C02 of one beef dinner in comparison to a flight.

I've just learnt that the date for the next general election has been set. We kept a few terylene nappies and over the years took one or two out just to remind us of the days and nights and I can tell you they were the best contraceptive known to man and woman. And unlike the Billings method they worked and even satisfied Catholic teaching.

I reckon the Greens will be calling to canvass in their electric cars and eating sawdust sandwiches. I wonder how they'll react when they see my new flag, a used cloth nappy hoisted high on a wooden flag pole. It's where I'll shove it is the problem.
 
Purple said:
It's like discussing evolution with a creationist; no facts will convince you. You're a man of conviction, no matter how shakey the ground those convictions are built on.
Click to expand...

It's true, ignorance really is bliss!
 
Globally the biggest causes of greenhouse gas emissions are;
  • Electricity and Heat production 25%
  • Agriculture and Forestry 24%
  • Industry 21%
  • Transport 14%
  • Building 6%
  • Everything else 10%
Given that the opportunity cost of Agriculture is so high it really is the area that we should be concentrating on. 85% of arable land globally is used for meat farming (growing and feeding the meat) so a 50% reduction in meat consumption would result in a 40% increase in arable land which could be used to farm carbon (grow trees and just leave them there). This would also solve the problem of decreasing biodiversity. If we never made an electric vehicle but did that instead it would have a far greater impact on global climate change.
 
@Purple in the west we spend less than 10% of our total income on food, in the 1960s it was a third of our income and it increased to nearly 100% a century ago. Obviously alot of the reason for the reduced cost of food is the increased quantities that are produced by increased technology, yes, but also by the vast amounts of land used to produce food. The global population is increasing alot and the appetites of that population are also increasing, the chinese want to eat alot more meat.
If we reduce the amount of land used to grow food, the price of that food will also rise, thats simple economics. What proportion of peoples income will they accept that they need to spend on food for climate purposes? People are selfish so they wont willingly pay more money for less food and less meat.
 
85% of arable land is used for meat farming. It contributes 15% of global calories. We could produce the same amount of calories, protein etc on about 20% of the land we currently use if we stopped eating meat. Reduce meat consumption by 90% and we'd still manage on 30% of what we currently use.
If we want to encourage people to eat less meat then remove the 80% subsidy that the producers get to grow it.
The population of farm animals is growing at twice the rate the human population is growing. The farm land required to produce the food the UK consumes is twice the total area of the UK. I'd say we are not far behind them. That's just not sustainable.
 
Purple said:
The farm land required to produce the food the UK consumes is twice the total area of the UK. I'd say we are not far behind them.
Click to expand...
but the UK is a densely populated urban population, one of the most densely populated islands on the planet actually, they have never had enough land to grow their own food, that is why they had rations during the second world war and for a long time afterwards. Their markets in Australia and South America got cut off by the war, they got alot of their supplies from ireland actually.
 
I'm not talking about arable land, I'm talking about total landmass. It's also the case that with modern transport infrastructure food gets to the customer faster and better farming practices the yield per acre for crops, even without massive amounts of fertilizer, has greatly increased in the last 70 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register