• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Member496333
  • Start Date Start Date
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.”
 
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,
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:

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


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.)
 
Last edited:
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.”
 

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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Last edited:

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..

 
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.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…