|
| Author | Message |
|---|
Wicksy 
| | #1 posted October 27, 2009 at 2:12pm (EST) |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...?
People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.
He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.
He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.
Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.
UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.
Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.
Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”
On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”
The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.
|
cerealkiller 
| | #2 posted October 27, 2009 at 2:34pm (EST) |
I didn't read this, but you gotta wake up. Global warming was invented by Al Gore and is now becoming more and more accepted as false. Hmm. looks like I should invest in cattle. |
Wicksy
| | #3 posted October 27, 2009 at 3:14pm (EST) |
Nice one... |
Iseult 
| | #4 posted October 27, 2009 at 3:27pm (EST) |
cerealkiller wrote:
> I didn't read this, but you gotta wake up. Global
> warming was invented by Al Gore and is now becoming
> more and more accepted as false. Hmm. looks like
> I should invest in cattle.
Is your new strategy making sure that every post you make is focused on pissing Frostbrand off? |
cerealkiller
| | #5 posted October 27, 2009 at 4:26pm (EST) |
Iseult wrote:
> cerealkiller wrote:
>> I didn't read this, but you gotta wake up.
> Global
>> warming was invented by Al Gore and is now
> becoming
>> more and more accepted as false. Hmm. looks
> like
>> I should invest in cattle.
>
> Is your new strategy making sure that every post
> you make is focused on pissing Frostbrand off?
>
What does this have to do with frostie? He filters me anyhow. |
Wicksy
| | #6 posted October 27, 2009 at 5:01pm (EST) |
Iseult, I think you meant to say my name.
But yes - CK is trying to do this. |
Iseult
| | #7 posted October 27, 2009 at 6:15pm (EST) |
Yes, you, too. Although he admitted to be doing this specifically for FB. |
Iseult
| | #8 posted October 27, 2009 at 6:16pm (EST) |
cerealkiller wrote:
> What does this have to do with frostie? He filters
> me anyhow.
Yes, I should've figured that much. |
cerealkiller
| #9 posted October 27, 2009 at 7:07pm (EST)
edited October 27, 2009 at 7:09pm (EST) |
I was just stating the current trend that global warming is bullcrap.
My question is - why do we have to hear about Wicksy's stupid vegan crap? Who cares? I guess in general I dislike anyone trying to use SC as the place to push their political or personal agendas. So anyone does I argue with them.
I love cats but I never propose that all people should love them.
I smoke and I hate former smokers who rag on you about quitting. My own doctor is polite enough not to push the issue. She doesn't even rag on me about not watching my diabetes as much as I should.
Hmm, guess I'll have to dislike myself too for posting Glenn Beck threads. No problem there. I loath myself and should not be walking this earth.  |
LindaH   
| | #10 posted October 27, 2009 at 7:18pm (EST) |
I prefer to be an opportunistic arguer. If someone says something that reminds me of my strongest beliefs, it is so-oooooo-oooo tempting... |
Wicksy
| | #11 posted October 28, 2009 at 7:02am (EST) |
It's an article I was interested in. It was also an article I thought may have been an interest to some people. You can choose to read it or not.
And anyone thinking that global warming is just a myth is simply a fool. |
Melf
| | #12 posted October 28, 2009 at 7:15am (EST) |
Amy gets the Times delivered to her work but didn't bring this one home... told me about it though. Oo-err. |
cprasky
| | #13 posted October 28, 2009 at 8:23am (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
> It's an article I was interested in. It was also an article I thought
> may have been an interest to some people. You can choose to read it
> or not.
>
> And anyone thinking that global warming is just a myth is simply a
> fool.
Well, I'm not too sure about global warming at all. Last week, Sharon was telling me it snowed in Pennsylvania, the earliest snowfall there in recorded history. On the other hand, right now it is 70 degrees Fahrenheit at 0807 in VA, near the end of October and that doesn't seem quite right to me either. So, I'm not really too sure what is going on.
This much is fairly certain though: at various times throughout geological history, it has been considerably colder and considerably hotter on Earth than it is right now, but as the song goes, "Life goes on bra, oh how the life goes on..."
A couple things I don't understand about the global warming models though. One is why methane is 23 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Methane is lighter than air, which means it is less dense and therefore contains less mass to hold heat. So I am not too clear on the physics involved in what makes methane a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But, if it is true, there does seem an obvious solution, which is to use the methane as a fuel, thereby converting it into more carbon dioxide, which is less effective as a greenhouse gas, right?
I'm not too sure how effective giving up meat would be either. I like this comment a good deal though, from one of the readers of the article:
" Travis Pedley wrote:
So then cows are a large part of the methane problem. As someone who was raised in an alternative household (veganism is for wimps lol) but who retained his meat eating credentials throughout, I can say with some authority that a vegetarian diet causes flatulence at levels, that seem at least, comparable to those found in cows. What we should be doing is to focus on good animal husbandry, cook from fresh more and move away from energy heavy processed foods. This should stop the fatties from getting bigger too. Stop the Vegetabalists now!" |
LindaH
| | #14 posted October 28, 2009 at 10:39am (EST) |
I heard that the best diet involved meat, but a lot less meat than people eat now. |
cloudhugger
| | #15 posted October 28, 2009 at 3:08pm (EST) |
http://www.alicestuart.com/ |
cloudhugger
| | #16 posted October 28, 2009 at 3:16pm (EST) |
It will be interesting when a hundred years from now it will be discovered that global warming was someones misinformation. |
Iseult
| | #17 posted October 28, 2009 at 7:55pm (EST) |
cprasky wrote:
> Well, I'm not too sure about global warming at
> all.
Because it's not really global warming. People keep throwing that word around. The proper term that ought to be used is climate change. |
Melf
| | #18 posted October 29, 2009 at 5:56pm (EST) |
cloudhugger wrote:
> http://www.alicestuart.com/
That cheers me up so much. |
cprasky
| | #19 posted October 30, 2009 at 8:48am (EST) |
Iseult wrote:
> Because it's not really global warming. People keep throwing that
> word around. The proper term that ought to be used is climate change.
>
Back around 1965 or so the big concern about the possibility of the climate changing centered around the idea we were possibly due for another ice age. About three years ago there was an article in the local paper about a climatology professor who teaches here at ODU. This guy studies the sediments in ice cores at the boundaries at the beginning of past ice ages. He was saying that the sediments now being deposited at new ice formations in the winters at the poles resemble what he sees at the the beginnings of previous ice ages.
A few years ago, "global warming" was all I heard about. "Climate change" seems more recent. I think it may have something to do with some of predictions made centered around the "global warming" models have fallen through. I watched Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth about a year ago at my mother's urging. I would have been far more impressed by it if it didn't seem as though it were more about Al Gore than the environment. One of the things Gore mentioned was that people who expressed concern about global warming were in danger of losing their jobs in government and large corporations. But, the only incident like this that had come to my attention was when the head of NOAA said that we were not having more frequent hurricanes and the hurricanes we were having weren't any worse than they had been historically. I'm not sure what became of him, but there was talk of the Bush administration asking for his resignation. This was after Katrina. I know that year was bad one for hurricanes and climatologists were predicting the next hurricane season would be far worse. In fact, it was far milder than anyone had any reason to expect. A couple of weeks ago, there was a story on NPR concerning a threefold increase in detected short-lived tropical storms in remote areas of the ocean. This puzzled climatologists, because they all acknowledged that there was no sound reason based on everything they knew that these short-lived storms should increase so much without a corresponding increase in the more dangerous longer lived ones. The consensus seemed to be that in recent years we have launched several more satellites designed to monitor the climate and we had far more coverage of far greater areas of the globe than we ever had before, so we were detecting these storms before they died out much more frequently than we ever were before.
All of which leaves me up in the air about either "global warming" or "climate change". Though I still think it is a good idea to monitor the situation and make some effort reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. |
dab
| | #20 posted October 30, 2009 at 9:04am (EST) |
There are two problems with changing the name to "global climate change". One is that it suggests that the Earth isn't warming any more so you're suddenly looking for a new name so the movement doesn't look too stupid. The other is that most people know the climate is always changing so saying "climate change" is equivalent to saying everything is normal again. |
cloudhugger
| | #21 posted October 30, 2009 at 10:39am (EST) |
I wonder how many SUV's equal one satelite being launched into space when they measure ozone holes.
Ozone layer is good, holes being poked into it bad. That's what lets all the outer space radiation leak in. |
they 
| | #22 posted October 31, 2009 at 12:50am (EST) |
cloudhugger wrote:
> That's what lets all the outer space radiation leak in.
This calls for a thicker grade of foil!!! |
Iseult
| | #23 posted October 31, 2009 at 1:33pm (EST) |
dab wrote:
> There are two problems with changing the name
> to "global climate change". One is that it suggests
> that the Earth isn't warming any more so you're
> suddenly looking for a new name so the movement
> doesn't look too stupid. The other is that most
> people know the climate is always changing so
> saying "climate change" is equivalent to saying
> everything is normal again.
Yes, climate change is no more than pointing out the obvious. The climate keeps constantly fluctuating; it always has, it always will.
General trends are that the Earth is warming up, however, general trends can always decieve smaller changes in weather patterns. While majority of places on Earth are getting warmer (on average - doesn't mean that the winters are going to get more bearable) there are few spots that are getting colder, indeed, but most of it is due to effects of microclimate. |
Iseult
| | #24 posted October 31, 2009 at 1:51pm (EST) |
cprasky wrote:
> A few years ago, "global warming" was all I heard
> about. "Climate change" seems more recent.
I studied Geography in university and atmospheric system was a huge component of my degree. Not once did I hear a professor use the term 'global warning'. I didn't encounter the term in any textbooks nor in any academic articles.
> think it may have something to do with some of
> predictions made centered around the "global warming"
> models have fallen through. I watched Gore's
> film An Inconvenient Truth about a year ago at
> my mother's urging. I would have been far more
> impressed by it if it didn't seem as though it
> were more about Al Gore than the environment.
> One of the things Gore mentioned was that people
> who expressed concern about global warming were
> in danger of losing their jobs in government and
> large corporations.
I didn't like the movie either. I saw it too long ago so I don't remember specific issues I had problem with, but one of them was he scale at which he was showing the CO2 graph.
> All of which leaves me up in the air about either
> "global warming" or "climate change". Though
> I still think it is a good idea to monitor the
> situation and make some effort reduce the carbon
> dioxide in the atmosphere.
I totally agree. I think it's sad how humans have been destroying the planet for so long. |
cprasky
| | #25 posted October 31, 2009 at 2:11pm (EST) |
Iseult wrote:
> I studied Geography in university and atmospheric system was a huge
> component of my degree. Not once did I hear a professor use the term
> 'global warning'. I didn't encounter the term in any textbooks nor
> in any academic articles.
>
Well that's cool. But this past week NPR's All Things Considered has been doing a series on climate change and the term "global warming" is still being used by the interviewers and some of the interviewees as well. Ah well. |
dab
| | #26 posted October 31, 2009 at 7:51pm (EST) |
Iseult wrote:
> General trends are that the Earth is warming up
Depends on what time-scale you consider. Over the past 40 years, the Earth appears to be warming up. Over the past ten years, cooling off. If you look at the entire 4.5 billion year history of the planet, it's definitely cooling off. |
Iseult
| | #27 posted November 1, 2009 at 5:24pm (EST) |
Yes, that's what I meant. I should've been clearer. I meant within our life span. |
Irene007 
| | #28 posted November 3, 2009 at 12:32am (EST) |
cerealkiller wrote:
> I didn't read this, but you gotta wake up. Global warming was invented
> by Al Gore and is now becoming more and more accepted as false. Hmm.
> looks like I should invest in cattle.
The Gore's of the world just want you to believe that global warming exists because of the cars we drive so that they can charge us with the new carbon tax to help clean up the air.
I am omnivorous but I don't believe that the mass production of animal protein is good for any of us - certainly not in the way it's produced now. Nor is the emptying of our oceans any better - we can grow proteins that are much better for our health in general. But since you're American, not of a socialist country like mine, you don't see the need to keep your own people healthy; if you paid into a fund destined to health care - you would care about the people around you being healthy just so you wouldn't be taxed as much...
Some socialism isn't all that bad, for the entire planet! |
Irene007
| | #29 posted November 3, 2009 at 12:38am (EST) |
LindaH wrote:
> I heard that the best diet involved meat, but a lot less meat than
> people eat now.
There ya go! My belief totally - I'll eat meat but I don't like the mass produced stuff. Given a choice between a free roaming chicken and a mass produced one with a blue hue - guess wich one I would eat? |
- Twitter 
- Facebook 