Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Dec 11 12:19:39 PST 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump: We're going to die anyways
Dukhat
Member
Thu Oct 04 12:43:57
http://www...al-warming-20180928-story.html

Trump administration predicts a 7-degree global temperature rise. Its policies assume planet’s fate is sealed.

ast month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be under water without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Donald Trump's decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.

"The amazing thing they're saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they're saying they're not going to do anything about it," said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.

The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.

"With this administration, it's almost as if this science is happening in another galaxy," said Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' climate and energy program. "That feedback isn't informing the policy."

********************************

But "Muh Men's Rights"
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Thu Oct 04 12:48:11

Better stock up on big hats.

You can make some good money.

Sam Adams
Member
Thu Oct 04 13:50:55
A 7 degree temp rise is unlikely by 2100 AND it would not be disastrous.

Lol cuckhat stop being wrong.
Dukhat
Member
Thu Oct 04 14:03:35
And you call Trump an idiot lol.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Oct 04 14:26:31
Cuckhat saw an article in salon and got scared about about global warming and this is the result.
Dukhat
Member
Thu Oct 04 14:38:22
Cuckservatives always project. More like you read some dumbshit off breitbart or foxnews.

Every single piece of evidence supports and every credible organization believes in the seriousness of man-made climate change.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Thu Oct 04 15:22:13

And so does duk-brain's Superhero, Al Gore.

Sam Adams
Member
Thu Oct 04 15:23:03
"every credible organization believes in the seriousness of man-made climate change."

Lol no.

Dumbhat
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Oct 04 15:42:28
Cuckhat explain how this chart fits with your view that global warming is killing everyone.

http://suy.../image_thumb50.png?w=663&h=419
Dukhat
Member
Thu Oct 04 16:42:15
Sam proves he's a fucking idiot yet again.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Oct 04 17:23:51
Cuckhat cant even respond to the basics.

Pathetic.
Cthulhu
Tentacle Rapist
Fri Oct 05 11:31:56
A 7 degree temp rise is unlikely by 2100 AND it would not be disastrous.

Lol cuckhat stop being wrong. '


Maybe not for land life. That would tear the oceans a new asshole though. I remember keeping fish as a kid. 7 degrees off kills many species.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Oct 05 11:35:18
Well good thing the rate of change is so slow then.
Dukhat
Member
Fri Oct 05 11:56:52
7 degrees in 100 years is not slow in geological terms. It is a blink of the eye versus previous cooling and warming periods where it took millions of years to occur.

And that's just from straight up man-made warming. There are massive positive feedback loops we're seeing that can make it even faster due to methanes being released by areas that were previously frozen and from loss of glacial ice that previously reflected light.
Cthulhu
Tentacle Rapist
Fri Oct 05 15:18:24
'Well good thing the rate of change is so slow then. '

Are you suggesting 100 years is enough time for evolutionary changes?
Cthulhu
Tentacle Rapist
Fri Oct 05 15:19:10
Why not just be honest and admit that you don't care if the biosphere collapses, as long as it doesn't cost you money?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 03:09:09
Fish can migrate, alot of fisherman are fucked locally and in the short term though.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 03:55:37
The much bigger fish related problem is that we are eating all of them. They can escape to cooler waters, but not sonar and sea trawlers!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 04:05:57
Let’s see.
All major predators are on the verge of extinction, we didn’t want even distant second place competitors. All major biohabitats are shrinking because we need stuff and arable land, everything that can be hunted and eaten is being hunted and eaten. If it can be burned we will burn it. The shit trendline can not be (at least easily) shifted from fucked up beyond repair. This is a very likely scenario, only compounded by global warming, not due to.

In that scenario the goal should be to keep it habitable for humans with advances in technology to filter air create, stabilize the CO2 O2 cycle and nitrogen cycle, with a few relativle to today large national park ”wilder zones” where hipsters go to see deers, tigers and pingvins in the ”wild”.
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 06 07:04:39
Nimi
Natural habitats are growing in most -if not all- (note the correct use of dashes) of Europe. All kinds of wildlife including predators are returning.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 07:36:02
First of all, there is no ”naural habitat” worth the name left in Europe, patches and enclaves. The only major predators in Europe are bears and wolves. If we go by how the return of the wolf has been recieved in Sweden, not everyone is happy about the 80 wolves we have now, their ancestors migrated (indeed) to Sweden.

And that is little Europe where people can afford to care about wildlife. Most the world species do not live in Europe.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 08:01:44
There is a cost to having been civilized and industrious for so long, as evident by satellite night photos as well as ordinary ones, or you can look at this cultivation maps.

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed

Europe is well past that point, things can be made better sure. I was thinking we could save an area the size of Norway in the Amazons, something the size of Belgium in the Congo. So we. Our grand children can see ”wild” Gorillas and stuff.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 08:04:33
Jergul this is a map of the historical and present day distribution range of lions.

http://gri...can-lion-territory-map-big.png

jergul
large member
Sat Oct 06 08:42:26
Nimi
Have you been to Northern Sweden lately?

" Mention wilderness and people usually conjure up images of the vast expanses of Arctic tundra in Russia or steamy jungles in the Amazon. Few would think of Europe as a place where nature is still pristine and relatively untouched by humans. But one need only cite the Danube Delta or the Białowieża Forest to recognise that Europe can be pretty wild in places too. It is estimated that around 13% of the Natura 2000 Network contains wilderness qualities.

Recognising the value of wilderness areas in achieving the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directives, and of the wider EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the Commission has prepared a guidance document on how best to ensure the conservation of these valuable areas within the context of the Natura 2000 Network. This comes in response to a Resolution adopted by the European Parliament in 2009 which drew attention to the vital role that wilderness areas can play in halting the loss of biodiversity."

You missed a couple large predators.

"The European brown bear population has increased by 7 per cent in seven years, from 15800 individuals in 2005 to 17000 in 2012. The Karelian bear population doubled to 1700 individuals and the Scandinavian population increased from 2600 to 3400 individuals - in 1930 there were only 130 bears in Scandinavia. In the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain the population doubled in the last decade to 200 individuals.

The wolverine has doubled its population in the last seven years from 675 individuals in 2005 to 1250 in 2012, with significant increases in Sweden and Finland.

The wolf population is also growing with at least 12,500 individuals across 28 countries of Europe. The two largest populations, each numbering over 3000 individuals are in the Carpathian Mountains and the Balkan countries. The Scandinavian population has doubled to 300 in the last ten years. Germany and Poland have seen an important increase, from 19 wolves to 150 individuals in the last decade. But despite the positive numbers, there are still some problem areas. In the south of Spain only a few wolves were detected in 2012. In many countries farmers losing livestock, especially sheep, to wolves are compensated, and efforts are made to reintroduce traditional methods to deter wolves such as guard dogs.

The lynx population in the EU has enlarged from 8 000 individuals in 2001 to over 9000 in 2012. The Karelian lynx population has increased from 870 to 2500 individuals and the Jura lynx population has grown from 80 to 100.

But despite the successes with the European lynx, the Iberian lynx remains critically endangered, limited to two surviving groups numbering fewer than 150 individuals."

We also have urban adaption by wildlife as a seperate point.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 10:49:26
Nothing lives (relatively speaking) at these latitudes population wise or number of species. Most of the earths species live near the equator. Naturally also less people live in the north of Sweden, which is even smaller than Europe. But as my grim prediction explained, we should aim to keep these enclaves of ”wilderness” where norther Sweden can be one.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 10:58:04
Jergul
I defined what I was talking about, I gave you a cultivation map. You are not allowed to make up your definition and argue against it, as you are talking with me.

I counted bears and wolves as the major predators of Europe, lynx and wolverines are not on my list of major predators or ”large”. Animals who can’t easily kill humans are tolerated better.

So all the number you posted, that is celebrating the fact they are not going extinct. Which is what we should aim for as I explained. They are not evidence against what I am saying, it is evidence of what I am saying.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 11:15:48
Here is the historical range and the current range of the 12000 wolves of Europe. They are not coming back, since all that orange is now farmlands, cities and roads. Wolves are a good indicator.

http://2.b...Edit_WolfEurope_Historical.jpg
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 06 12:54:27
Nimi
I am trying to indicate that a new equilibrium is found in post industrial societies. Using Europe as a template.

Your list of major predators is highly ideosyncratic.

Cayotes and bears happily roam streets of major cities in Northern North America.

Flying predators are on the return.

Seals and foxes are doing fine, as are many mammal omnivores.

Rabies causes 17500 human deaths per year. A wolverine has killed a polar bear.

Its all Maslow. We will share space with predators when we have the fundaments covered.

That some may have trouble sharing space with us is their problem. Not all wild creatures moan the loss of apex predators after all.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sat Oct 06 16:21:47

jergul - We will share space with predators when we have the fundaments covered.


Not sure what you mean by 'the fundaments', but if they leave our guns alone and change the hunting rules a bit we will be fine.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Oct 06 17:57:50
>>I am trying to indicate that a new equilibrium is found in post industrial societies.<<

Yes one where only a fraction of certain population will live in patches of land. We are not disagreeing.

>>Your list of major predators is highly ideosyncratic.<<

Apex predators is synonymous. The list is fine. I have so far mentioned wolves, lion and bears.

Some species of course do fine in and around our settlements, like doves and squirrels.

>>Its all Maslow.<<

Haven't we covered this? No one actually believes this.
McKobb
Member
Sat Oct 06 18:03:54
Bigger differences in the last ten thousand years. So basically no change.
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 06 19:33:13
Nimi
Contrarian, much?

You must understand why we slash-burn rainforests and hug whales.

No one wants to slash-burn and what is not huggable about a whale?

People do what they have to do. Eagles become a lot more acceptable when you no longer need to have a goat-herd because you have all this paid self-realization going down with that fancy university degree.

HR
I thought you were trapped in an urban cage. What you need a gun for?
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 06 19:39:21
I did a casual check. Iran is one of the top 7 goat countries in the world and offers large subsidies to goat husbandry.

Goat numbers are plummeting. Less goats means more habitat.
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 06 19:39:50
Self-realization through engineering degrees.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sat Oct 06 19:59:58

jergul - HR
I thought you were trapped in an urban cage. What you need a gun for?


I thought you were saying that,

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My,

were going to be living in the city with us.

How will we be able to defend ourselves?



Can I have Big Foot in my area?

swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Sat Oct 06 21:25:29
"People do what they have to do."

nay
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 06 23:19:36
HR
Bears are frequent city visitors.

ST
In the context of choosing between working with something distasteful or living in abject poverty.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Oct 07 04:19:12
Jergul,
As long as we need land to grow food, other animals are tolerated to the extent that they are not pests and even without intention, farmland is devestating for biodiversity.

You obviously don’t understand the numbers you posted. These are fractions of historical populations, most of them even now stabilized are on the rim of extinction locally, there are 300 000 wolves globally! These are precisely the numbers I am looking at when saying:

Let’s see.
All major predators are on the verge of extinction, we didn’t want even distant second place competitors. All major biohabitats are shrinking because we need stuff and arable land, everything that can be hunted and eaten is being hunted and eaten. If it can be burned we will burn it. The shit trendline can not be (at least easily) shifted from fucked up beyond repair. This is a very likely scenario, only compounded by global warming, not due to.

”In that scenario the goal should be to keep it habitable for humans with advances in technology to filter air create, stabilize the CO2 O2 cycle and nitrogen cycle, with a few relativle to today large national park ”wilder zones” where hipsters go to see deers, tigers and pingvins in the ”wild”.”

And yes I understand precisely why we slash and burn, again precisely the reason why I think the shit trendline will be hard to change. We need to eat and we want stuff.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 07 06:20:30
Nimi
All biohabitats are not shrinking. In the west we are actively using less and less of ecosystems in manners incompatible with wildlife.

Not everything that can be hunted and eaten is hunted and eaten. See moose in Sweden for example.

No global warming scenario gives an earth uninhabitable to humans. It implies dramatic change over the relatively short-term. The tipping point for avoiding that was in the 1980s.

Trees capture CO2 fine. Increases there are what makes climate goals in the west achievable. You should check out Sweden's CO2 accounting for details.

The trendline globally will continue to go to shit until there economic reforms are in place.

The trendlines in significant regions is positive. In the old world, anywhere goat populations are decreasing are getting better.

Goats are quite the litmus test.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Oct 07 07:50:56
Mooses in Sweden are hunted and eaten. All biohabitats are shrinking or ”recovering” like in Europe as national parks and enclaves.

I didn’t said global warming will make the earth unihabitale. I said global warming compounds all the other bigger threats.

Sweden is a tiny speck on the global human footprint.

>>The trendline globally will continue to go to shit until there economic reforms are in place.<<

Right. And since all countries do not have the same type of environment or conditions, the Congo for instance who just happens to be in the tropic and house a lot of the earth species and tropical rainforest (or the amazons), by the time economic reforms are at the level of Europe, you should be happy if there is something the size of Belgium left we can call ”wilderness”. Best case scenario then is Europe, which again has done a great job saving the few relative to warmer latitudes, species it has.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 07 08:30:06
Nimi
Wow. Is every moose being hunted in Sweden or is in fact the moose population increasing?

"keep it habitable" suggest you believe that global warming will render it inhabitable.

Sweden is a tiny post-industrial speck indicative of how post-industrial societies co-exist with nature.

Yah, there is not doubt we are a mass extinction event. The question is if there is an end in sight? The answer to that is yes.`In some areas covering huge swaths of the planet, but less so of its biodiversity.

Adaptation to co-existence in areas where the human populations are no longer under significant pressure.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sun Oct 07 08:41:18

jergul - HR
Bears are frequent city visitors.


Fortunately not here in Kansas City.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Oct 07 10:45:22
This is what I said about global warming:

”This is a very likely scenario, only compounded by global warming, not due to.”

Sweden is sparsely populated by humans and species. These conditions do not exists everywhere. Sweden is a best case scenario which there will be more of in northern parts the Norther hemisphere. Where there isn’t much diversity species wise to begin with and these biomes are not very important for global O2.

So the questions is how much damage can we do to the Congo and Amazons before these places reach Europe level ”harmony”. Some countries will end up similar to Sedden because they are sparsely populated, others judging by satellite photos of Central and Western Europe, quite alot.

Overfishing for instance risks collapsing marine ecosystems that are important for food production. In such a case that would mean more farmland where there currently is ”wilderness”.

So talking about the moose in northern sweden, seems a bit limited in scope.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 07 11:33:36
You also said what I quoted you on.

You might actually want to review numbers, not pictures. What % is urban, what is the population density - stuff like that.

Stressed human populations will do a lot of damage until they become unstressed. This is as true to forests as it is to fisheries.

Perhaps even to a point where natural diversity resembles North American or European numbers.

Its an ongoing mass extinction event that has plateaued or seen reversal in some parts of the world (China has truly massive forestation programmes).

Frankly, we should worry more about people in stressed societies than we should the impact on nature that follows from such stress.

Not only because the humanity, but also because fixing that begins to reverse damage done to environments.

No one likes to goat herd after all.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Oct 08 04:42:24
Ok I see what the confusion is. I did not say keep it "habitable for humans" meaning in will becomes uninhabitable. I don't think even a full nuclear exchange will make all the earth completely uninhabitable for humans.

I meant "uninhabitable" as in a garbage dump infested shithole, with no animals besides the ones that can live in or near cities or farmland. The hyperbolic usage of "uninhabitable" is because I (personally) view a scenario/place like that as a place I don't want to live in, because I appreciate wilderness, animals and stuff besides parking lots and industrial chimney stacks.

Beyond that, you seem to look at Europe and think this is any other scenario that what I am describing, as in trying to keep it habitable so our grand children can see Moose and wolves in the future. Mainland Europe has no wilderness, the wilderness that exists is small patches of reserves and national parks, enclaves. This is the cost of being industrious and civilized.

This is the best case scenario, a scenario that not all countries will achieve or achieve equally well. It is a guess, how much of the Amazons or the Congo will be left when those countries have reached the level of Europe.

Something like this:
http://www.efi.int/knowledge/maps/forest

Small dots of "forest", where some animals can survive. Others are gone, not because we ate them, but because we out competed them for land. The scary thing is a lot of this happens just like that, oh the fluffy white owl had it's nesting spot where we built the warehouse? Ops.

As you see from forest maps on South America
http://daac.ornl.gov/LBA/guides/LC24_MODIS_Forest_Cover_500-m.html

They are well on the trajectory of reaching Europe.

In that case, the global O2 production has taken a big hit since something like 25-30% of O2 comes from tropical rainforests. Maybe the agriculture in it's place will make up some of that, maybe not. These problems must be solved with advances in technology.

>>Perhaps even to a point where natural diversity resembles North American or European numbers<<

These are very different biomes and pre conditions and as I explained earlier, these specific biomes are not as important for the number of species or O2.

But ok so keep North America (together with Northern Sweden) as our pristine norther biome where hipsters can go and see Elk. What about the marine ecosystems, what of the barrier reef, the Congo, Borneo, the Amazons. What of the snow leopard and the Siberian Tiger? Well they are fucked.

Things do not look so great for everything that isn't a pine forest in the northern hemisphere.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 08 11:47:19
In the name of God, stop looking at pictures and thinking it amounts to research.

It is a bit difficult to cut through your hyperbole, but Europe is certainly very different from what you are describing as a cesspool buried in chimney sweeps.

Land usage in Europe peaked before world war 2. Urbanization means exactly that. More humans in less areas.

Land usage continues to fall in the West, so that would mean more reclaimed nature for our dearest, beloved children.

You think we are going to run out of air (ok, O2)? Most oksygen is generated by plankton.

Pine forests are perhaps the worst example you could have chosen. Pine beetles in NA are moving North due to climate change and utterly destroying huge areas.

Lay off the sentimentalism, bro.
zavyx
Member
Mon Oct 08 20:05:45
it seems the christians will get their 'end times' afterall, however I don't think Jesus can fix global warming when he gets here.
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 09 21:29:18
Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.

The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.

The study, published in the journal Science, created a huge dataset based on almost 40,000 farms in 119 countries and covering 40 food products that represent 90% of all that is eaten. It assessed the full impact of these foods, from farm to fork, on land use, climate change emissions, freshwater use and water pollution (eutrophication) and air pollution (acidification).

“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study
Read more

“Agriculture is a sector that spans all the multitude of environmental problems,” he said. “Really it is animal products that are responsible for so much of this. Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy.”

The analysis also revealed a huge variability between different ways of producing the same food. For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land.

The large variability in environmental impact from different farms does present an opportunity for reducing the harm, Poore said, without needing the global population to become vegan. If the most harmful half of meat and dairy production was replaced by plant-based food, this still delivers about two-thirds of the benefits of getting rid of all meat and dairy production.

Cutting the environmental impact of farming is not easy, Poore warned: “There are over 570m farms all of which need slightly different ways to reduce their impact. It is an [environmental] challenge like no other sector of the economy.” But he said at least $500bn is spent every year on agricultural subsidies, and probably much more: “There is a lot of money there to do something really good with.”

Labels that reveal the impact of products would be a good start, so consumers could choose the least damaging options, he said, but subsidies for sustainable and healthy foods and taxes on meat and dairy will probably also be necessary.

One surprise from the work was the large impact of freshwater fish farming, which provides two-thirds of such fish in Asia and 96% in Europe, and was thought to be relatively environmentally friendly. “You get all these fish depositing excreta and unconsumed feed down to the bottom of the pond, where there is barely any oxygen, making it the perfect environment for methane production,” a potent greenhouse gas, Poore said.

The research also found grass-fed beef, thought to be relatively low impact, was still responsible for much higher impacts than plant-based food. “Converting grass into [meat] is like converting coal to energy. It comes with an immense cost in emissions,” Poore said.

The new research has received strong praise from other food experts. Prof Gidon Eshel, at Bard College, US, said: “I was awestruck. It is really important, sound, ambitious, revealing and beautifully done.”

He said previous work on quantifying farming’s impacts, including his own, had taken a top-down approach using national level data, but the new work used a bottom-up approach, with farm-by-farm data. “It is very reassuring to see they yield essentially the same results. But the new work has very many important details that are profoundly revealing.”
Giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than cars, says expert
Read more

Prof Tim Benton, at the University of Leeds, UK, said: “This is an immensely useful study. It brings together a huge amount of data and that makes its conclusions much more robust. The way we produce food, consume and waste food is unsustainable from a planetary perspective. Given the global obesity crisis, changing diets – eating less livestock produce and more vegetables and fruit – has the potential to make both us and the planet healthier.”

Dr Peter Alexander, at the University of Edinburgh, UK, was also impressed but noted: “There may be environmental benefits, eg for biodiversity, from sustainably managed grazing and increasing animal product consumption may improve nutrition for some of the poorest globally. My personal opinion is we should interpret these results not as the need to become vegan overnight, but rather to moderate our [meat] consumption.”

Poore said: “The reason I started this project was to understand if there were sustainable animal producers out there. But I have stopped consuming animal products over the last four years of this project. These impacts are not necessary to sustain our current way of life. The question is how much can we reduce them and the answer is a lot.”
Dukhat
Member
Tue Oct 09 22:47:48
I've tried to green my eating but have bad habits. Biggest problem is the electoral college. Not only in the United States but worldwide, rural areas have disproportionate power. What replaces these jobs?

I'm for clean meat though. Hopefully the price goes down dramatically making normal meat a luxury.
Pillz
Member
Tue Oct 09 23:23:31
Wtf did I even just read
McKobb
Member
Wed Oct 10 00:16:16
You can take my meat and dairy out of my dead cold hands!
McKobb
Member
Wed Oct 10 00:16:49
Wait, that didn't come out right at all
jergul
large member
Wed Oct 10 02:15:29
"The large variability in environmental impact from different farms does present an opportunity for reducing the harm, Poore said, without needing the global population to become vegan. If the most harmful half of meat and dairy production was replaced by plant-based food, this still delivers about two-thirds of the benefits of getting rid of all meat and dairy production."

"Cutting the environmental impact of farming is not easy, Poore warned: “There are over 570m farms all of which need slightly different ways to reduce their impact. It is an [environmental] challenge like no other sector of the economy.” But he said at least $500bn is spent every year on agricultural subsidies, and probably much more: “There is a lot of money there to do something really good with.”"

"Labels that reveal the impact of products would be a good start, so consumers could choose the least damaging options, he said, but subsidies for sustainable and healthy foods and taxes on meat and dairy will probably also be necessary."

TJ
Member
Wed Oct 10 08:18:31
zavyx:

Ethiopian Enoch chapter five book one. Noah's great-grandfather wrote this approximately 2nd century BCE

"Again they consider the days of summer, that the sun is upon it at its very beginning; while you seek for a covered and shady spot on account of the burning sun; while the earth is scorched up with fervid heat, and you become incapable of walking either upon the ground or upon the rocks in consequence of that heat."

Maybe it was fake news. Don't worry be happy.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share