Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Food, Nutrition and Recipes
And so it begins: Eat less meat or we’ll make you.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oldvatr" data-source="post: 2202993" data-attributes="member: 196898"><p>Last month there were reports of a marsh in Ethiopia region that suddenly burped more methane than all the cows in the world. It does this from time to time, and is not the only source of methane emissions that are naturally generated such as volcanos and flooded regions. The Environmentalists ignore these natural sources since they are not Man Made, but they dwarf the cows output. For 'man made' consider the output from the sewage farms and landfill for a start since these too are ignored in the calculations. Anyone living downwind of a marsh or midden will tell you it varies with the seasons and the weather, so not predictable either. Any patch of vegetation will generate methane if it suddenly gets wet and rots. One of the largest contributors to methane emission that is conveniently forgotten is the humble rice paddy field, amd these are significant generators that are not included in the GHG statistics. The WHO acknowledges that their analysis in this area was poorly executed, and two directors of WHO were removed from office last year for gross misrepresentation. Their department was responsible for working out the environmental cost of various man made practices. When calculating the cost of livestock. they included all transport costs, but when looking at vegetable and fruit and grain, they left the shipping effects out, so did not compare like for like at all. So all meat had a virtual journey to slaughterhouses across europe and back via Belgium for cleaning and packaging, but tomatoes and avacadoes all were grown local to the retail outlet with no transport overhead. Forget flying bunches of flowers around the world from Amsterdam and Ghana. or tomatoes from Israel. No carbon footprint there then.</p><p>So yes the statistics that support the environmental arguments are often built on sand.</p><p></p><p>As [USER=41885]@lucylocket61[/USER] said, those of us using certain diets to control our condition will suffer a major challenge in the coming years as our choices are eroded and blocked. For us there is at least the backstop of using insulin to compensate. I wonder what this thread would read like if there were no vegan friendly sources of insulin and we were being threatened with losing porcine insulin forever.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldvatr, post: 2202993, member: 196898"] Last month there were reports of a marsh in Ethiopia region that suddenly burped more methane than all the cows in the world. It does this from time to time, and is not the only source of methane emissions that are naturally generated such as volcanos and flooded regions. The Environmentalists ignore these natural sources since they are not Man Made, but they dwarf the cows output. For 'man made' consider the output from the sewage farms and landfill for a start since these too are ignored in the calculations. Anyone living downwind of a marsh or midden will tell you it varies with the seasons and the weather, so not predictable either. Any patch of vegetation will generate methane if it suddenly gets wet and rots. One of the largest contributors to methane emission that is conveniently forgotten is the humble rice paddy field, amd these are significant generators that are not included in the GHG statistics. The WHO acknowledges that their analysis in this area was poorly executed, and two directors of WHO were removed from office last year for gross misrepresentation. Their department was responsible for working out the environmental cost of various man made practices. When calculating the cost of livestock. they included all transport costs, but when looking at vegetable and fruit and grain, they left the shipping effects out, so did not compare like for like at all. So all meat had a virtual journey to slaughterhouses across europe and back via Belgium for cleaning and packaging, but tomatoes and avacadoes all were grown local to the retail outlet with no transport overhead. Forget flying bunches of flowers around the world from Amsterdam and Ghana. or tomatoes from Israel. No carbon footprint there then. So yes the statistics that support the environmental arguments are often built on sand. As [USER=41885]@lucylocket61[/USER] said, those of us using certain diets to control our condition will suffer a major challenge in the coming years as our choices are eroded and blocked. For us there is at least the backstop of using insulin to compensate. I wonder what this thread would read like if there were no vegan friendly sources of insulin and we were being threatened with losing porcine insulin forever. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Food, Nutrition and Recipes
And so it begins: Eat less meat or we’ll make you.
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…