its population is vegetarian and a growing proportion are vegan.
In April 2023, India’s population is expected to reach 1,425,775,850 people, matching and then surpassing the population of mainland China.
In 2022, at 1.2 births per woman, China had one of the world’s lowest fertility rates; India’s fertility rate, at 2.0 births per woman, was just below the “replacement” threshold of 2.1, the level required for population stabilization in the long run.
China’s population reached its peak size recently and experienced a decline during 2022. Projections indicate that the size of the Chinese population will continue to fall and could drop below 1 billion before the end of the century.
According to the United Nations’ latest projections, India’s population is expected to reach its peak size around 2064 and then to decline gradually.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 22, 2024 10:44:00 GMT
Breeding and keeping many more of certain types of animals magnifies what happens in nature in addition to creating larger concentrations of animals onto specific areas where they increase concentrations of nitrogen on the topsoil and also in water... There may be something i'm missing here. but i don't understand this position. The carbon found in the bodies of animals all comes from the atmosphere. Unless the animal in question is eating redwood trees, all this carbon was taken from the atmosphere recently. Carbon?
OK, life on earth would not be possible without carbon. This is in part due to carbon’s ability to readily form bonds with other atoms, giving flexibility to the form and function that biomolecules can take, such as DNA and RNA, which are essential for the defining characteristics of life — growth and replication. Carbon molecules are therefore sought after by all organisms, which drives complex carbon cycles through all living systems.
Since the late 19th century, humans have extracted fossil carbon to burn for energy. The release of CO2 into the atmosphere causes an increase in carbon fluxes from the atmosphere to photosynthetic organisms and the oceans. Although this limits the overall increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, the increase is enough to have contributed to recent significant increases in global temperature, which affects all life. In addition, dissolution of excess CO2 acidifies the oceans, which can affect oceanic biosystems. Anthropogenic influences, for example from agricultural practices, habitat loss, and climate change mean that approximately 1 million species are now at risk of extinction globally. We therefore need to drastically limit CO2 emissions to mitigate the impacts we are having on our planet via the carbon cycle.
Seems to me that every little helps. I don't see what's wrong in cutting down on Carbon, Methane even Water Vapour and keeping them out of the atmosphere...
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 22, 2024 11:04:33 GMT
It has been argued that humans increased their brain function because they were able to break open bones to get to the marrow quite efficiently and that was excellent brain food. I has also been argued that as humans initially migrated along the shore lines, their intake of seafood and thus iodine was a major factor in brain development... Again agreed, however brain food is what we get in the round and many groups were isolated from the seashore but still managed to get sufficient brain food. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on May 22, 2024 11:08:03 GMT
Grass feeds cattle as well as other livestock einstein, so if you reduce the food entering the food chain you need to replace it with something else and the weather in the UK isn't the best for mass growing of other crops, so what are you going to replace it with? Cereals, fruit and veg for human consumption are already grown in the UK. I'm not suggesting that there should be no livestock or that all meat eating should be banned — just reduced... What are you suggesting Patman , rationing ? Good god man we left that behind in 1954 . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 22, 2024 11:11:15 GMT
Vastly increasing the numbers of any living being is going to affect the environment — especially if the increase requires the conversion of ever-more huge ares natural rain forest and other landscapes to be put over to agriculture to feed the growing amount of livestock… I don't really care if it does or not . Beef is a necessary part of our diet ,well it is in my house , and any 'major' effect on climate change that its production may cause should be offset elsewhere . Reading Patmans post though makes one think or reminds that maybe we should be looking at the population of two legged living beings rather than four . A reduction in the human population (Im talking about over time not a mass cull  )would solve most if not all of the 'climate change' and environmental problems . Exactly. There is NO workable solution to Climate Change unless we address the primary issue of Human Population. Big Money will not allow that conversation until it is too late, because it needs an ever growing supply of consumers, and cheap labour. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 22, 2024 11:16:41 GMT
There may be something i'm missing here. but i don't understand this position. The carbon found in the bodies of animals all comes from the atmosphere. Unless the animal in question is eating redwood trees, all this carbon was taken from the atmosphere recently. Seems to me that every little helps. I don't see what's wrong in cutting down on Carbon, Methane even Water Vapour and keeping them out of the atmosphere...
My point is this - if animals take carbon from the atmosphere when they eat, and release it back into the atmosphere when they exhale and excrete. How does having a large number of animals increase the carbon in the atmosphere? |
|
)would solve most if not all of the 'climate change' and environmental problems .