It's like saying in the 1980s that there isn't even silicon in our warehouses for eveybody to shift to owning a personal computer in the 90s/00s. It is a fact, but to be a little blunt it's an irrelevant and uninteresting fact that can mislead those less familiar into thinking you're making some sort of cogent argument against electrification of transport.Yes, it is hyperbole and it’s not meant to be taken literally.
The fact remains that we don’t have enough power in our national grid at present for a large-scale move away from petrol/diesel cars.
Firstly meat farming and deforestation are the same thing so add those figures together.If the production of meat only creates 2.8% of CO2 emissions (including land-repurposing/deforestation) in the US, which I'd imagine is very siialr to Europe, stopping producing it would at most improve things by 2.8%. But as people will need to eat something to compensate, the improvement will be much smaller, probably <1%. That is not a big number. Now if you looked at programmes to repurpose the saved land as forests or solar farms or nuclear power stations then I can see the point, but again I'm just countering the simplistic "stop eating meat and you'll make a dramatic difference to CO2 emissions". "Stop eating meat, reclaim the land for a massive reforestation and solar generation programme" is different...
The fact remains that we don’t have enough power in our national grid at present for a large-scale move away from petrol/diesel cars.
Deforestation is already included in that figure as I said.Firstly meat farming and deforestation are the same thing so add those figures together.
It takes 113399kj of energy (27,103 Calories) to produce 1 pound of beef. There are 1134 Calories in a 15% fat pound of beef. Therefore the energy input is 23.9 times higher than the energy output. To put it another way if we ate the crops which we feed to the cows we'd need 23.9 times fewer crops.
The fertilizer production, water usage and other industrial inputs are also staggering; there are 6,800 litres of water required to produce a pound of beef. There are 480 litres needed to produce a pound of corn and there are 390 calories in that pound of Corn.
Okay, but do remember that changing to an electric car is also a very small part of your overall environmental footprint. Air Travel, what we buy and consume, fast fashion etc are all bigger factors. Before you spend €40,000 on an EV there are loads of cheaper things you can do that will have as high or higher an impact.Deforestation is already included in that figure as I said.
Look I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying there at all, my only point is that changes to a small number is still a small number. An individual will have a big impact on loads of really important issues around meat production by stopping eating meat, but even if everybody stopped it would not make a big difference to CO2 emissions. Fly less, take public transport more often, electrify your transport where it makes sense are all things that if done en-masse would have a meaningful impact on CO2 emissions.
Oh how I wish for a "rolls-eyes" reaction to posts for moments like thisMy three point plan to solve global warming;
What's the point in buying an electric vehicle that is ultimately powered by turf?
- Reduce red meat farming by 80% and use the land freed up to grow trees.
- Invest in clean nuclear power. The technology used in nuclear power stations in most of the world is 80 years old, is dirty and dangerous. There is clean and intrinsically safe technology available. Use that along with other green technologies to power our national grids and so much of our transport infrastructure and expand the grids in the developing world.
- Put carbon taxes on clothing so that the fast fashion sector is closed down completely. If an item of clothing isn't going to last a few years it shouldn't be manufactured.
Love the suggestions especially the third one. And the second one.My three point plan to solve global warming;
- Reduce red meat farming by 80% and use the land freed up to grow trees.
- Invest in clean nuclear power. The technology used in nuclear power stations in most of the world is 80 years old, is dirty and dangerous. There is clean and intrinsically safe technology available. Use that along with other green technologies to power our national grids and so much of our transport infrastructure and expand the grids in the developing world.
- Put carbon taxes on clothing so that the fast fashion sector is closed down completely. If an item of clothing isn't going to last a few years it shouldn't be manufactured.
Because it could be powered by solar and not turf. And because the alternatives are worse. e.g. fossil fuels.What's the point in buying an electric vehicle that is ultimately powered by turf?
Sure, but the nonsense equating fossil fuel emissions with transport is a big part of the problem when looking at this issue. Electricity generation and heating burns more fossil fuels than all transport globally. Cooking using flames produces more greenhouse gasses than all transport globally.Oh how I wish for a "rolls-eyes" reaction to posts for moments like this.
This will have to do
Yep, if you want to see what clothing production does to the environment google images of the Aral Sea.Love the suggestions especially the third one.
Yes, so the source of the power is what really matters.Love the suggestions especially the third one. And the second one.
Because it could be powered by solar and not turf. And because the alternatives are worse. e.g. fossil fuels.
Talk about going down a rabbit hole......what was the OP question again folks???
The Skoda is an awful looking yoke.That thread took a sharp turn
BMW X7 could be the way to go
Kia Sorento maybe as a bigger SUV Volvo V90 the dog could do a walk Skoda Superb estate same story options now of petrol or diesel.
I appreciate that the OP has found their answer but this material here has to be addressed. Food is responsible for approximately a quarter of global GHG emissions. Of these emissions, almost 60% come from animal products (and half of this is beef and lamb alone). The guessimate of <1% is nowhere near the impact of removing meat from diets. A diet shorn of animal protein would have c. 50% of the emissions of a meat-eating diet.I think you're maybe being unnecessarily argumentative here, I think we're broadly in agreement in our views on the environment and I was just suggesting to check the figures on this particular point as I was surpised by them (as a bit of an eco nut)?
If the production of meat only creates 2.8% of CO2 emissions (including land-repurposing/deforestation) in the US, which I'd imagine is very siialr to Europe, stopping producing it would at most improve things by 2.8%. But as people will need to eat something to compensate, the improvement will be much smaller, probably <1%. That is not a big number. Now if you looked at programmes to repurpose the saved land as forests or solar farms or nuclear power stations then I can see the point, but again I'm just countering the simplistic "stop eating meat and you'll make a dramatic difference to CO2 emissions". "Stop eating meat, reclaim the land for a massive reforestation and solar generation programme" is different, but we can do reforestation etc. without necessarily stopping eating meat, there's plenty of land (though again, I'm in favour of stopping for all the other very good reasons!)
Look I want that to be right, even though I eat meat I know it is having horrible consequences on bio diversity, animal welfare etc, and frankly a quick fix to global warming would be great.Food is responsible for approximately a quarter of global GHG emissions. Of these emissions, almost 60% come from animal products (and half of this is beef and lamb alone).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?