Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses.
I’m no scientist and have no idea if climate change is man made or natural. But the overwhelming evidence does seem to fall primarily on the side of man made.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
You might also want to read the 'counter viewpoint' to the 'counter viewpoint' by a non climate scientist that you posted.
As the author says in their introduction:
"Forbes has trotted out another entirely ignorant piece on climate change, "Is Anything Wrong With Natural, Non-Man-Made Climate Change?" this time by fake expert Mario Loyola, a lawyer with a background in European history. I guess Forbes considers those credentials give him the expertise to communicate the complexities of climate change. Presumably Forbes would hire a physicist as counsel for a lawsuit concerning corporate governance (Loyola's actual area of formal disciplinary expertise)".
For most people it's comes down to money . Didn't the plastic bag usage drop 80% when the government said the shops were going to have to charge 5 or 10p per bag.
I’m no scientist and have no idea if climate change is man made or natural. But the overwhelming evidence does seem to fall primarily on the side of man made.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
Feels good to play the disingenuous-equivocation Big Bad World role, doesn't it?
Sorry to be thick, but I don’t actually understand what you mean.
Let’s backtrack ... I admit I do not know which is correct ... I’m not alone by the way, no one knows with 100% certainty.
I mention I looked at a counter viewpoint, which surely makes sense if I want to learn more about the subject matter.
World War Two. Stonemuse is sitting at home.
*air raid siren*
Stonemuse: "Well, I say, it's that damned siren again!"
Stonemuse's family: "Quick, to the bunker!"
Stonemuse: "Steady now. No-one knows with 100% certainty that an air raid is coming!"
Stonemuse's family: "BUNKER"
Stonemuse: "I'd like to hear a counter viewpoint. It surely makes sense if I want to learn more about whether to go into the bunker!"
Stonemuse turns on his radio.
Lord Haw-Haw: "Germany calling! If you're sitting at home in good old Blighty, just remember: your government is lying to you! No German plane would ever bomb English soil!"
Stonemuse: "See? See! Oh, where have you all gone?"
I’m no scientist and have no idea if climate change is man made or natural. But the overwhelming evidence does seem to fall primarily on the side of man made.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
Feels good to play the disingenuous-equivocation Big Bad World role, doesn't it?
Sorry to be thick, but I don’t actually understand what you mean.
Let’s backtrack ... I admit I do not know which is correct ... I’m not alone by the way, no one knows with 100% certainty.
I mention I looked at a counter viewpoint, which surely makes sense if I want to learn more about the subject matter.
World War Two. Stonemuse is sitting at home.
*air raid siren*
Stonemuse: "Well, I say, it's that damned siren again!"
Stonemuse's family: "Quick, to the bunker!"
Stonemuse: "Steady now. No-one knows with 100% certainty that an air raid is coming!"
Stonemuse's family: "BUNKER"
Stonemuse: "I'd like to hear a counter viewpoint. It surely makes sense if I want to learn more about whether to go into the bunker!"
Stonemuse turns on his radio.
Lord Haw-Haw: "Germany calling! If you're sitting at home in good old Blighty, just remember: your government is lying to you! No German plane would ever bomb English soil!"
Stonemuse: "See? See! Oh, where have you all gone?"
You may have got there via different paths but you are both on the same side of the argument.
I’m no scientist and have no idea if climate change is man made or natural. But the overwhelming evidence does seem to fall primarily on the side of man made.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
You might also want to read the 'counter viewpoint' to the 'counter viewpoint' by a non climate scientist that you posted.
As the author says in their introduction:
"Forbes has trotted out another entirely ignorant piece on climate change, "Is Anything Wrong With Natural, Non-Man-Made Climate Change?" this time by fake expert Mario Loyola, a lawyer with a background in European history. I guess Forbes considers those credentials give him the expertise to communicate the complexities of climate change. Presumably Forbes would hire a physicist as counsel for a lawsuit concerning corporate governance (Loyola's actual area of formal disciplinary expertise)".
the Hollywood disaster film The Day after Tomorrow (2004), global warming (confusingly) triggers a new ice age. The US government and much of the population evacuate to Mexico from where the former vice-president – now president, after his predecessor’s death in a gigantic snow-storm – addresses the nation. Previously a climate-change denier who called warnings of catastrophe “sensationalist”, he admits to “a profound sense of humility” and apologises for his ignorance.
Many of us would love one day to hear similar words from Donald Trump. But we won’t. A sudden climate flip is highly unlikely and one involving tons of snow still less likely. That is why even politicians who accept the latest warnings from the UN’s expert panel on climate change – that the Earth is hurtling towards temperatures 3°C higher than in pre-industrial times – won’t do much about them. After a few years of flatlining, carbon emissions are now higher than ever. No politician dares advocate, for example, higher fuel taxes, restrictions on airline travel or meat rationing.
Politicians out of office routinely warn about lower economic growth, declining wages and failing public services, knowing they have a chance of being able to say “I told you so” at the next election and to promise higher living standards etc. But they can’t plausibly promise fewer hurricanes, fewer extreme heatwaves or fewer refugees from drought-stricken or flood-hit countries. Even if all carbon emissions stopped now, the effects of what’s already in the atmosphere will continue for decades.
Couldn't see a discussion on this week's report so bumped this.
It makes pretty bleak reading, and I don't think there's the political will or know how to actually change much as it needs some very tough decisions and policies which won't go down well.
Don’t want to be seen as a pessimist but imo we, human beings that is, have condemned ourselves to a premature demise. Guess that’s the price you pay for trying to leech infinite resources out of a finite planet.
Not enough people care to make the necessary changes. People fear change more than anything else.
Not sure if it’s a fear of change rather some people not wanting change from what they’ve become accustomed to. Case in point the throwaway nature of fast fashion and people being happy to discard clothes after a few times of wearing. Watched a doco about the environmental cost of fast fashion the other day and quite frankly it’s obscene that some people would rather not be seen in the same top twice than look after the planet.
The single biggest problem facing us all is an ever increasing world population. But politicians from around the world seem to afraid to confront this.
The facts are clear. If the world doesnt do something in the next few years then it is the end as the damage will be done. For once I do actually think the will is here in the UK to do something, however we account for 1% of global emisions. China is 48% and the USA is also right up there, neither country seem that bothered to curtail things much, infact China is as we speak re-opening coal power stations in order to cope with demand. The simple fact is we can do what we like to make reductions and it wont count for much, the big 2 need to get their house in order which wont happen.
The only chance the planet has imo is that somewhere there is some kid sitting in his bedroom who will come up with a scientific way of reversing global warming. Throughout history when called upon the geeks have been victorious, lets hope that they are this time
The single biggest problem facing us all is an ever increasing world population. But politicians from around the world seem to afraid to confront this.
I can’t see how that is the biggest problem when climate change will eventually lead to the end of mankind.
Nothing of any consequence will happen until there is a disaster film sized catastrophe in one of the worlds great cities. Even then I’m not so sure. Perhaps it will take an epic drought or flood or temperatures off the scale but there has to be death and destruction. Pretty sad but until then all we’ll get is wringing of hands. Banning plastic straws won’t cut it I’m afraid.
Not enough people care to make the necessary changes. People fear change more than anything else.
Not sure if it’s a fear of change rather some people not wanting change from what they’ve become accustomed to. Case in point the throwaway nature of fast fashion and people being happy to discard clothes after a few times of wearing. Watched a doco about the environmental cost of fast fashion the other day and quite frankly it’s obscene that some people would rather not be seen in the same top twice than look after the planet.
I read an article on trainers too. Shocking how much that industry contribute to the problem.
The single biggest problem facing us all is an ever increasing world population. But politicians from around the world seem to afraid to confront this.
I disagree with this. If you look at the Drawdown report it doesn't even mention population as an issue. Biggest contributors are food waste, electricity sources and meat and dairy consumption. Population is only a problem because of at least two of these three. More people getting electricity from coal etc and consuming meat and dairy is a problem, but population alone isn't. If we change the way we consume, while supporting third world development and life expectancy, there really are enough resources for about 10bn people.
Nothing of any consequence will happen until there is a disaster film sized catastrophe in one of the worlds great cities. Even then I’m not so sure. Perhaps it will take an epic drought or flood or temperatures off the scale but there has to be death and destruction. Pretty sad but until then all we’ll get is wringing of hands. Banning plastic straws won’t cut it I’m afraid.
How about a global pandemic?
Which at the very least has shown we are all connected - and what it would take to cut emissions.
Human’s own arrogance has led to this. And it continues. We know best - but we don’t! Irreversible I believe but I also believe this was meant to happen. Ironic eh, that we will be the downfall of our beautiful world. Somehow that makes sense to me that it would be the only thing that would makes us all think, hmm we weren’t so clever after all.
A bit heavy I know but I actually believe that. I suppose to believe that you would need to believe that our ‘soul’ continues to live and retain cognitive recognition after we die. We all see the results. But of course that’s for another discussion.
Many will think I’m a nutcase for those beliefs but it’s just how I feel. It’s just in me somewhere.
The single biggest problem facing us all is an ever increasing world population. But politicians from around the world seem to afraid to confront this.
Cue the Manics: 'if you tolerate this, then your children will be next'... ok we're talking climate change not Spanish civil war, but the mantra is the same, we have a responsibility to our children to try. If we can't make the large changes, then make the small ones and help. The pandemic has shown the world can react if they're motivated to do so, time to do the same on climate change. Turn your plugs off at night, eat more chicken instead of beef, walk short distances instead of driving, reuse clothes, buy your stuff from committed carbon-negative companies... we won't reverse this, but we can slow it down whilst the governments catch up.
I'm partly posting this to remind myself to do it, though.
Comments
Guardian report, 10th October 2018
Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses.
https://theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown
As the author says in their introduction:
"Forbes has trotted out another entirely ignorant piece on climate change, "Is Anything Wrong With Natural, Non-Man-Made Climate Change?" this time by fake expert Mario Loyola, a lawyer with a background in European history. I guess Forbes considers those credentials give him the expertise to communicate the complexities of climate change. Presumably Forbes would hire a physicist as counsel for a lawsuit concerning corporate governance (Loyola's actual area of formal disciplinary expertise)".
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Forbes_Loyola.html
Didn't the plastic bag usage drop 80% when the government said the shops were going to have to charge 5 or 10p per bag.
*air raid siren*
Stonemuse: "Well, I say, it's that damned siren again!"
Stonemuse's family: "Quick, to the bunker!"
Stonemuse: "Steady now. No-one knows with 100% certainty that an air raid is coming!"
Stonemuse's family: "BUNKER"
Stonemuse: "I'd like to hear a counter viewpoint. It surely makes sense if I want to learn more about whether to go into the bunker!"
Stonemuse turns on his radio.
Lord Haw-Haw: "Germany calling! If you're sitting at home in good old Blighty, just remember: your government is lying to you! No German plane would ever bomb English soil!"
Stonemuse: "See? See! Oh, where have you all gone?"
We can revisit this thread in fifty years time...
Lucky for me I live almost 2,000m above sea level.
the Hollywood disaster film The Day after Tomorrow (2004), global warming (confusingly) triggers a new ice age. The US government and much of the population evacuate to Mexico from where the former vice-president – now president, after his predecessor’s death in a gigantic snow-storm – addresses the nation. Previously a climate-change denier who called warnings of catastrophe “sensationalist”, he admits to “a profound sense of humility” and apologises for his ignorance.
Many of us would love one day to hear similar words from Donald Trump. But we won’t. A sudden climate flip is highly unlikely and one involving tons of snow still less likely. That is why even politicians who accept the latest warnings from the UN’s expert panel on climate change – that the Earth is hurtling towards temperatures 3°C higher than in pre-industrial times – won’t do much about them. After a few years of flatlining, carbon emissions are now higher than ever. No politician dares advocate, for example, higher fuel taxes, restrictions on airline travel or meat rationing.
Politicians out of office routinely warn about lower economic growth, declining wages and failing public services, knowing they have a chance of being able to say “I told you so” at the next election and to promise higher living standards etc. But they can’t plausibly promise fewer hurricanes, fewer extreme heatwaves or fewer refugees from drought-stricken or flood-hit countries. Even if all carbon emissions stopped now, the effects of what’s already in the atmosphere will continue for decades.
It makes pretty bleak reading, and I don't think there's the political will or know how to actually change much as it needs some very tough decisions and policies which won't go down well.
Not sure if it’s a fear of change rather some people not wanting change from what they’ve become accustomed to. Case in point the throwaway nature of fast fashion and people being happy to discard clothes after a few times of wearing. Watched a doco about the environmental cost of fast fashion the other day and quite frankly it’s obscene that some people would rather not be seen in the same top twice than look after the planet.
But politicians from around the world seem to afraid to confront this.
The only chance the planet has imo is that somewhere there is some kid sitting in his bedroom who will come up with a scientific way of reversing global warming. Throughout history when called upon the geeks have been victorious, lets hope that they are this time
Which at the very least has shown we are all connected - and what it would take to cut emissions.
Global co-operation required to do this is on a scale never seen before.
I'm partly posting this to remind myself to do it, though.