Author Topic: Climate Change Catchment Thread  (Read 52993 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gigabyte

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 154
  • If you believe, they put a man on the moon
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #870 on: August 22, 2019, 06:49:40 AM »
In case you don't know this, burning forests (or rather anything besides forage for cattle) is an ongoing thing.

https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag173

With out constant warfare against nature, artificial pastures turn back into forests, or scrub, or a mixture of the two.
I don't understand some things, but at least I know I don't know

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2962
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #871 on: August 22, 2019, 07:46:47 AM »
If demand for meat was lower, it wouldn't be profitable.

And if too much more of the Amazon is lost, the rest of it is fucked.

https://theintercept.com/2019/07/06/brazil-amazon-rainforest-indigenous-conservation-agribusiness-ranching/
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline Gigabyte

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 154
  • If you believe, they put a man on the moon
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #872 on: August 22, 2019, 01:01:33 PM »
If demand for meat was lower, it wouldn't be profitable.
The same goes for fuel, housing, food, phones, internet service and pretty much everything else in the world.
I don't understand some things, but at least I know I don't know

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12514
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #873 on: August 22, 2019, 01:37:49 PM »
Animal welfare and biodiversity aside, even pretending that climate change isn't occurring and that it's God's way of testing your faith, the right of humans to not die from pollution and murder should be enough of a reason to significantly reduce meat consumption.

Nonsense.

It should be enough of a reason to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy; to move from diesel to electric trucks (that by itself would diminish most of the impact from food production); to give up cars.

Reducing meat consumption is swatting mosquitos when you're being attacked by a grizzly.

It’s more like defending yourself against an attacking wolf when you’re also being attacked by a grizzly.  All of your suggestions are worth doing.  Reducing meat consumption is also worth doing.  It takes roughly ten times as much land to produce a calorie of animal  based food as plant based food (roughly).  The superfluous land could be returned to forests, acting as a carbon sink.

Besides the ethical reasons regarding feed lots.

Most of the land used for cattle production is unsuitable for other purposes and unable to sustain forests.

I wrote the superfluous land could be returned to forests, not all of it.  Some of it will be used for growing crops (and a large part of the crop land is used to grow grain, an unnatural food for cattle, to feed cattle in feed lots).  Some of it will revert to forests or brush.  Some of it isn’t suitable for other uses besides grazing, or just leaving alone.  Most of Northern Australia falls into that category, although it results in the production of inferior meat.

The meat from grazing on semi-arid scrub land, is just fine if the cattle are moved to grassland for about a month or two before  slaughter (or fed grains, which we agree is not a good idea). Grains are preferred because they really fatten up the cattle fast (just like humans). Grass feeding takes longer (weeks longer) and the meat is preferable.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2478
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #874 on: August 22, 2019, 02:12:37 PM »
Animal welfare and biodiversity aside, even pretending that climate change isn't occurring and that it's God's way of testing your faith, the right of humans to not die from pollution and murder should be enough of a reason to significantly reduce meat consumption.

Nonsense.

It should be enough of a reason to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy; to move from diesel to electric trucks (that by itself would diminish most of the impact from food production); to give up cars.

Reducing meat consumption is swatting mosquitos when you're being attacked by a grizzly.

It’s more like defending yourself against an attacking wolf when you’re also being attacked by a grizzly.  All of your suggestions are worth doing.  Reducing meat consumption is also worth doing.  It takes roughly ten times as much land to produce a calorie of animal  based food as plant based food (roughly).  The superfluous land could be returned to forests, acting as a carbon sink.

Besides the ethical reasons regarding feed lots.

Most of the land used for cattle production is unsuitable for other purposes and unable to sustain forests.

I wrote the superfluous land could be returned to forests, not all of it.  Some of it will be used for growing crops (and a large part of the crop land is used to grow grain, an unnatural food for cattle, to feed cattle in feed lots).  Some of it will revert to forests or brush.  Some of it isn’t suitable for other uses besides grazing, or just leaving alone.  Most of Northern Australia falls into that category, although it results in the production of inferior meat.

The meat from grazing on semi-arid scrub land, is just fine if the cattle are moved to grassland for about a month or two before  slaughter (or fed grains, which we agree is not a good idea). Grains are preferred because they really fatten up the cattle fast (just like humans). Grass feeding takes longer (weeks longer) and the meat is preferable.

But the cattle feeding on semi-arid scrub land tend not to be moved to grassland for a month or two before slaughter.  They usually are moved to feed lots to consume grains, and even more unnatural ingredients, for months to fatten them up.  So, besides being inhumane, penning the cattle so they can’t move far, basically you’re eating corn when you’re eating feed lot cattle meat.  And in Northern Australia, the cattle from the semiarid land are slaughtered immediately.  It’s too expensive to transport them south to reasonable pasture, which is in short supply anyway.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19624
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #875 on: August 22, 2019, 02:12:55 PM »
Minor item of good news. . . .Large coal plants in the United States are beginning to close

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/and-now-the-really-big-coal-plants-begin-to-close/

Quote
When the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona shuts down later this year, it will be one of the largest carbon emitters to ever close in American history.

The giant coal plant on Arizona’s high desert emitted almost 135 million metric tons of carbon dioxide between 2010 and 2017, according to an E&E News review of federal figures.

Its average annual emissions over that period are roughly equivalent to what 3.3 million passenger cars would pump into the atmosphere in a single year. Of all the coal plants to be retired in the United States in recent years, none has emitted more.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll


Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19624
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #877 on: August 22, 2019, 02:57:43 PM »
Well, the government should be looking for how they can help retrain the employees that are losing their jobs.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2962
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #878 on: August 22, 2019, 10:42:01 PM »
If demand for meat was lower, it wouldn't be profitable.
The same goes for fuel, housing, food, phones, internet service and pretty much everything else in the world.
Yeah, and?

We were talking about eating less meat.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #879 on: August 23, 2019, 01:26:22 AM »
We're talking about the climate. Except I made an argument about even if this wasn't about the climate, the amount of land used for at least certain sources of meat is very troubling.

Pricing carbon/emissions for all sources of emissions, that would be nice, with a carbon dividend.

Well, the government should be looking for how they can help retrain the employees that are losing their jobs.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/22/20827396/bernie-sanders-2020-climate-policy-green-new-deal

Quote
Sanders is emphasizing that fighting climate change comes with a lot of jobs

Sanders boldly claims his Green New Deal will “end unemployment” based on the sheer number of workers it will require; the campaign says their plan would create 20 million jobs. Currently roughly 6 million Americans are unemployed.

These jobs are closely tied to creating the green infrastructure required to reach 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation and fully decarbonize. The plan lists jobs in:

  • Manufacturing, to build energy-efficient cars and boats
  • Energy efficiency retrofitting of homes
  • Renewable power plants to expand wind and solar power
  • Sustainable agriculture
  • Engineering, research, and development

The plan calls for a new version of the the Civilian Conservation Corps, a Franklin D. Roosevelt-era public works program that put young unemployed men in the Great Depression to work doing forest management, flood control, conservation projects, and the development of state and national parks, forests, and historic sites.

It also allocates $1.3 trillion for workers currently in the fossil fuel and carbon intensive industries to find work with strong benefits an a living wage.

Offline Gigabyte

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 154
  • If you believe, they put a man on the moon
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #880 on: August 23, 2019, 06:23:20 AM »
If demand for meat was lower, it wouldn't be profitable.
The same goes for fuel, housing, food, phones, internet service and pretty much everything else in the world.
Yeah, and?

We were talking about eating less meat.
I was responding to your comment.  You could say if demand for electricity was lower, it wouldn't be profitable.  The two claims mean the same thing.
I don't understand some things, but at least I know I don't know

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2962
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #881 on: August 23, 2019, 07:41:16 AM »
Ah, so you were only paying attention to one post at a time instead of the actual context of the thread discussion. Gotcha.

If meat consumption dropped, the pressure to expand would also drop.
If meat wasn't so profitable, it wouldn't be the number one reason for burning the worlds forest.
You basically said exactly the same thing as 2379, but you said it as if you were pointing out something new or different. As though profitability is inevitable independent of consumption or as though 2379 didn't realize profit was why there's pressure to expand.

If meat consumption dropped, demand would drop, so meat would be less profitable, so there would be less pressure to expand, so it wouldn't be the number one reason for burning rainforests.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline Gigabyte

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 154
  • If you believe, they put a man on the moon
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #882 on: August 23, 2019, 07:48:45 PM »
If meat consumption dropped, demand would drop, so meat would be less profitable, so there would be less pressure to expand, so it wouldn't be the number one reason for burning rainforests.
If power consumption dropped. demand would drop, so power would be less profitable, so there would be less pressure to expand, so it wouldn't be the number one reason for fracking, deep ocean drilling, oil tankers and a bunch of air pollution.

You can say the same about almost everything.
I don't understand some things, but at least I know I don't know

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2962
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #883 on: August 23, 2019, 09:04:12 PM »
Yeah but, again, we were talking about meat consumption, so that the one thing out of almost everything that 2379 posted about.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3737
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #884 on: August 23, 2019, 09:10:28 PM »
This is kind of cool, but will it work?

https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/27/refreezing-the-arctic-geoengineering-design-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR3BnFMKefDYD4pgY4EPRjauu4BoGM0vs-CPiXCb03z_c2zafwQcYkLSbPM

Quote
A team of designers led by Faris Rajak Kotahatuhaha proposes re-freezing sea water in the Arctic to create miniature modular icebergs using a submarine-like vessel, in a bid to combat climate change.



Lets turn the arctic into a giant Catan board!

 

personate-rain