alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
CCS pitch their solutions for COP24
The annual greenhouse gas bulletin issued by the World Meteorological Organization reports a new high in CO2 levels of 405.5 parts per million reached in 2017; it is 46 percent higher than preindustrial levels. The rising trend continues for on May 14, 2018, another high of 412.60 ppm was recorded.
The enthusiastic consumption of meat in industrialized countries is one cause. The worst culprits are lamb, mutton and beef because sheep, goats and cattle are ruminants and their digestive systems release methane mostly through belching rather than the other end. Cattle emit so much greenhouse gas that if they were a country they “would be the planet’s third largest greenhouse gas emitter.” They produce an astounding 270,000 tonnes of emissions over their agricultural life cycle per tonne of protein, multiple times more than pork or poultry or eggs. Transferring our carnivorous instincts from beef to poultry reduces so much emissions as to be near as good as being vegetarian although not quite.
Another way of imagining the effect is to translate a kilo of food sources into the number of car miles driven to produce the same emissions. A kilo of beef equates to 63 miles. Eating chicken reduces this by 47 miles, rice by another 10, lentils by 4 more.
I wonder if it i a good idea for the publications committee to contact media committee an acquire the appropriate lists of contact emails so to promote our literature. I believe Media have created an extensive list for press-releases
Would it be spam to send off notifications of new pamphlets to editors an sub-editors and organisations? I wouldn’t have thought so
Another report advocating cutting down on meat for the sake of the planet.
“…no expert in this area is saying the world should be vegan or even vegetarian.”
The global food system is responsible for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than all emissions from transport, heating, lighting and air conditioning combined. The global warming this is causing is now damaging food production through extreme weather events such as floods and droughts. Reducing meat and dairy consumption is the single biggest way individuals can lessen their impact on the planet, according to recent research. And tackling dangerous global warming is considered impossible without massive reductions in meat consumption.Research published in the journal Climate Policy shows that at the present rate, cattle and other livestock will be responsible for half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and that to prevent this will require “substantial reductions, far beyond what are planned or realistic, from other sectors”.
And yet another gloomy report on our food and the environment
A gloomy Lancet report on what is the effects of climate change today
I already expressed my reservations on Common Planet, Sussex. I don’t think we would be gaining any influence based on the premise that they are so wrapped up on their own vision they don’t enter existing movements that are very much closer to them than we are.
But perhaps i am being too cynical about the glossy PR image they present.
Simply because they also adds a number of caveats, alb, that i don’t necessarily think are required.
“Other necessary conditions include low population densities, low market value of the resources, variability in resource distribution”
How important they are for the researchers i don’t know but they do appear to differentiate them for our case, as made by you an Robbo.
You can choose to unclick notification and cease contributing to the thread, alb.
As for being a “health scare”. Are we cherry-picking the advice of science when it comes to the carcinogenic nature of red and processed meat and trusting a representative of the business responsible? Maybe i should have believed the tobacco companies lobby. (what makes you think Roberts is or has been a farmer or ex-farmer and not a PR appointee)
https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
These aren’t health scares but genuine medical concern with evidence provided.
I still happen to think speculation on diet is indeed relevant to a future socialist society as have other members in the past.
“… One reason for this is that we are materialists and recognise that humans are material beings who depend entirely for their survival on what they get from their material environment, particularly food. Without being so simplistic as those 19th century German materialists who declared “man ist wass man isst”, (“one is what one eats”) and who attempted to explain human behaviour in terms of what people ate — of course, it is social factors that are the most important ones involved in human behaviour — many Socialist Party members realised that what you ate was bound to have some effect on your health, and so were concerned about the chemical pollution of food. Many became vegetarians or food reformers of one kind or another. One (Horace Jarvis) wrote a book Food Faking Exposed that was published in 1958….”
I wonder who was reminding us of this interest by party members 😛
As for providing a platform for food-faddists …if only….this forum is moribund except for a half-dozen posters.
The meat industry lobby hits back at vegans
https://fdiforum.net/mag/meat-industry-targets-militant-vegans-food-fake-news/
“I’m sure you’ve heard and read it all: for instance, eating less red meat will somehow save the planet,” he said, challenging the idea that decreasing meat consumption will help slash carbon emissions.
“Well, here are the real facts. Wales has 1.8 million hectares of agricultural land. 89% of that is permanent pasture and much of this land is unsuitable for other food production. Producing quality meat the ‘Welsh Way’ – by non-intensive, mixed grazing – enables a vibrant, bio-diverse and beautiful landscape.”
Although his arguments were made on behalf of the entire meat industry, Mr Roberts had a particular bug bear with what he called “sensationalist” and “misleading” health claims lobbied at red meat.
“The real facts and the latest science are inconvenient for the radical wings of the vegetarian and vegan lobbies. They cobble together assumptions based on often partial research and blend incompatible statistical correlation with meat consumption figures that are often far higher than the average UK intake.”
Nor is it international rivalries that are proving a hindrance to mitigating the effects of climate change
“Despite promises of “zero tolerance” and a constant effort to name and shame offenders, China has long labored to enforce its environmental laws and ensure violations are properly punished. Many local authorities are determined to protect vital sources of economic growth.”
Worth reading because she is the prominent spokesperson for the environmental movement.
No longer pushing a grassroots revolution as i frequently read before in her articles but it appears she is now an advocate for a lobby within the Democratic Party led by a few newly elected radicals like AOC
“…we now have a something that has been sorely missing: a concrete plan on the table, complete with a science-based timeline, that is not only coming from social movements on the outside of government, but which also has a sizable (and growing) bloc of committed champions inside the House of Representatives…”
Another thing i noted was
“…a Green New Deal is that it is modeled after the most famous economic stimulus of all time…”
Well, if my reading of the history of FDR’s New Deal is correct, it was actually failing to fix the economy and it took a world war saved it, so i suggest Klein’s confidence is misplaced.
We now have a great challenge ahead of us, one i hope we can measure up to in our own small way.
An article demonstrating the national rivalries
The president of the talks, Poland’s former deputy energy minister Michał Kurtyka, “Only by a miracle can we realise success,” he said last month.
Senior Chinese climate change official Li Gao told reporters last month that some industrialised countries more responsible for climate change were backsliding on the “polluter pays” principle, which “will make it hard to reach a consensus”.
European Commission climate chief Miguel Arias Canete’s call for more ambitious goals was rebuffed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said it would be counter-productive because some European countries, including Germany, were struggling to meet their targets.
The United States also plans to promote fossil and nuclear fuels at the talks.
No doubt the coming week will show if these are simply negotiation opening gambit moves. However, like all those COPs, i am sure the final statement will be full of promise and optimism – they always are.
Awake now.
The UNEP report goes some ways to answering that big IF.
“What’s worse, the report notes that there is no sign of reversal of this trend…
Despite, “…surging momentum from the private sector” and “untapped potential from innovation and green-financing” offer “pathways” to bridge the emissions gap globally, the “technical feasibility” of limiting global warming to 1.5°C “is dwindling”.
The prognosis is not a promising one. What’s the odds that “could” does become “will”.
However, they do infer a bright side – the use of fiscal policies, taxation and carbon pricing and subsidies – music to the ears of many in the capitalist class as an opportunity to make profits if they invest green. City of London will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of packaging eco-capitalism. But i think a very early post on the thread about carbon trading showed that such existing business was not having a great effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit
You have to get up very early in the morning (or alternatively stay up very late) , alb, to beat me, because of the time zones.
You missed this earlier post by myself using Reuters as source
