Wild fires in BC Canada.

[Terry - Somerset]

I hope it's nut roast as the methane given off by cows isn't good for the climate apparently!

I don't understand the fuss about meat consumption so far as climate change is concerned.

This is quite separate from other arguments about the efficient use of land to feed the masses, moral arguments about how humanity treats other mammals etc etc.

If land is left fallow, grass, weeds, trees, shrubs etc take over. It may provide a habitat for other animals. Ultimately the vegetation dies, rots, and releases CO2 and methane. The place of the rotted vegetation is taken by new growth.

The meat cycle is a little more complex in that the cows eat the grass, expel methane and CO2 and convert it to meat. The meat is eaten, the waste products find their way to a sewage plant that releases similar gases.

Both processes over the long term seem climate neutral. Both create emissions mainly methane and CO2, both recycle atmospheric gases into new growth.

This is entirely different to the disruptive impacts of using coal, oil and gas which are being consumed at a rate 1m times the rate at which they were originally deposited.

 

[Jacob]

....

I believe climate is changeable, I believe this is affected by numerous factors, one of which being humans. I do not believe that humans are the sole, or main cause of this. I do not believe humans are responsible for climate change.

....

Do think it is merely a coincidence that climate change is happening

• very much as predicted by the science and the basic greenhouse gas process as discovered in 1819,
• and the first consequential climate change forecasts from 1896 and onwards,
• and the carefully monitored increase in CO2 as per the well known graphs
• and the fact that it is happening now all around the globe as forecast
• ??

If the science is all wrong do you have another explanation for this astonishing coincidence?

 

[Yojevol]

I don't understand the fuss about meat consumption so far as climate change is concerned.

This is quite separate from other arguments about the efficient use of land to feed the masses, moral arguments about how humanity treats other mammals etc etc.

If land is left fallow, grass, weeds, trees, shrubs etc take over. It may provide a habitat for other animals. Ultimately the vegetation dies, rots, and releases CO2 and methane. The place of the rotted vegetation is taken by new growth.

The meat cycle is a little more complex in that the cows eat the grass, expel methane and CO2 and convert it to meat. The meat is eaten, the waste products find their way to a sewage plant that releases similar gases.

Both processes over the long term seem climate neutral. Both create emissions mainly methane and CO2, both recycle atmospheric gases into new growth.

This is entirely different to the disruptive impacts of using coal, oil and gas which are being consumed at a rate 1m times the rate at which they were originally deposited.

You've just eloquently iterated the thought I've always had on this argument. The only way I can see that it may some validity is if the use of fertilisers is added into the equation. However fertilisers are used for crop production as well as meat.
Brian

 

[Jacob]

I don't understand the fuss about meat consumption so far as climate change is concerned.

Easy enough to find out Why Is Eating Meat Bad for the Environment and Climate Change.
It also entails the huge area of land required for animal feed as meat is not produced by grazing alone. The deforestation alone releases masses of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[Yojevol]

Easy enough to find out Why Is Eating Meat Bad for the Environment and Climate Change.
It also entails the huge area of land required for animal feed as meat is not produced by grazing alone. The deforestation alone releases masses of CO2 into the atmosphere.

That article does not address the question of how much greenhouse gas would have been given off if cows hadn't eaten it.

 

[Jacob]

That article does not address the question of how much greenhouse gas would have been given off if cows hadn't eaten it.

If the land had not been deforested there would have been a massive amount of carbon sequestered therein.
This applies to all farmed meat in that it needs much more land than equivalent quantities of plant food. Most of our pasture land would have been forest originally and not needed for arable farming, especially not for animal feed produce.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I hope it's nut roast as the methane given off by cows isn't good for the climate apparently!

Surely nut roast would be worse. You only get two per bull.

 

[selectortone]

Easy enough to find out Why Is Eating Meat Bad for the Environment and Climate Change.

Better give up that pork pie then!

 

[Jacob]

Better give up that pork pie then!

Yep it looks bad. And I've got some black pudding in the fridge. Maybe the last?

 

[John Brown]

Has to be said that the faked NASA data story has been fairly comprehensively debunked. Yes, NASA did review some of their data. The reasons for doing so we're widely publicised by them at the time, and extensively peer reviewed, and if you actually look at the reasoning behind their revisions there really was no deception. So for example some sites had changed the time of day at which readings were taken, which caused anomalies. In other cases sites had actually been moved, or changed elevation. In these cases data was reviewed and in some cases altered to take account of these changes. In every case the original data was presented alongside the reviewed figures. Detailed information was provided as to why any change had been made, and exactly how any revised figure had been calculated. So quite how NASA were supposedly caught red handed is a mystery, particularly since these claims were made over a decade after this very well publicised process had taken place. If course if you check who is spreading this stuff you find that it mostly originated with people who are connected to a variety of climate change sceptic organisations. Jacob calls them nutters, I would call them fraudsters, since they must be perfectly aware that, in this case, they are talking total b******s.

Compare and contrast with the Civitas report, which overestimated the cost of net zero by a factor of 10,000. Makes the NASA errors seem fairly trivial by comparison, but we all love to focus on the stuff that supports our own prejudices. I fully acknowledge that I'm guilty of this too, before anyone makes the point.

 

[Jacob]

Compare and contrast with the Civitas report, which overestimated the cost of net zero by a factor of 10,000. Makes the NASA errors seem fairly trivial by comparison, but we all love to focus on the stuff that supports our own prejudices. I fully acknowledge that I'm guilty of this too, before anyone makes the point.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-uk-trillions-retracted-due-to-factual-errorsOnly "factual" errors though. So they were right about everything else, except the facts? It's very confusing.

 

[John Brown]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-uk-trillions-retracted-due-to-factual-errorsOnly "factual" errors though. So they were right about everything else, except the facts? It's very confusing.

"The fact remains that we are facing a huge bill for net zero that is many times more than official estimates.”
What a pathetic thing to say.... "We were out by a factor of 10,000, but the fact remains etc. Weasels.

I think someone's apology is 10,000 times smaller than it should be!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Easy enough to find out Why Is Eating Meat Bad for the Environment and Climate Change.
It also entails the huge area of land required for animal feed as meat is not produced by grazing alone. The deforestation alone releases masses of CO2 into the atmosphere.

From the website you linked:

Sentient Media is a nonprofit news organization that is changing the conversation around animal agriculture across the globe.

They clearly have an agenda, I explicitly excluded arguments around the efficient use of land, and they failed to answer the question about the impact of emissions on climate change.

As a commentary it takes me little further forward.

 

[Jacob]

....

They clearly have an agenda, .....

Everybody has an agenda. For most if us it is about finding out what the efff is going on.
Magical mystery tours around conspiracy theories are useless.
Plenty of other sources.
Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
Does the Guardian have an agenda? If in doubt have a look at other sources, take yer pick!
why is meat production bad for climate change - Google Search

 

[Noel]

Bell will be ringing soon, last orders time.

 

[Fergie 307]

Better give up that pork pie then!

And the crisps, sure just stop oil would have something to say about them.

 

[Fergie 307]

How is that either insulting or sarcastic?

When the did I say there is not a process of climate change you madman?

I believe climate is changeable, I believe this is affected by numerous factors, one of which being humans. I do not believe that humans are the sole, or main cause of this. I do not believe humans are responsible for climate change.

Now toddle off and eat your roast.

If you look at what we know from ice cores and so forth going back millions of years there is a very clear link between levels of CO2 and temperature. I think there is also little doubt that our activities have led to a considerable increase in CO2 levels over and above what they might otherwise have been. So it follows that we are certainly contributing to the problem, and to a significant extent. Would there have been any change without our activities, of course, you only have to look at the way temperatures have yo yo'd up and down over the past several hundreds of thousands of years to see that. It seems reasonable to suppose that whatever factors caused those changes are still at work. So I agree with you that I think other factors are in play. At the same time I don't think we can avoid the conclusion that whatever might have happened in our absence, we are making matters considerably worse. Our activities might bring on an increase in temperature much sooner, and at an accelerated rate compared to what might otherwise have happened. This is what appears to be happening now. Even the most rapid changes in the historic record have taken place over at least a few thousand years, we are now seeing similar changes in much shorter timescales. Alternatively, if we look at the data, we can see that long cool spells, like the one we have been in for the last 30 odd thousand years, tend to be followed by periods of higher temperatures. Our activity might make the difference between an increase of just a few degrees, and a much higher figure. Our aim to limit a rise in temperature to 1.5 degrees might be overtaken by natural forces over which we have no control, bearing in mind that temperatures have averaged 2-3 times that figure over tens of millions of years.

 

[Jacob]

If you look at what we know from ice cores and so forth going back millions of years there is a very clear link between levels of CO2 and temperature. I think there is also little doubt that our activities have led to a considerable increase in CO2 levels over and above what they might otherwise have been. So it follows that we are certainly contributing to the problem, and to a significant extent. Would there have been any change without our activities, of course, you only have to look at the way temperatures have yo yo'd up and down over the past several hundreds of thousands of years to see that. It seems reasonable to suppose that whatever factors caused those changes are still at work. So I agree with you that I think other factors are in play. At the same time I don't think we can avoid the conclusion that whatever might have happened in our absence, we are making matters considerably worse. Our activities might bring on an increase in temperature much sooner, and at an accelerated rate compared to what might otherwise have happened. This is what appears to be happening now. Even the most rapid changes in the historic record have taken place over at least a few thousand years, we are now seeing similar changes in much shorter timescales. Alternatively, if we look at the data, we can see that long cool spells, like the one we have been in for the last 30 odd thousand years, tend to be followed by periods of higher temperatures. Our activity might make the difference between an increase of just a few degrees, and a much higher figure. Our aim to limit a rise in temperature to 1.5 degrees might be overtaken by natural forces over which we have no control, bearing in mind that temperatures have averaged 2-3 times that figure over tens of millions of years.

There is an argument that we are also responsible for the unusual relatively steady state of the recent holocene 10000 years which roughly coincides with the development of agriculture. Now ended as we arrive at the "anthropocene" and rapid change.
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternar...eatly influenced the,as our species is doing.https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/anthropocene/

 

[Fergie 307]

Everybody has an agenda. For most if us it is about finding out what the efff is going on.
Magical mystery tours around conspiracy theories are useless.
Plenty of other sources.
Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
Does the Guardian have an agenda? If in doubt have a look at other sources, take yer pick!
why is meat production bad for climate change - Google Search

Jacob your suggested search "why is meat production bad for climate change" is hardly unbiased is it. It is necessarily going to get results from those agreeing with the proposition. A simple change to "is meat production bad for climate change" might get a more balanced result. Dare I say it but it looks as though you are just looking for " evidence" to support a position you have already decided upon, rather than seeking to evaluate both sides of the argument.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob your suggested search "why is meat production bad for climate change" is hardly unbiased is it. It is necessarily going to get results from those agreeing with the proposition. A simple change to "is meat production bad for climate change" might get a more balanced result.

Take your pick is meat production bad for climate change - Google Search

Dare I say it but it looks as though you are just looking for " evidence" to support a position you have already decided upon, rather than seeking to evaluate both sides of the argument.

I've no reason to do anything of the sort. Why would I bother I'm interested in what is going on around me and follow the science. Have been since I was at school about 65 years ago. Not interested in the fantasy land of conspiracy theories. It's not really a two sided argument to start with, the de-bunkers are a tiny irrelevant minority with nothing useful or interesting to say. It's a 99% to 1% argument.
Is there any evidence that meat consumption is good for the climate?
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...j0i546i649.11055j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8