alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A while back i submitted an article to the SS on the detrimental effects of pet-ownership. I think it was declined in case we alienated pet-lovers when i suggested that there will be less psychological need in socialism to keep pets.
See my personal blog where i posted the submission
https://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2017/09/pet-profits.html
But the problem exists. Our dogs and cats compete for our food, it is not just the inedible animal parts.
If just one-quarter of the estimated 33% animal-derived energy in pet food was consumable by humans, it alone would support the animal-derived energy consumption of 26 million Americans (with 19% of their energy in derived from animal products). This same energy is equal to the entire energy requirement of almost 5 million Americans, or approximately the population of Colorado. If animal-derived energy was converted to its plant equivalent, one-quarter of the animal-derived energy in US dogs’ and cats’ food would support ~35 million humans. If even only 5% of the animal-derived energy in pet food could be eaten by humans, this would be equivalent to the animal-product consumption of more than 5 million Americans, and the total energy consumption of 1 million Americans, or about the population of Montana
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181301
And that is just the USA. Rather than enjoying a dog-eating diet, Asians are now increasingly pet-owning with canine legally off the menu.
So how much resources do we devote to our four-legged friends.
https://www.dw.com/en/why-is-india-hinduizing-cities-muslim-names/a-46259523
The ruling BJP’s motives are political – the party is bent on “Hinduizing” India.
Maybe this is the trigger?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/12/stock-market-tumbles-fears-big-tech-is-over
The world has so many existing fossil fuel projects that it cannot afford to build any more polluting infrastructure without busting international climate change goals. The International Energy Agency said almost all of the world’s carbon budget up to 2040 – the amount that can be emitted without causing dangerous warming – would be eaten up by today’s power stations, vehicles and industrial facilities.
Fatih Birol, the executive director of the Paris-based group, told the Guardian: “We have no room to build anything that emits CO2 emissions.” The economist said to limit temperature rises to 2C, let alone the 1.5C as scientists recommend, either all new energy projects would have to be low carbon, which was unlikely, or existing infrastructure would need to be cleaned up.
The IEA expects CO2 emissions to rise from 32.53 gigatonnes in 2017 to 36 gigatonnes by 2040.
Maybe it will coincide with the 2nd Scottish Referendum 😥
But ALB re-Syria, this was a very new precedent begun by Blair in his Iraq vote to actually request approval. No government constitutionally requires approval from Parliament for war for they hold the Royal Prerogative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq
An interesting paper on Cameron and Syria
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/field/field_document/INTA91_5_11_Strong_0.pdf
Climate activism in the US become more vocal
“Gradualism is fundamentally incompatible with protecting civilization and the natural world. It’s pathetic that the Democrats are continuing to pursue this approach,” Margaret Klein Salamon, founder and director of The Climate Mobilization
But again there is no system change demand
Is gas a lesser evil?
“Australia’s carbon footprint has expanded for the last three years straight – and the coal industry is not to blame. The biggest driver has been liquefied natural gas, known as LNG.
Science and policy institute Climate Analytics found that between 2015 and 2020 the emissions growth from LNG will effectively wipe out the carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
“It’s been incredible that until now this industry has gotten away with being such a massive source of carbon dioxide – and particularly carbon dioxide growth – while barely being acknowledged,” says Piers Verstegen, the director of the Conservation Council of Western Australia.
Bill Hare, the managing director of Climate Analytics and an adviser to developing countries at United Nations climate negotiations explains, “This industry is now responsible for what is a globally significant increase in emissions…”
The industry says this makes good environmental sense. Gas-fired electricity emits about 50% less carbon dioxide than coal. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association argues this makes it a good substitute, particularly in Asia, where it can drive economic development and cut emissions. The association points to International Energy Agency (IEA) projections suggesting demand for natural gas will grow.
But some analysts say evidence that gas is being substituted for coal is mixed at best, and the argument does not hold when it is substituted for emissions-free nuclear power or preferred to renewable energy. While it is true that gas burns cleaner than coal and is expected to have a longer life if the world acts on climate change as promised, LNG production is an emissions-intensive game. Carbon dioxide is emitted when gas is extracted from the reservoir and particularly during compression and decompression. The process also requires plenty of electricity.
Tony Wood, the director of the Grattan Institute energy program, says, “It is a sleeper issue. The industry has been fortunate in the sense that no one has been paying attention to it, but the tonnes [of carbon dioxide] involved with it are significant. “
“to a level that the rest of Nature can absorb.”
This is the reason emphasis is laid on forests carbon sinks
Up to 80% of global forest loss is driven by agribusiness
And they have some academic support (i always wonder about their actual professional credentials)
“We therefore declare our support for Extinction Rebellion, launching on 31 October 2018. We fully stand behind the demands for the government to tell the hard truth to its citizens. We call for a Citizens’ Assembly to work with scientists on the basis of the extant evidence and in accordance with the precautionary principle, to urgently develop a credible plan for rapid total decarbonisation of the economy.”
Is this a sign of things to come in mounting militancy.
Saturday is Extinction Rebellion Day
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46172661
Nope, not very militant, imho. Just business-as-usual with a bit more urgency….
“The protesters’ short-term aims are to cancel what they call “contradictory” projects they say will actually increase emissions in the UK, such as the third runway at Heathrow, fracking and the £30bn roads programme.
Their long-term aims are to:
<ul class=”story-body__unordered-list”>
<li class=”story-body__list-item”>Oblige cabinet members to “tell the truth” about the seriousness of the environmental crisis
<li class=”story-body__list-item”>Make the UK carbon neutral by 2025 (the government is considering 2050 as a date for that)
<li class=”story-body__list-item”>Set up a People’s Assembly of ordinary citizens to decide priorities for reshaping the economy so that protecting the climate becomes Number One priorityThe aim of persuading some cabinet members to speak out may possibly be achievable.
But experts say achieving a zero-emissions economy by 2025 isn’t in any scenario. It would need a revolution in transport, home insulation, energy efficiency, agriculture and more.
Setting up an assembly of mostly randomly selected citizens to take charge of the great economic shift will surely not be accepted by politicians.”
Letter in the Guardian supporting nuclear power as a green alternative.
scroll down
Top oil and gas companies jointly spent around 1 percent of their 2018 budgets on clean energy.
According to CDP, a climate-focused research provider that works with major institutional investors with $87 trillion in assets.
“With less domestic pressure to diversify, U.S. companies have not embraced renewables in the same way as their European peers,” CDP said in a report.
As a whole the world’s top 24 publicly-listed companies spent 1.3 percent of total budgets of $260 billion on low carbon energy in 2018. That is still nearly double the 0.68 percent of investments the group had made in the period between 2010 and 2017.
“This 1 percent figure pales in comparison with the amount of money Big Oil spends blocking climate initiatives and regulations, and invests in fossil fuel projects that have no place in a well-below 2 degree Celsius world,” said Jeanne Martin of campaign group ShareAction. “Investors need to step up their engagement and tell fossil fuel companies to align their business models with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” Martin said.
Nice to see you on the forum, Jimmy. Don’t make it an occasional visit.
(Take care and look after yourself.}
As pointed out, drawing lines on maps had a consequence. Cameroon, an ex-German colony, was divided between France and Britain and the legacy is costing blood, even today over language
“If you ask me whether the BBC or ExxonMobil has done more to frustrate environmental action in this country, I would say the BBC.” – George Monbiot.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/07/david-attenborough-world-environment-bbc-films
Not a great fan of Monbiot but i tend to agree with him and especially on his criticism of David Attenborough’s distortions on over-population. Just during the week i had an over-populationist link to an Attenborough video and to another video by yet another zoologist, David Suzuki.
And people here know i have very much a bug-bear about the BBC.
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/nuclear-called-a-lesser-evil-than-fossil-fuels
However, there is the high level waste (low level waste is a less problem. Who would stop the medical use of radiation?)
After decades of nuclear power, there has been no solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
But i think when it comes to lesser evils, as you say, it is better than other lesser evil options. Nevertheless, for capitalism, the investment costs of nuclear could easily be diverted to solar, wind etc etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants
