Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? 20:32 - Jul 26 with 873 viewsMrHappy2

Australia refuse to cut emissions meaning that place will go up in smoke eventually ..

Is it too late ?

What is the solution?

I know one thing - I’m feeling rather hot of late 🥴

Opinions appreciated
[Post edited 26 Jul 2021 20:51]

Poll: In its 20th season how has the Happy League affected your life ?

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 21:30 - Jul 26 with 845 viewsdurham_exile

I thought the evidence was that the ozone layer was showing signs of repairing itself after countries were taking remedial action.

Climate change is real unfortunately but the Chinese as the worst offenders are doing nothing to reduce their harmful emissions.

Durham_exile

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 21:45 - Jul 26 with 843 viewsLeadbelly

Climate change is real but it’s not too late to change. The biggest danger is people thinking someone else will sort it out…it’s down to all of us to change our behaviour.

Poll: Safe standing at football; yes, know or don't know?

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 08:31 - Jul 27 with 808 viewsburnsieespana

Sadly climate change is real but so very many, particularly on the right and the Australian Government fall into this category, refuse to acknowledge it.
When I was in the Antarctic 10 years ago, at the former Halley Bay research station, where the hole was first found, they said it had repaired itself.
0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 09:52 - Jul 27 with 801 viewsMoor_Pinot

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 21:45 - Jul 26 by Leadbelly

Climate change is real but it’s not too late to change. The biggest danger is people thinking someone else will sort it out…it’s down to all of us to change our behaviour.


I believe that you are right LB. Burnsie highlights the bit we can do so little about, ie, the political ill-will to enact the necessary changes to practice.

The problem is serious and unless a lot more of us respect the science, Attenborough or Greta if you prefer, then things will deteriorate.

So it is, as you say, down to us and our personal approach. Thus, when I go birdwatching I save one pocket to put any pieces of plastic I find (thankfully less here than in the UK) en route. A tiny thing I appreciate but I'm going to keep doing it. My next car will be greener once I have researched what that demands - hybrid I guess.

But until the lobby of those who truly care about the problem swells then the planet for our children's children will not deliver the things we hold dear. Polar bears and icebergs will just be in photographs like the great auk or the dodo.

If only those in power changed their paradigms.
If only the supremely wealthy cared more about the planet than spending money on fuels to go into space etc.

Moor Pinot

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 11:26 - Jul 27 with 784 viewsmfb_cufc

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 21:30 - Jul 26 by durham_exile

I thought the evidence was that the ozone layer was showing signs of repairing itself after countries were taking remedial action.

Climate change is real unfortunately but the Chinese as the worst offenders are doing nothing to reduce their harmful emissions.


I read last week that of the worst 25 cities in the world for emissions, 23 of them were in China. They don't intend to do anything about it, and then after infecting the whole world with Covid, they continue to take the piss. China and Russia are two very dangerous nations, and the rest of the world seem afraid to do anything about it.

mfb

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 12:03 - Jul 27 with 781 viewsburnsieespana

Mfb as you say two very dangerous nations although in my mind China is the most dangerous.
Only the western world can do anything about it and bottom line means we should stop buying, in particular Chinese made goods.
The western world should positively persuade by financial means companies from transferring production to China.
Both China and Russia have stated they want to able to meet all narrow body aircraft requirements by 2030 so they do not need to buy from Airbus or Boeing.
We should be doing the same with high value products such as cars, mobile phones, tablets, laptops, etc.
In a way the west has transferred it's emmisions problems to China by transferring production to that country.
The more you think about it the more complicated it all becomes.
Pinault you are a man of my heart as my wife often thinks I am mad the lengths I go to recycle!
0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 13:40 - Jul 27 with 768 viewsMoor_Pinot

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 12:03 - Jul 27 by burnsieespana

Mfb as you say two very dangerous nations although in my mind China is the most dangerous.
Only the western world can do anything about it and bottom line means we should stop buying, in particular Chinese made goods.
The western world should positively persuade by financial means companies from transferring production to China.
Both China and Russia have stated they want to able to meet all narrow body aircraft requirements by 2030 so they do not need to buy from Airbus or Boeing.
We should be doing the same with high value products such as cars, mobile phones, tablets, laptops, etc.
In a way the west has transferred it's emmisions problems to China by transferring production to that country.
The more you think about it the more complicated it all becomes.
Pinault you are a man of my heart as my wife often thinks I am mad the lengths I go to recycle!


Kind of you Burnsie. I cannot change the world let alone the politics of some of the so called great nations, all I can do is the small stuff over which I do have some autonomy!

Moor Pinot

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 14:02 - Jul 27 with 766 viewsLeadbelly

To borrow wise words from others…

There is no Planet B

When there are no animals, no plants and we’ve destroyed the planet people will realise you can’t eat money

On the beach and in the sea, in the forest, on the mountains, by lakes, rivers and streams, in country parks and hiking routes, animals don’t leave rubbish. Humans do. Don’t behave like humans. Please behave like animals.

Poll: Safe standing at football; yes, know or don't know?

0
Login to get fewer ads

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 14:15 - Jul 27 with 763 viewsMoor_Pinot

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 14:02 - Jul 27 by Leadbelly

To borrow wise words from others…

There is no Planet B

When there are no animals, no plants and we’ve destroyed the planet people will realise you can’t eat money

On the beach and in the sea, in the forest, on the mountains, by lakes, rivers and streams, in country parks and hiking routes, animals don’t leave rubbish. Humans do. Don’t behave like humans. Please behave like animals.


Precisely.

In most ways it's up to us as individuals - the powers that be will change very little.

Moor Pinot

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 20:57 - Jul 28 with 723 viewsghughes11

Good timing on this subject, as NZ Rugby signs a six-year deal with INEOS!

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this?

I'm with Greenpeace senior campaigner Steve Abel, who said:

"It is appalling that, in the thick of a climate crisis, our treasured national rugby team could be branded with the logo of a company responsible for choking our oceans with plastic pollution and driving climate disasters,".

But then am I a hypocrite if Ineos decided to sponsor Col U and give us the funds to take us up the leagues??? Would be hard to protest then!

Any opinions on this matter? How far does a sponsor have to go before the lines get blurred? Is it similar to the Saudis and Newcastle takeover?

Poll: What was the main reason for the Col U win versus Carlisle?

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 22:34 - Jul 28 with 706 viewsburnsieespana

That is the rub as big business knows sport cannot be self financing so it is easy pickings.
0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 00:45 - Jul 29 with 697 viewsMrHappy2

It will continue until Colchester becomes the Venice of North Essex 🥴

Poll: In its 20th season how has the Happy League affected your life ?

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 01:32 - Jul 29 with 692 viewsghughes11

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 22:34 - Jul 28 by burnsieespana

That is the rub as big business knows sport cannot be self financing so it is easy pickings.


I guess that is the whole Coca-Cola debate with Ronaldo.

They put so much money into sport so that justifies having them as a sponsor! Grass roots need the money, so will take it from whoever!

What if pro sport became amateur? No need for copious amounts of money in the game. The best players would still play if they enjoyed the sport and fairer competition???

Maybe I should stick to just putting my recycling in the correct coloured bin, rather than trying to change the BIGGER issues

Poll: What was the main reason for the Col U win versus Carlisle?

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 06:55 - Jul 29 with 686 viewswessex_exile

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 00:45 - Jul 29 by MrHappy2

It will continue until Colchester becomes the Venice of North Essex 🥴


Being built on a hill, when that day comes there won’t be a North Essex - we’ll be twin-towned with Doggerland.

Up the U's
Poll: How will we do in 2016/17
Blog: Knees-up Mother Brown #23

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 07:52 - Jul 29 with 684 viewsnoah4x4

The latter part of my career before retirement was spent as a Director of a Climate Change charity fundraising for global renewable energy projects and supportive of United Nations sponsored world wide emissions reduction initiatives. I have also technically edited a highly rated book on the subject and would like to dispel a few myths in this thread...

First, a fundamental misunderstanding. Any "hole in the ozone layer" is not directly related to climate change. That was largely attributable to particularly noxious substances (like PFCs) hence, not from more typical emissions of CO2e and any "hole" has substantially closed after they were globally banned. Similarly, problems such as "Acid Rain" are caused by different emissions and to a large extent that too has been mitigated by legislation and technology, most notably in the Eastern USA industrial heartland. I also mention these as it illustrates that mankind is capable of sweeping up the mess that it has caused if folk act together.

However, Climate Change is more challenging because of the myths encouraged by various minority groups that have their own agenda, and I don't merely mean fossil fuel producers that are actually now fast changing to invest in renewables recognising that their current businesses will become extinct, even if that is ultimately because we will run out of fossil fuels, but not before irrepairable damage has been caused to the planet. I wonder how many government decisions are similarly economically motivated? But then, many radical activists either don't understand the deeper science, or deliberatedly ignore it to push another agenda (such as veganism). Frankly, fault for this mess lies on all sides.

Climate Change is caused by excessive emissions of "carbon" and by that I don't mean the element. More correctly, that is "Carbon Dioxide Equivalelence" (CO2e) where one unit is equivant to one molecule of CO2. Gases like methane emit multiple units so have greater propensity to damage the climate by thickening the protective layers in the atmosphere causing a blanket like effect so heating the planet. It was once know as Global Warming, but Climate Change is deemed more appropriate as it has a myriad of impacts, such as a reduction in hurricanes making landfall in the USA and instead dumping more wet weather on Europe.

A major issue is that the Western World built its economies on fossil fuels. It is now hypocritical of us to demand that emerging nations don't do the same. China, Brazil and India might be amongst the greatest overall total emitters, but per capita of population, these emissions are lower than Western countries. Contrary to comments in this thread, China has one of the best and most succesful emissions reduction programmes, and there lies one of the problems. We always blame everybody else!

The solutions are obvious, burn less fossil fuels, emit less CO2e. But this is where radical "greenies" often confuse the issue. Contrary to common propaganda, the facts are, halting the felling of trees is effective, but tree planting is less so because one needs to plant 50 trees to replace the CO2e sequestration of one mature tree that has been felled. Hence, clearing forest and natural habitat to grow soya and palm oil to meet vegetarian demand is arguably as damaging as emissions from a cow's arse. Damaging methane production is a natural product of growing stuff as waste from food production rots and causes emissions. The principle benefit being it can be captured and burnt to create naturally occurring energy, which is admittedly easier than putting a nappy on a cow. The fact is whatever ones diet, it will cause climate change. The problem is human consumption of everything natural, so I wish folk would look at this holistically and not from any single agenda.

A small steel constructed diesel car is more climate friendly than an aluminium hybrid if its emissions are measured from manufacture to disposal. Politicians repeatedly make the mistake of looking at only tail pipe emissions. Electric cars merely shift the creation of emissions to a different location (the power station). The aluminium used in their construction takes 33x as much energy to smelt compared to steel. The myths promulgated by minority groups serving their own agenda are endless and unhelpful to the resolution of this problem.

My team once calculated how much renewable energy could be produced if the nation grew a one metre strip of a super efficient crop (gylricedia) suitable for biofuels alongside every railway, motorway and trunk road in the UK. That volume despite the huge land-take required would power the Drax power station for merely nine weeks. It is now dawning on people that biofuels and small scale renewables won't ever solve the problem. In the UK, we don't have opportunities for large scale hydro -electricity. My team looked at the 24,000 sites designated by DEFRA as possibly suitable for small scale hydo and all were cost prohibitive due to regulations for the protection of aquatic life and similar barriers. The only solution has to be a reduction in consumption of energy (but will you turn off your TV and drive less?) or we take our reality pills and place more focus on large scale projects like offshore wind and nuclear. Yes, wind turbines off our coast are ugly. Yes, disposal of nuclear waste has issues (but lesser than from fossil fuels). But are critical.

This is now down to individual responsibility, and if anything, China has arguably been leading the way, including legislation to limit population growth, stimulating investment in the worlds largest renewable energy projects, and (controversially) investing in nuclear energy on our shores. I am uncomfortable with a good many things about China, but if Western Nations were converting to renewables and nuclear at the same rate, we would be making serious progress. But then, China and Mongolia has vast desert regions where enormous onshore wind farms have been built. The dams on the mighty Yangste have created huge volumes of Hydropower whilst flooding and rendering unusable around half of China's former coal mines. The NIMBYs in Britain won't allow one onshore turbine to be erected. That is why we must pursue offshore wind and nuclear.

Climate change is real, but the culture of blaming China, India and Brazil is not productive. We must look nearer home. Rant over.
0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 09:37 - Jul 29 with 677 viewsburnsieespana

Noah a really interesting dissection of of the situation.
Makes me wonder if the sort of waste collection pinault and I do are worth it and does the planet gain anything from the efforts of those of us who carefully segregate our rubbish or is my wife more correct when she says it is a waste of time?
Surely the West would help the world if we didn't ship vast quantities of goods half way around the world and instead produced them locally?
Finally are you happy if I use some of your detail and do I need to quote a source?
[Post edited 29 Jul 2021 15:53]
0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 10:49 - Jul 29 with 670 viewsbwildered

Happy Earth overshoot day, now also a month earlier that last year !

In 2021, Earth Overshoot Day lands on July 29. Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has exhausted nature's budget for the year. For the rest of the year, we are maintaining our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[Post edited 29 Jul 2021 11:06]

Poll: No half measure either 1 or 2 ?

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 12:18 - Jul 29 with 656 viewspwrightsknees

Super stuff, Noah and many thanks. I'm not clever enough to understand all of the implications, suggestions etc. that you are putting forward, but it's certainly something we should sit up and take notice of.

Like Burnsie, I should like your permission to pass on your piece to family and friends with any provisos you would wish to impose.

Just one question. I understood that 95% of cattle's methane emissions come from the front end rather than the rear. Any thoughts on that?

Up the U's
0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 20:54 - Jul 29 with 614 viewsnoah4x4

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 09:37 - Jul 29 by burnsieespana

Noah a really interesting dissection of of the situation.
Makes me wonder if the sort of waste collection pinault and I do are worth it and does the planet gain anything from the efforts of those of us who carefully segregate our rubbish or is my wife more correct when she says it is a waste of time?
Surely the West would help the world if we didn't ship vast quantities of goods half way around the world and instead produced them locally?
Finally are you happy if I use some of your detail and do I need to quote a source?
[Post edited 29 Jul 2021 15:53]


Burnsie, I assure you that domestic waste recycling is really important, even if small scale;...

1. Hard plastics can be recycled. This keeps plastic waste out of landfill, sea and water courses and reduces the consumption of fossil fuel derived materials and fossil fuel energy consumption. It is however, easier to understand the next two examples than me try to explain the more complex science of plastics.

2. Paper and cardboard can be recycled. This means a reduction in felled trees which is of vital importance. Waste wood chip and pulp that was previously destined for paper production can instead be used for fuel. See next.

3. Food waste can be recycled. If food waste went into landfill, it rots and emits seriously climate damaging methane. 1 kg of methane is equivalent to 84 kg of carbon dioxide, so is far more climate change noxious than the base climate change impacting greenhouse gas currency (CO2). One cannot stop this natural process, but managed recycling food waste allows that methane to be captured in a process called anaerobic digestion and that is used to create energy deemed renewable. A kilowatt hour of this process beneficially means that a kilowatt hour less of fossil fuels will need to be burnt. Wood also naturally rots, so there are similar benefits from paper recycling.

4. Aluminium can be recycled (cans etc.). Processing Aluminium from its ore takes 33x more energy than steel. Recycling already processed material reduces energy consumption and hence lowers manufacturing greenhouse gas emissions. Glass is similar. Even waste tyres offer benefits. Most are used in the cement industry that requires enormous quantities of energy. Burning waste tyres doesn't sound like a great prospect, but is better than extracting and burning virgin fossil fuels.

5. Black bin waste is more challenging as the cost of sorting might be prohibitive. But today, most combustible waste tends to be burnt to create energy to avoid use of fossil fuels. This isn't perfectly climate ideal as even renewable energy produces greenhouse gas emissions. However, if combustible, just like food waste, general waste will rot and produce noxious methane . It is therefore better to use such waste to produce energy and release emissions that then go through 'scrubbers' and diluted into simpler bi-products like carbon dixoide, oxygen and hydrogen than allow its raw native extra hostile methane to be released into the atmosphere. The Acid Rain mitigation programme using such technologies has been a huge success. Other metals can also be extracted and recycled. Today, the minimum material tends to go to landfill as UK landfill taxes are penal.

As regards the comment you wish to quote, which specific data are you interested in? I can find you the actual scientific paper. Most of the above are anecdotal from research work I have previously , But is from many different academic sources. I regularly used to speak on radio and TV on this subject and have a huge archive of material . The book I technically edited is "Global Warning, Last Change for Change" , which is a Guardian publication from Dakini books. However, it doesn't embrace all of the anecdotal examples, but I think folk will find it to be an awesome read and the illustrations are superb. It's not currently in print, but copies can be sourced from quality book retailers.

But in general terms, a major problem is that journalists and activists tend to publish a provocative headline and then ignore the wider science. Another example; have you ever wondered why the much heralded domestic wind turbine retailed by a major DiY chain around ten years ago was withdrawn from sale and nobody manufactures one? It was because one of my team proved it created more emissions during its manufacture than it ever saved during a lifetime of use. Small scale renewable energy is not cost productive nor climate change mitigation efficient. I say again, the only UK solution (IMHO) is large scale production of renewable energy and that means nuclear or offshore wind, as we don't have enough land to grow enough biofuels and the NIMBYs will prevent most other onshore activity.

Too often emissions during product manufacture and disposal during the full life cycle of a product is ignored. A topical problem in the USA is how to dispose of redundant wind turbine blades at the end of their life cycle and retired aluminium aircraft. Whether a consequence of nuclear or fossil fuels or renewable energy the disposal of the related waste products is challenging. The only true solution is for mankind to consume less of everything, be that animal, plant or mineral. But population growth makes that ever less likely. Short of a world war or a more devastating pandemic, this is going to be a tough one to resolve, and nobody talks about the most likely consequence of climate change, which is massive population migration. Hope these thoughts are helpful Burnsie.
0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 21:25 - Jul 29 with 601 viewsMoor_Pinot

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 20:54 - Jul 29 by noah4x4

Burnsie, I assure you that domestic waste recycling is really important, even if small scale;...

1. Hard plastics can be recycled. This keeps plastic waste out of landfill, sea and water courses and reduces the consumption of fossil fuel derived materials and fossil fuel energy consumption. It is however, easier to understand the next two examples than me try to explain the more complex science of plastics.

2. Paper and cardboard can be recycled. This means a reduction in felled trees which is of vital importance. Waste wood chip and pulp that was previously destined for paper production can instead be used for fuel. See next.

3. Food waste can be recycled. If food waste went into landfill, it rots and emits seriously climate damaging methane. 1 kg of methane is equivalent to 84 kg of carbon dioxide, so is far more climate change noxious than the base climate change impacting greenhouse gas currency (CO2). One cannot stop this natural process, but managed recycling food waste allows that methane to be captured in a process called anaerobic digestion and that is used to create energy deemed renewable. A kilowatt hour of this process beneficially means that a kilowatt hour less of fossil fuels will need to be burnt. Wood also naturally rots, so there are similar benefits from paper recycling.

4. Aluminium can be recycled (cans etc.). Processing Aluminium from its ore takes 33x more energy than steel. Recycling already processed material reduces energy consumption and hence lowers manufacturing greenhouse gas emissions. Glass is similar. Even waste tyres offer benefits. Most are used in the cement industry that requires enormous quantities of energy. Burning waste tyres doesn't sound like a great prospect, but is better than extracting and burning virgin fossil fuels.

5. Black bin waste is more challenging as the cost of sorting might be prohibitive. But today, most combustible waste tends to be burnt to create energy to avoid use of fossil fuels. This isn't perfectly climate ideal as even renewable energy produces greenhouse gas emissions. However, if combustible, just like food waste, general waste will rot and produce noxious methane . It is therefore better to use such waste to produce energy and release emissions that then go through 'scrubbers' and diluted into simpler bi-products like carbon dixoide, oxygen and hydrogen than allow its raw native extra hostile methane to be released into the atmosphere. The Acid Rain mitigation programme using such technologies has been a huge success. Other metals can also be extracted and recycled. Today, the minimum material tends to go to landfill as UK landfill taxes are penal.

As regards the comment you wish to quote, which specific data are you interested in? I can find you the actual scientific paper. Most of the above are anecdotal from research work I have previously , But is from many different academic sources. I regularly used to speak on radio and TV on this subject and have a huge archive of material . The book I technically edited is "Global Warning, Last Change for Change" , which is a Guardian publication from Dakini books. However, it doesn't embrace all of the anecdotal examples, but I think folk will find it to be an awesome read and the illustrations are superb. It's not currently in print, but copies can be sourced from quality book retailers.

But in general terms, a major problem is that journalists and activists tend to publish a provocative headline and then ignore the wider science. Another example; have you ever wondered why the much heralded domestic wind turbine retailed by a major DiY chain around ten years ago was withdrawn from sale and nobody manufactures one? It was because one of my team proved it created more emissions during its manufacture than it ever saved during a lifetime of use. Small scale renewable energy is not cost productive nor climate change mitigation efficient. I say again, the only UK solution (IMHO) is large scale production of renewable energy and that means nuclear or offshore wind, as we don't have enough land to grow enough biofuels and the NIMBYs will prevent most other onshore activity.

Too often emissions during product manufacture and disposal during the full life cycle of a product is ignored. A topical problem in the USA is how to dispose of redundant wind turbine blades at the end of their life cycle and retired aluminium aircraft. Whether a consequence of nuclear or fossil fuels or renewable energy the disposal of the related waste products is challenging. The only true solution is for mankind to consume less of everything, be that animal, plant or mineral. But population growth makes that ever less likely. Short of a world war or a more devastating pandemic, this is going to be a tough one to resolve, and nobody talks about the most likely consequence of climate change, which is massive population migration. Hope these thoughts are helpful Burnsie.


Yes, helpful as Burnsie and I can continue to do our tiny best. The explanation of black bag waste and its challenge may go some way to explain why here in the Vendée we now have a charge for emptying our bins. Black bins one week, recycling stuff the next but we now pay 285€ a year for this in addition to what's called Council tax in Britain. One of the reasons cited was the labour required to sort out black bag contents. In other words it is still very much down to us as individuals to do what we can, even if some of it becomes chargeable.

Moor Pinot

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 21:45 - Jul 29 with 599 viewsnoah4x4

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 12:18 - Jul 29 by pwrightsknees

Super stuff, Noah and many thanks. I'm not clever enough to understand all of the implications, suggestions etc. that you are putting forward, but it's certainly something we should sit up and take notice of.

Like Burnsie, I should like your permission to pass on your piece to family and friends with any provisos you would wish to impose.

Just one question. I understood that 95% of cattle's methane emissions come from the front end rather than the rear. Any thoughts on that?

Up the U's


It is true that domestic cattle produce methane, and I have available credible UN sourced estimates, but I don't have any data as regards the ratios from which end!

However, vegans ignore mentioning that rotting vegetable plant waste also creates methane. Take a look at how much waste is left rotting on an allotment from each corn cob, stick of rhubarb or from commerical wheat or grain production. The latter is largely destined as hay for animal feed. Again, what vegans never mention is that ruminating cattle are very efficient at disposing of such waste that might otherwise rot and emit methane in fields. Isn't it better that the waste passes through a well fed animal rather than its methane escape directly into the atmosphere? If that waste was being used differently (biofuel) then new arguments become valid. But using hay as a biofuel is seriously problematic. So animal feed is actually an efficient disposal method. Please note, I am not anti-vegan, simply that I feel their arguments are not sufficiently holistic.

Vegans do have a valid argument. If we ate less meat it would benefit climate change. But you can equally apply that argument to eating less soya. Soya and palm oil production has been responsible for enormous destruction of tropical forests. If vegans only foraged for food then I would have more empathy with their climate change arguments, and if omnivores ate only roadkill similar. But we don't. The fact is we all consume mass produced food prepared by climate change damaging processes.

For example, it is more climate friendly to fly vegetable produce from Spain and Morroco than grow it here. Most activists choose not to see a holistic picture. Yes, emissions from aircraft are not good, but if you want salad crops all year round then aircraft emissions are lower than the emissions that would be generated from instead heating greenhouses in the UK. Yes, holiday aircraft travel might be bad, but we have to be pragmatic as regards moving fresh food around the planet. Sadly, minorities tend to use climate change to bolster their other agendas and never fully embrace the comprehensive science. That is why I more simply advocate ALL consumption is bad. Some obviously worse than others. But food production emissions are trivial when compared to heavy industry, notably the production of building materials, aluminium, hence car production and construction. Will we give up our cars and live in tents? Hell no, so why should I give up meat? Reduction of ALL consumption is desirable, but is limiting population growth palatable?
[Post edited 29 Jul 2021 22:06]
0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 22:20 - Jul 29 with 581 viewsLeadbelly

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 21:45 - Jul 29 by noah4x4

It is true that domestic cattle produce methane, and I have available credible UN sourced estimates, but I don't have any data as regards the ratios from which end!

However, vegans ignore mentioning that rotting vegetable plant waste also creates methane. Take a look at how much waste is left rotting on an allotment from each corn cob, stick of rhubarb or from commerical wheat or grain production. The latter is largely destined as hay for animal feed. Again, what vegans never mention is that ruminating cattle are very efficient at disposing of such waste that might otherwise rot and emit methane in fields. Isn't it better that the waste passes through a well fed animal rather than its methane escape directly into the atmosphere? If that waste was being used differently (biofuel) then new arguments become valid. But using hay as a biofuel is seriously problematic. So animal feed is actually an efficient disposal method. Please note, I am not anti-vegan, simply that I feel their arguments are not sufficiently holistic.

Vegans do have a valid argument. If we ate less meat it would benefit climate change. But you can equally apply that argument to eating less soya. Soya and palm oil production has been responsible for enormous destruction of tropical forests. If vegans only foraged for food then I would have more empathy with their climate change arguments, and if omnivores ate only roadkill similar. But we don't. The fact is we all consume mass produced food prepared by climate change damaging processes.

For example, it is more climate friendly to fly vegetable produce from Spain and Morroco than grow it here. Most activists choose not to see a holistic picture. Yes, emissions from aircraft are not good, but if you want salad crops all year round then aircraft emissions are lower than the emissions that would be generated from instead heating greenhouses in the UK. Yes, holiday aircraft travel might be bad, but we have to be pragmatic as regards moving fresh food around the planet. Sadly, minorities tend to use climate change to bolster their other agendas and never fully embrace the comprehensive science. That is why I more simply advocate ALL consumption is bad. Some obviously worse than others. But food production emissions are trivial when compared to heavy industry, notably the production of building materials, aluminium, hence car production and construction. Will we give up our cars and live in tents? Hell no, so why should I give up meat? Reduction of ALL consumption is desirable, but is limiting population growth palatable?
[Post edited 29 Jul 2021 22:06]


We should build more houses from timber instead of bricks and mortar. I would also advocate having milk delivered from your local dairy. Glass is endlessly recyclable, the bottle tops are recyclable and the delivery vehicle might even be electric…although not yet in the wilds of Mistley.

Poll: Safe standing at football; yes, know or don't know?

0
The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 22:48 - Jul 29 with 570 viewsnoah4x4

The ozone is messed up - wot now ? on 21:25 - Jul 29 by Moor_Pinot

Yes, helpful as Burnsie and I can continue to do our tiny best. The explanation of black bag waste and its challenge may go some way to explain why here in the Vendée we now have a charge for emptying our bins. Black bins one week, recycling stuff the next but we now pay 285€ a year for this in addition to what's called Council tax in Britain. One of the reasons cited was the labour required to sort out black bag contents. In other words it is still very much down to us as individuals to do what we can, even if some of it becomes chargeable.


Yes, sorting waste is a huge and expensive domestic challenge. In Colchester in those areas where residents are presumably good at recycling we have a fortnightly system of black sacks one week, paper and plastics in clear sacks another, food bins weekly and separate boxes for cans and glass. It takes a lot of household discipline to sort the materials..

In other Colchester areas they instead have two wheeley bins and hence far less domestic sorting is expected. I am not sure what criteria is used for determining whether you get a free wheeley bin or free sacks, so I won't speculate. However, my neighbours and me very diligently adhere to the sacks routines.

I believe local black sacks go straight to a waste disposal incinerator located two counties away where limited sorting takes place. Plans to build a more local facility in Essex have been frustrated. Everybody wants locally sourced renewable energy, but nobody wants it being generated on their doorstep. However, if one examines the US Environmental Protection Agency data showing the effectiveness of scrubbers and like technology then emissions from these rubbish burning CHP plants should not be feared. Remember that we might as well burn the methane it naturally generates rather than leave it to rot in landfill. It seems that some of (new) Stanway is being built on landfill. I think I prefer the proximity of a controlled incinerator than live above a rubbish dump. But Nimbyism is inevitable and a barrier to combating climate change. It is always somebody else's problem (like China), when truth is we all must own it. For superb free guidance, visit www.energysavingtrust.org.uk.
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024