I eat meat too. I too control my diet to control my diabetes. But taking a step back I have to say that climate change should take priority. That said the focus should not be on restricting supplies and consumption of meat as it should be on the chief culprit fossil fuels.Should we not also consider the health of all the type 2 diabetics in existence right now?
You are trying to make our perfectly reasonable need to have access to foods which are essential for controlling our medical conditions look selfish.
It's not. Requiring and asking for reasonable accommodations and available foods for medical reasons is not selfish.
Then there is no hope.What part of "it is already happening" do you struggle with? Do you think the fields, ecosystems etc can be put back?
This is an international agreement . By the UN. Not a local policy.
We can prove collectively
It is simple, mobilise and tell the story;
We can show that "our" method works better than Dr Neal Bernard’s with facts, and that animal agriculture is the only natural way to maintain soil health and perversely the nutrients within plants....aaaaarh.
Whilst I agree entirely, this doesn’t yet seem to be happening on anything like the scale the current elimination of meat message is being spread.everyone who cares should do what they can, and provide support to those who are prepared to put up and not shut up
Well Said. I note that today the Sun newspaper has an article on Keep Farm and Carry On in which it questions whether the global vegan diet will actually have any impact on global warming. This is the first time I have seen a mainstream media outlet actually question this. Well done, the Sun.Whilst I agree entirely, this doesn’t yet seem to be happening on anything like the scale the current elimination of meat message is being spread.
I suspect even for those of us that agree already and believe in the points you list the issue is the majority have no idea how to practically spread the word or prove it to those that can influence population level decisions. Or even what actions to take to support those that are doing it. Liking a few posts seems unsubstantial enough to catch up in the game and really be heard.
If I was not a diabetic struggling to keep control of my condition to reduce risk of collateral damage, then I would not have done the research I have done into finding out how my body works, and how it relates to what I eat. It also, as you point out, provides me with the tools I need such as bgl meters, periodic blood tests for a fairly full panel of tests that normal people do not get unless they have a chronic condition to justify it, So I can see quite quickly what effects food has on my health.And you can prove this for around a tenner, with a blood glucose monitor. This is the sword of truth.
However, the considerable reduction in meat and dairy is a global push.On a minor (but getting very long-winded) note:
to me there are two kinds of Climate Change.
(1) Part of the natural cycle of the solar system and our Earth in particular.
At one point the UK was under ice.
At one point the UK (as was then) supported a tropical/sub-tropical climate (as shown by the limestone deposits and fossil record).
We are currently emerging from a mini ice age.
North Africa was fertile in Roman times. There is now the Sahara Desert. This pre-dates a massive population, massive automated agriculture, and the Chelsea Tractor by a couple of Millennia.
(2) Anthropogenic (created by man) climate change. Our impact on the planet is obvious. However I am still not sure that the impact has been quantified.
So I think that the term "Climate Change denier" can be confusing and misleading. Accepting that the climate is changing doesn't necessarily accept that this is entirely man made, nor does it prove that taking various proposed actions will stop and/or reverse the change. Mitigate, perhaps.
Taking action should improve things. We are pretty sure that the ban on CFCs helped repair the Ozone layer.
However the planet itself can do things without our puny help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
Natural release of green house gasses is taking place all the time.
I am not sure that areas of high vulcanicity, such as NZ and Japan for instance, include the background emissions as part of their total carbon budget.
Mid-ocean ridges have a lot to answer for.
So for me the jury is still out.
It makes sense to try and not make things worse, as long as the metrics are realistic.
To me, personally in the UK, building more nuclear power stations for a sustainable base load and electrifying the railways instead of relying on diesel might be more effective than destroying the meat industry.
Then again, demonising meat is no doubt more "woke" and plays better in the popular media.
For example, the calculations for electric vehicles don't always take into account the costs of manufacture, electricity generation, non-fuel particulates, disposal, battery replacement etc.
So reducing the production of greenhouse gasses seems a good idea.
However don't be shocked if it doesn't have the expected impact.
As I noted earlier, stopping meat production in the UK doesn't mean no meat.
It just means you import the meat.
I eat meat too. I too control my diet to control my diabetes. But taking a step back I have to say that climate change should take priority. That said the focus should not be on restricting supplies and consumption of meat as it should be on the chief culprit fossil fuels.
Maybe if we spoke to all non diabetics they would prefer to eat less meat rather than use a bicycle to go to work? I don’t know. Maybe that is where the real problem lays.
What medication is this? I must have missed this announcement.Not something I would stake my future on.
However if a week is a long time in politics a decade is a long time in research.
I am not advocating the banning of meat production and consumption, but it does occur to me that if the proposed medication to negate IR does prove to work without major side effects then much of the drivers behind a meat heavy diet may go away for T2s.
Electric vehicles is an interesting one. Firstly, the Grid will not support the need for all those necessary charging stations, and will collapse soon. Obviously, we need to move to a public transport rather than getting everyone to buy and use their own vehicles. The other problem with current strategy is that there is not enough lithium or similar electrolytes to make all those batteries, especially since they are also required to provide storage on the Grid for the renewables. finally there will need to be monumental investment into replacing the grid, the public transport infrastructure, and the power stations. The important thing is: it is doable and we have the technology. We need the will. followed by the shall.On a minor (but getting very long-winded) note:
to me there are two kinds of Climate Change.
(1) Part of the natural cycle of the solar system and our Earth in particular.
At one point the UK was under ice.
At one point the UK (as was then) supported a tropical/sub-tropical climate (as shown by the limestone deposits and fossil record).
We are currently emerging from a mini ice age.
North Africa was fertile in Roman times. There is now the Sahara Desert. This pre-dates a massive population, massive automated agriculture, and the Chelsea Tractor by a couple of Millennia.
(2) Anthropogenic (created by man) climate change. Our impact on the planet is obvious. However I am still not sure that the impact has been quantified.
So I think that the term "Climate Change denier" can be confusing and misleading. Accepting that the climate is changing doesn't necessarily accept that this is entirely man made, nor does it prove that taking various proposed actions will stop and/or reverse the change. Mitigate, perhaps.
Taking action should improve things. We are pretty sure that the ban on CFCs helped repair the Ozone layer.
However the planet itself can do things without our puny help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
Natural release of green house gasses is taking place all the time.
I am not sure that areas of high vulcanicity, such as NZ and Japan for instance, include the background emissions as part of their total carbon budget.
Mid-ocean ridges have a lot to answer for.
So for me the jury is still out.
It makes sense to try and not make things worse, as long as the metrics are realistic.
To me, personally in the UK, building more nuclear power stations for a sustainable base load and electrifying the railways instead of relying on diesel might be more effective than destroying the meat industry.
Then again, demonising meat is no doubt more "woke" and plays better in the popular media.
For example, the calculations for electric vehicles don't always take into account the costs of manufacture, electricity generation, non-fuel particulates, disposal, battery replacement etc.
So reducing the production of greenhouse gasses seems a good idea.
However don't be shocked if it doesn't have the expected impact.
As I noted earlier, stopping meat production in the UK doesn't mean no meat.
It just means you import the meat.
I believe Byetta and Victoza had similar fanfares when they were announced. Now they are out in the big world outside, they are proving to not be the pancea that was once offered, I would suggest delay until the field trials are written up before coming off my successful lifestyle. PS I am NOT a heavy meat user. I am a user of meat and dairy products, and I also use vegetables.
On a minor (but getting very long-winded) note:
As I noted earlier, stopping meat production in the UK doesn't mean no meat.
It just means you import the meat.
Not sure that's the plan at all.
...proper research...
If you look at the emergency tariffs to be levied in the event of the No Deal Brexit last year, then you will see that beef and lamb imports and exports were severly surcharged compared to other items, and were singled out in the entry text for special attention. Meanwhile grain and Soya imports were tariff free. Level playing field? I think notfully agreed, and you had me ..until that last line.
Not sure that's the plan at all.
we'll still have meat, it'll just be more expensive..demand outstripping supply..
and i f we stop farming so much, i think peer pressure will mean others will farm less.
Trade tariffs, import duties, new anti climatre taxes etc, will make that less attractive, so the tumble down of numbers will continue and accelerate, most likely
particularly among the poorest who NEED a harvest to sell every years/season.
So razing fields to plant bio fuels while some of the world starves...possible
or maybe some go the way of the afghan farmers and so many in south america, and grow poppy for those willing to risk buying and selling it to our schoolkids..?
unintended consequences of well intentioned ideals
the 20th century and our own are littered with them, sadly.
but as said..agree with most.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?