And so it begins: Eat less meat or we’ll make you.

[Benjamin030855]

Seeing that the UK was 2 degrees hotter than now in the Roman times shows that we can survive those conditions and thrive. Seeing paintings of bonfires and parties on the Thames in the 1800's shows that climate is quite variable naturally before the Industrial revolution.

The corals used to be thought of being killed off by acidity rising in the oceans, but that theory seems to have gone away now in favour of the heating causing bleaching (?) I was taught that acidity does that chemically, and I have seen no explanation to date as to what the mechanism is for a 1 degree rise in temp doing this. I also dispute that CO2 causes rise in acidity of the oceans - simply because CO2 in an acid environmenrt in seawater creates calcium carbonate and aodium hydroxide both of which are alkali, not an acid. and it is actually neurtralising the acid in the sea instead.

In fact, no one seems to have identified what the acid in the oceona is. I suspect it is acid run off from industrial activity and burning fossil fuels. I would think Sulphuric acid is a possible candidate since it is definitely causing acid erosion. but Nitric acid is possible due to the rise in NOX from petrol and diesel use. Of course, us humans expel hysdochloric acid in abundance since that is what stomach acid is. but then so do animals.

CO2 dissolved in water lowers the pH


“Ocean acidification refers to a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period of time, caused primarily by uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.”

 

[Oldvatr]

CO2 dissolved in water lowers the pH


“Ocean acidification refers to a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period of time, caused primarily by uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.”

So the chemical reaction between Co2 and NaCl in an acidic environment is more likely to occur which is the more complicated way of looking at the picture. The oceans absorb co2 by storing it in the form of limestone sediments, which is why we find limestone and chalk in our present day lives. When we use cement then it releases the stored CO2 back again. which is one of the major sources of that GHG today. That is how it used to be done, and we should not forget those chemical processes are still occurring naturally.

The oceans are not designed to store Co2 in its gaseous form. If you bubble Co2 through a water trap, it does not absorb the gas. Pass it through a limewater trap and it sequesters it, This is also seen in our heating systems and kettles when they fur up by the calcium carbonate coming out of suspension, So the oceans will store Co2 only by conversion to other compounds that are water soluble,.

So the piece you quote is not on my opinion telling us the proper story. It is an oversimplification, If it was true then changes in atmospheric pressure would cause CO2 burps as a storm goes over and the gaseous Co2 bubbles out again. No that is not happening as far as I know. There are other sources of man made acids that leach into the water,

 

[Benjamin030855]

So the chemical reaction between Co2 and NaCl in an acidic environment is more likely to occur which is the more complicated way of looking at the picture. The oceans absorb co2 by storing it in the form of limestone sediments, which is why we find limestone and chalk in our present day lives. When we use cement then it releases the stored CO2 back again. which is one of the major sources of that GHG today. That is how it used to be done, and we should not forget those chemical processes are still occurring naturally.

The oceans are not designed to store Co2 in its gaseous form. If you bubble Co2 through a water trap, it does not absorb the gas. Pass it through a limewater trap and it sequesters it, This is also seen in our heating systems and kettles when they fur up by the calcium carbonate coming out of suspension, So the oceans will store Co2 only by conversion to other compounds that are water soluble,.

So the piece you quote is not on my opinion telling us the proper story. It is an oversimplification, If it was true then changes in atmospheric pressure would cause CO2 burps as a storm goes over and the gaseous Co2 bubbles out again. No that is not happening as far as I know. There are other sources of man made acids that leach into the water,

It is soluble in seawater. The process can be found on the net. Seawater does indeed contain dissolved carbon dioxide.

Consider the process from CO2 to limestone. There are stages in between.

 

[Benjamin030855]

No not an oversimplification. The main contributor to global warming as we describe is most definitely not down to animal farming. Okay. So let’s put it another way.

Approximately 175 million years ago there was no ice at the poles. There was a larger percentage of seawater on the planet than there is today. (Antarctica was enjoying a more temperate climate for example). The Atlantic Ocean did not yet exist and there was a large Ocean known as the Tethys Ocean straddling the globe from east to west. The world was considerably warmer, the atmosphere was far more fuller of CO2 than it is now. The seas were teaming with phytoplankton which gorged on the sun and CO2 like had not been seen for a long time. This went on for millions of years. The phytoplankton not eaten, of which there was a colossal amount, then eventually died and settled on the bottom of the seabed where layer upon layer was buried in thick layers, and eventually baked at depth by a process known as catagenesis to form hydrocarbon liquid and gas. There it stayed for millions of years, locked under the surface of the earth until 20th century, where man intervened and brought the carbon in its combustible form to the surface where in only 100years half of those resources has been burnt by the petrol engine etc etc leading to millions of years worth of the carbon compound CO2 being pumped into the earths atmosphere in just one century.

Get that. Millions of years worth of hydrocarbons being consumed in 100 years only. Given the source, i.e. C02 from the earths atmosphere 175 million years ago, over millions of years, that is a lot of CO2 that we have pumped into our atmosphere in recent times.

The whole process has gone into reverse. So by far the biggest contributor to global warming is exactly as described above and not cow farts. So don’t worry guys about your sources of food.

This is correct. The levels of CO2 in the Jurassic were 5 times more than they are here today. This was due to extensive volcanic activity beforehand. There is a lot of evidence for this now. Review what is known as the Slow Carbon Cycle.

 

[Oldvatr]

It is soluble in seawater. The process can be found on the net. Seawater does indeed contain dissolved carbon dioxide.

Consider the process from CO2 to limestone. There are stages in between.

Response was off topic so deleted

 

[WackyJacky64]

We are being slowly forced into becoming vegetarians and that is against our human rights surly .

 

[annabell1]

Yes. Climate change is more important.

However by messing with the meat eaters they are barking up the wrong tree. 2nd verse, same as the first.

By not tackling climate change we face more of what is happening in Australia, less land to live on, less fish in the sea, more drought. So no land, no water so meat is lower down the pecking order.

not having a go at you but in my opinion the fires in Australia was not caused by climate change in my opinion. I know people that used to do cold burning before the summer / fire season but this is no longer allowed to be done because the greenies here have stopped letting these burns be done which ended up with fuel all over the land. the other problem is if there are leaves (basically fuel) they are also not allowed to be cleared from the areas aginst the law they must remain in the area. then comes 2019 we had fire bugs start fires and also fires caused by lighting strike which started these horrific fires because the land was full of fuel to cause these fires. the sad thing is we do not listen to the natives of Australia that is the Aboriginals who know the land and also did cold burning to prevent these fires many years ago. when did pollution become climate change.

 

[Benjamin030855]

Response was off topic so deleted

It cannot be off topic if the topic is on the perceived dominant role of farmed meat and dairy produce on planet wellbeing and current attempts or threats to reduce meat consumption. The underlaying assumption of the thread is incorrect and various posters mention climate change.

It is complex and there are many factors but the dominant factor by far on climate change is fossil fuels and not meat and dairy sources.

Once that is grasped the whole thread is neutralised and then overpopulation should be the focus as the threat to meat and dairy source supply’s. That of course is a different matter.

 

[Member496333]

Some good discussion in here. If only any of this was actually about real science, and not just Big Food and Big Climate protecting their interests.

 

[WackyJacky64]

Didn't have a lot to add to this thread it has been an entertaining read so far, but :***: are you watching to get your news! All your points have been totally debunked as right wing media spin. Murdoch at his best with the aid of his media cronies. Jeez I always thought people saw through blatant lies but obviously not.

I believe the Aboriginals, they are the native people of Australia .

 

[Goonergal]

This thread has meandered quite a lot, but please bear in mind the OP which was about possible restrictions in meat consumption due to concerns about climate change.

 

[Jaylee]

What was that we were saying about choice? Looks like we’re edging one step closer to the removal of it.

People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says. It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals. But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed. The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51210622

Oh wow Jim. Where do I begin..? Been avidly following this thread. But my thoughts staying on the specific topic..

To many people & dwindling choices.
I feel the "junk food" industry using these meat products should go..
To be fair, along with similar junk food ethos with vegitarian.
There are perfectly good whole food choices whatever anyone's feelings on animal wellfair.. (& putting diabetes aside.)

We are a self awair species at the top of the food chain. (Through a series of misfortunate the events for everything else has put us there.)
Some of our species have health issues & this "self awairness" has evolved to give us the option of choice, actioning & innovating in the name of "self preservation." (Another base instinct?)

We've just come out of the last "ice age" (pleisioncene epoch?) in the grand scheme of things. It only came down as far as Gloucester, then receded.. It may be still getting a little warmer?

Yep, we've been busy since the "industrial revolution."
But adulterating food for the poor hasn't really changed. Now it looks like we could be going back to the days of (from reading the link provided.) "Re foresting for leisure?
Look don't touch, hmm, "poaching" is still an illegal activity in the UK. Though basically comes under "animal cruelty" in the judges book. (Don't get me wrong. I don't see the point of killing anything if you don't plan to eat it.)

We've been sold a lot of stuff that is "covienient" in the hectic moments of our consumer lives.

These ideas are easy to sell in the absence of global common sense with birth control & an interstellar space program..

We are victims of our own success, & all they have basically found is another "sticking plaster."

Of course, I still don't see the actions proposed in your link as an answer to poverty & famine elsewhere on this spinning rock..

In short; it don't serve man nor beast.

Lol, been discussing this topic with my wife.. She wants to know. "Cut a fifth of what?"
Stopped me in my tracks & made me think.. That's why I married her..
What frequency do they think the meat eaters consume? (With the general populace.)

 

[AloeSvea]

Yes, this has been a really interesting-read thread for sure. Lots of links too, to look up.

Just a note on the 'global' aspect of these meat-as-food being controled by our governments (there are many many many governments globally remember! ) - I did an online search on one of my own countries - Aotearoa/New Zealand's - attitude to the WHO recommendation that we cut down meat eating, and it was interesting reading for me indeed.

I mentioned in another thread that had this topic that there are SO many sheep and cows, and possibly pigs and chickens here, that I cannot see the argricultural industry changing much any time soon - this landscape got transformed by European invader-immigrants to accomodate the cows and sheep etc they brought with them, and well and truly transformed it is (deforestation - well - we know about that!).

This is a very good article, :

https://www.noted.co.nz/health/heal...tion-of-new-zealands-meat-and-dairy-justified

but no mention of diabetics (combined with those with a compromised blood glucose regulation system which is about a third of the country) and the excellence of meat in particular, in using animal-food as a treatment. A terrible lack, which I hope changes soon, in the media, and people's minds.

Anyway - I liked this quote about we Kiwis -

"Are we now, in this new climate-crisis scenario, to dine on juicy lamb chops while the rest of the world chews hemp seed and the ocean laps at our feet? What is the Riddet Institute’s response to the clarion calls to shift to largely plant-based diets?"

It does have a good international perspective also, and some good links.

“The dietary guidelines issued by the IPCC are general and do not take account of local circumstances. Earth is a mosaic of different soils, climates and opportunities. We must have both animal and plant agriculture to achieve the most efficient food economy as well as balanced diets. I fully support the argument that because we are the lowest carbon-footprint producer of meat and dairy in the world, any reduction in our output will just create a vacuum for other, less-sustainable producers to fill, which they surely will. This may be worse for animal welfare, too. Of course, stocking levels are debatable, and we must continue to work very hard to reduce emissions or offset them down to zero; also to prevent water pollution, and constantly strive to improve the welfare of farm animals.”

 

[AloeSvea]

I have no problem with Greta, but I have major issues with the media who put her on a pedestal so others can guru-worship like she is spouting the truth. She is not, she is generally reading a prepared speech from autocue in a monotonic voice, We do not know if she writes it or someone else does, The face is a child, but the words that come out are adult beyond her years IMHO I see other schoolkids are now being groomed to take over from her.

She is certainly suspected of being manipulated by others because they need to indoctrinate our children. Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man (St Francis), It is worrying that in infant and junior schools these brainwashing techniques are being used to further a certain message. We will soon have a generation of schoolkids that may never see a farm animal except in old books

My other country is Sweden, so I must speak up on behalf of a fellow Swede .

Greta Thunberg has a genius IQ, or something close to it, as a 'neurodiverse' person. She is absolutely capable of writing her own speeches, and I am quite sure she does. The neurodiversity also accounts for her monotone voice - a common thing, along with lack of eye contact, from such folks. (I know a lot about this as I get to live with one - my very own Herr Svea.) She is small, I think, and does not have a curvy figure, like many slender Swedes, but she is a young adult, not a child.

Swedes are generally pretty straight talkers. One could say, even, it is a defining aspect of them. As well as their wonderful idealism. Thunberg is typical of a Swede in this way.

She has been unfairly bashed at the hands of that basher-in-chief - Trump. So has a lot of prejudice against her now, which is truly shocking.

Of course Generation Z have a right to and are inspired to talk to us elders about the life on earth they will inherit after we go! I feel that way about what happened with my food supply from the late 70s - I can get pretty strident on the subject myself, and towards my elders who did this to me!

I have never heard a Swede deny climate change. And in the Pacific where I am now - there are island nations preparing to leave their countries in droves, due to the ocean water level rising, along with the polar caps melting, due to - the climate change. I don't hear climate change denying here in the South Pacific either.

 

[Oldvatr]

Oh wow Jim. Where do I begin..? Been avidly following this thread. But my thoughts staying on the specific topic..

To many people & dwindling choices.
I feel the "junk food" industry using these meat products should go..
To be fair, along with similar junk food ethos with vegitarian.
There are perfectly good whole food choices whatever anyone's feelings on animal wellfair.. (& putting diabetes aside.)

We are a self awair species at the top of the food chain. (Through a series of misfortunate the events for everything else has put us there.)
Some of our species have health issues & this "self awairness" has evolved to give us the option of choice, actioning & innovating in the name of "self preservation." (Another base instinct?)

We've just come out of the last "ice age" (pleisioncene epoch?) in the grand scheme of things. It only came down as far as Gloucester, then receded.. It may be still getting a little warmer?

Yep, we've been busy since the "industrial revolution."
But adulterating food for the poor hasn't really changed. Now it looks like we could be going back to the days of (from reading the link provided.) "Re foresting for leisure?
Look don't touch, hmm, "poaching" is still an illegal activity in the UK. Though basically comes under "animal cruelty" in the judges book. (Don't get me wrong. I don't see the point of killing anything if you don't plan to eat it.)

We've been sold a lot of stuff that is "covienient" in the hectic moments of our consumer lives.

These ideas are easy to sell in the absence of global common sense with birth control & an interstellar space program..

We are victims of our own success, & all they have basically found is another "sticking plaster."

Of course, I still don't see the actions proposed in your link as an answer to poverty & famine elsewhere on this spinning rock..

In short; it don't serve man nor beast.

Lol, been discussing this topic with my wife.. She wants to know. "Cut a fifth of what?"
Stopped me in my tracks & made me think.. That's why I married her..
What frequency do they think the meat eaters consume? (With the general populace.)

The CCC Action plan Jim quotes was based on the Eat Lancet Global Diet for the Anthropocene Era which they published at the end of 2018. This calls for an 80% reduction in animal protein consumption, and the CCC agreed to introduce a 20% target as an annual target. Their progress report at the end of 2019 states very clearly that we did not meet the 2019 target because of Brexit, and that this year would need stronger measures. An annual cut of 20% over several years is still going to meet the stated goal by 2025 so is recoverable.

What determines consumption? Well the WHO maintains and collates annual census of every country in the world apart from N Korea and a few others, In UK the Foot and Mouth panic gave raise to legislation requiring all relevant animal births and deaths to be registered at DEFRA and this gives the UK production and the Red Meat levy gives the slaughtehouse (i.e. consumption) along with the import and export records.

We are facing the cliffedge of the no deal brexit in December which will automatically invoke 40% import and export tariffs on meat and livestock entering or leaving the country. This will immediately cause immense pressure on the livestock farmers, and so far the noises from Johnson et al seem to promote this walk away with no deal as if it is of little consequence, thus fuelling my suspicion that it was always planned to go that way.

Will they make us eat less meat? Or will we sleepwalk into it by ourselves? Our choice!

 

[lucylocket61]

Our choice!

How is it our choice when we, the people, have no power over those making the decisions. No say in the decision making. No ability to stop any legislation?

 

[Oldvatr]

How is it our choice when we, the people, have no power over those making the decisions. No say in the decision making. No ability to stop any legislation?

Its the same choice that the veggies on this site keep reminding us about, Perhaps if they were to read this thread they might understand our concerns better.

Edited by Mod
Edit to apologise for inappropriate comment that needed to be deleted.

 

[Jaylee]

The CCC Action plan Jim quotes was based on the Eat Lancet Global Diet for the Anthropocene Era which they published at the end of 2018. This calls for an 80% reduction in animal protein consumption, and the CCC agreed to introduce a 20% target as an annual target. Their progress report at the end of 2019 states very clearly that we did not meet the 2019 target because of Brexit, and that this year would need stronger measures. An annual cut of 20% over several years is still going to meet the stated goal by 2025 so is recoverable.

What determines consumption? Well the WHO maintains and collates annual census of every country in the world apart from N Korea and a few others, In UK the Foot and Mouth panic gave raise to legislation requiring all relevant animal births and deaths to be registered at DEFRA and this gives the UK production and the Red Meat levy gives the slaughtehouse (i.e. consumption) along with the import and export records.

We are facing the cliffedge of the no deal brexit in December which will automatically invoke 40% import and export tariffs on meat and livestock entering or leaving the country. This will immediately cause immense pressure on the livestock farmers, and so far the noises from Johnson et al seem to promote this walk away with no deal as if it is of little consequence, thus fuelling my suspicion that it was always planned to go that way.

Will they make us eat less meat? Or will we sleepwalk into it by ourselves? Our choice!

I don't disbelieve the climate is changing but that's a natural occurrence. Yep would be nice to pick up after ourselves on the environmental front.

Oddly enough, I don't hold with "conspiracy theories," but I would agree that there in individual Machiavellians angling for their own slice of the "pie."

"Sleepwalking?" Maybe these CCC initiatives are a "smoke screen " for something more distasteful going on elsewhere..?
Geopolitics is like a "pop up mole" game.

A little musical interlude with the words of this Bee Gee cover which sums up my thoughts on it all..

 

[jjraak]

Vegetarian discrimnated against at work... Seem rather unfair

Oh no is ok, its meat eaters.. As you were

 

[annabell1]

I would like to see who this author is that the BBC article written by Roger Harrabin keeps referring to and actually got the information from it only states the report was obtained by the "government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Changeand who wrote the recommendations to cutting meat consumption" but how did they get this data and how will it save our environment how did they conclude this study and prove that these changes will work.

I am always weary about articles etc that do not link to the actual study how the study was done to come to these conclusions and who paid for it.

The thing is you will mainly look at a study that reflects your beliefs if a study shows that eating vegan/vegetarian and you are vegan or vegetarian and it states the health benefits you will agree to the study the same applies if you're a meat eater and the sites study reports eating meat is healthier for us.

But Before believing a study or research I think we need to look at

who is paying for the study A lot of studies are made by industries who have their own agenda.

How the study was done by this I mean did they actually base the results on a clinical trial.

Check to see if it provides references and statistics to the study

Check the person who provided information is a reliable source

Check who is paying for the study if they are to benefit from the study to support their products or outcomes

Check if the person is not Bias or one sided in their believes.

Check the date of the study

Be wary of data written by an anonymous person

Check that their links actually are linked to the study etc they are reporting from.

Its a sad world when they start making people eat food that some people find hard to eat or makes them sick but we are being told or forced to eat these foods that can make us worse what exactly is the agenda who really is going to profit out of this.