Forum home The potting shed

Environmental impact of the meat industry

1810121314

Posts

  • LG_LG_ gardens in SE LondonPosts: 2,640
    edited December 2019
    Sometimes I wish there was a 'Bravo' button.
    'If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.'
    - Cicero
  • FairygirlFairygirl west central ScotlandPosts: 30,989
    I agree with you @Lyn. We can all do a small bit - and if all that does is make us feel less guilty, then so be it. 
    I have a diesel car. However - it's relatively new and probably creates less crap than my previous car.
    I don't endlessly buy new clothes and shoes, so I don't have loads of stuff to go for recycling/ dumping. I re use and recycle as much as I can, of everything.  
    I don't fly - have probably flown less in my whole life than my sister has in three years, so I'm damned if I should feel guilty when I drive three hour to do a hill.
    I eat less red meat than I used to - for daughter's health reasons, but if I fancy some I'll have it. I don't buy tons of food that doesn't get eaten either.
    I keep myself as healthy as I can, I dont drink or smoke and I exercise every day, so I'm, hopefully, less of a burden on our NHS than those who take no responsibility at all. 

    I honestly believe most people in this country do the same as I do - their level best. Unless the countries [or those who run them] which don't give a toss, change their ways, nothing will really be resolved.
    It's also interesting how the meat industry is the current target. Have you seen the cr*p that the fishing industry chucks into the water? We never hear any outcry about that except when dead whales are opened up on beaches, and then it all magically goes away. 
    It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....


  • LynLyn DevonPosts: 15,921
    I think we’re twins Fairygirl 😀
     I’ve never had a passport. I don’t feel guilty popping to the pharmacy once a month for some pain killers, that will stop in January as they want me to drive to the hospital for them so that’s nothing from the NHS for me. 
    Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor. 

  • punkdocpunkdoc Sheffield, Derbyshire border.Posts: 8,049
    Excellent @raisingirl.
    Somewhere in my heart
    There is a star that shines for you
    Silver splits the blue
    Love will see it through
  • steveTusteveTu Posts: 456
    I think you're talking as though we're 'at the pinnacle' of science. We're never at the pinnacle.
    Bear in mind:
    Man's brain size hasn't changed (it's reduced if anything) - so people in the past were as intelligent as they are today. The point being that people today look back and see earlier scientific givens and results as false - hindsight  and better knowledge. NOT because people are any more intelligent today. So it follows that people tomorrow will have a better insight than those today. That is how science works. Standing on the shoulders of giants. But also man is a flocking animal. Man in general likes to feel part of the crowd. That applies to scientists as well as bin men. So once a thing becomes popular - it gets consensus. I bet I could show scientists who said smoking wasn't damaging to health in the past. How many today? So once a scientific meme takes hold it's hard to break out of that mode. Science also tends to work after the event - it analyses effects and shows causes - not so good at taking a cause and predicting an effect in complex cases. We're good at seeing now (with hindsight) that concreting over large areas may cause flooding - but we didn't stop before we built because science said 'that would be a mistake as you'll get flooding' - what also was/is the effect on climate? We all see trees as CO2 munchers, but all plants have an effect don't they? And the more CO2, the more they absorb.
    The models of CO2 warming have not been consistent - AFAIK there is not a direct correlation between tonnage of CO2 emissions and warming. Could there be another factor - another agent? IE Could pollution be killing billions of micro organisms in the sea (and isn't water 2/3rds of the earth surface?) that absorb CO2. A scenario - 10 years ago x tonnage causes 1 degree change - BUT in the past x/2 tonnes were absorbed, so now emitting x tonnes causes a 2 degree rise? But the issue ISN'T the CO2 per se - the issue in the scenario is that the micro organisms are dying. So by tackling JUST the CO2, you are hitting a symptom and not the problem. The ecology seems to be quite a complex system - so what changes in the ecology of the planet may also be related to temperature change?
    As I said before - IF production of CO2 is perceived to be the problem - and that appears to be the consensus at this point in time - then tackling CO2 (as long as by tackling it another issue isn't created) is good. BUT in the scenario above - just tackling CO2 emissions doesn't solve the problem. And what's worse, it detracts from what the issue actually may be.
    I don't dispute CO2 figures  (although I'm not sure just how you get tonnage of CO2 in the air globally), I don't dispute CO2 causes warming. But what else causes warming/cooling? Nothing? Are all the changes in temperature on the earth over millions of years purely down to CO2 in the atmosphere (and how then was that CO2 regulated (or not as the case may be) over those millions of years when man wasn't 'over producing'?)? - what about changes in the magnetic field? What about changes in the activity of the sun? There could be hundreds of different causes that we're unaware of as yet - that science hasn't as yet documented.



    UK - South Coast Retirement Campus (East)
  • punkdocpunkdoc Sheffield, Derbyshire border.Posts: 8,049
    We are aware of other greenhouse gases, but CO2 is the worst, because it is present in the largest quantity.
    it is not just the warming effect of CO2, but the pH effect when it dissolves in water. The decrease in pH, is a potent cause of plankton and coral death, [ as of course is warming of the seas ], both of which would normally "mop" up CO2. There is obviously a double whammy effect here, which leads to a rapid acceleration of decline in sea plant life.
    Obviously there is more to discover, but we know enough now, and we have a very finite amount of time to do something, before the positive feedback cascade makes it all irrelevant.
    As individuals we can only do a small amount, but lots of small amounts can lead to a big change.
    Somewhere in my heart
    There is a star that shines for you
    Silver splits the blue
    Love will see it through
  • steveTusteveTu Posts: 456
    CO2 levels have fluctuated since the beginning of time and the effect is then the same over time isn't it - ie CO2 still dissolved in water and caused issues then as well? The planet has changed over time. It has, does and will. Nothing stays the same.
    However, I repeat, if it is perceived (and it appears it is) that CO2 is the sole cause of climate change , and man is causing the excess CO2,  then tackle it  - no issue. I'll do my bit - but I personally think that the ecology of the planet is vastly complex and putting a problem down to a single thing appears overly simplistic. Take a look at what they're seeing now with how a weakened magnetic field has influenced temperature in the upper atmosphere. There could be a whole variety of causes - and much as we didn't know how important micro organisms in the gut were/are to health in humans - many of which we may not even dream of today. Science only knows what science knows - at a point in time.

    UK - South Coast Retirement Campus (East)
  • steveTu, do you really think you have spotted something that the climate scientists may have overlooked?
  • punkdocpunkdoc Sheffield, Derbyshire border.Posts: 8,049
    I don't disagree @steveTu, there are many factors responsible, but one of them is CO2, and we can do something about that.
    Another one is Methane, we can also do something about that.
    Somewhere in my heart
    There is a star that shines for you
    Silver splits the blue
    Love will see it through
Sign In or Register to comment.