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

They Are Trying To Make Me Sick or Worse

Status
Not open for further replies.
beans and pulses and grasses make us fart, right? so instead of the cows and sheep farting and causing global warming, we are going to to have humans doing far more farting. Isnt that going to cause the same problem with climate change and methane? and we will all have to eat a long more plant based stuff, wiping out most of the land reclaimed from not growing crops for animals?

serious question.
 
Was gonna post but on balance, more peaceful not to bother... don't need the hassle tbh
 

Let's hope the majority of a person's' gas burner', is in the comfort of their own home

*Not deliberately derailing the Op's thread*
 

I read recently that methane is carbon neutral anyway. It degrades in the atmosphere within a period of around ten years. So in other words so long as the numbers of livestock don’t meaningfully increase, methane has no impact. I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, and I don’t pretend to be an expert on the matter, but certainly it seems that, as is tradition, the farting cows argument is just more misdirection.
 
Twelve years, and it's not from farting it is from belching.
 
Since I reduced my carbs to about a tenth of my former intake, I fart a lot less, and when I do they no longer smell! So around here I have created my own clean air zone - my bit for the environment.
 
The amount of cattle are around 1.5 billion at the moment, I wonder what an upper limit would be.
 
As I said earlier, plant matter decays and gives off methane and Co2, The amount released is the same whether in the gut of a ruminant, or a human, or even while decaying on the ground. It is a chemical process and it is the speed of reaction that may differ in each of the aforementioned reactor vessels.

The real problem that we face is in the burning of fossil fuels. Leaving them buried in the rock strata is sequestration going right, using them for heat and power is releasing too much in a short space of time, and that is the cause of the greehouse effect.

The animals are not to blame - humans are......
 
It is a diversion. Compare just the emissions from the transport industry and there is no contest. Dare I say it but compare the emission data between domesticated ruminants and vegan transport (yes, that was a pop at the Stordalen's) now there's data I'd like to see. Fossil fuels folks.
 
It seems we were typing at the same time but basically coming to the same conclusions. Great minds eh?
 
When Eat Lancet did their science bit in the FReSH study, they added up all the transport costs and tractor costs of having animal feed grown on rainforest land after deforestation in the Amazon, tranporting it to say Europe then raising the cattle. But the figures they used for plant based agriculture had no transport costs added. So that is why the Eat Lancet report has much larger animal emissions of CO2 than grains, and is why the WHO disowned them for fiddling with their data. They deliberately distorted the resource requirements by assuming too that the Soy plantations , the Sugar Cane plantations and the ground nut plantations from deforestation lands are used for animal feed, whereas they are main ingredients in modern food and cosmetics industries.

Beef is lot fed maize and cornstarch, which are not suitable foe human consumption in any great amounts. Not prime corn intended for humans, which is much more expensive. So thst is another falsehood being promugulated by that bunch. That animals are using up precious human grade feedstuffs and occupying land that should be producing crops instead. Even the water used is recycled back onto the land via slurry pits and it is only in washing the carcasses that clean water is necessary.
 
This thread seems to contain a lot of hysteria about forced reduction in meat consumption but it seems to be based on a conspiracy theory. A report recommends cutting back on meat, but that is a long way from it being forced on people. It is already happening in Canada apparently, but I can only find references to a reduction in meat consumption due to voluntary adoption of vegetarian diet, not government legislation, perhaps @NoCrbs4Me can shed some light. China aims to reduce meat production by 50% but they already produce half the world's pork and they are investing heavily in beef production in the US. Even in that totalitarian state there are no laws about eating meat. Just imagine the resistance to: Americans or Australians prevented from eating steaks and burgers, Germans, Austrians and Czechs prevented from eating pork, the French prevented from eating lamb and duck etc etc. There are no doubt invested interests in the agricultural industry but there is also a very large and powerful livestock and poultry industry.
 

"Third, the full range of policy levers is likely to be needed. Faced with challenges, policy makers might initially implement soft policy interventions, such as consumer advice, information, education, or, in the case of food, labelling. These interventions assume that consumer actions will generate sufficient change and are slow in effect unless mass public interest in change exists. However, the scale of change to the food system is unlikely to be successful if left to the individual or the whim of consumer choice. This change requires reframing at the population and systemic level. By contrast, hard policy interventions include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration, and other economic and structural measures. These interventions alter conditions in which the whole population exists. The type of interventions adopted is the prerogative of governments, people, and processes. However, countries and authorities should not restrict themselves to narrow measures or soft interventions. Too often policy remains at the soft end of the policy ladder."

From The Lancet "Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission"

Be afraid... be very afraid..
 
A conspiracy theory is no longer a theory when it is published in black & white by the conspirators.
 
I used to have your optimism and thought the same way too, but events have moved on since then. Conspiracy implies secret or hidden agenda. This report that you dismiss so lightly is available on the Lancet website, the EAT Lancet website and has been reported on by most of the worlds media.

The consotium behind the report, who paid for it to be produced and promoted worldwide, and also funded the science studies quoted in the same report (most of the referenced science studies listed in this report were written by the same people writing the main report), and who also carried out the 'independant' reviews of said report, These are all mentioned in the report or stated on their website. They are proud of their achievement.

I expected there to be outrage too at the 80% reduction by 2050 but the world is strangely silent. When it is discussed on TV or Radio, the only people in the discussion are known vegan activists and authors of this report, and there is very little counter argument being raised. No equivalent environmental scientists discussing the science claims, no other nutritionists discussing the health claims being made. No agricultural voices being included to review the claims being made for alternate food growing methods.

This report that you belittle has been presented this year to the United Nation, Unesco, the EU Climate Change Symposium, the Davros Leaders meeting, UK Commons Select Committee on Climate Change, The Lords Committee on Climate Change, The Governments of Mexico, Canada, China, Phillipines, and many Africsn nations, and yes to Australia too. It has been accepted by most of these nations and legislation and taxation is going to follow this year in the UK if May gets her way. The Commons Select Comittee have drafted a report that recommends targets that will probably be used to underpin the new Act of Parliament that we can expect in the coming months. I believe it sets a 50% cut by 2030 and an 80% cut by 2050 in consumption of meat. We do not know if it will be limited to just beef and pork, or include poultry and dairy, or fish

Can we achieve those limits by voluntary means alone? Will we all reduce down to 1 very small beef burger a week and 1 egg per week by 2050? And if we do what then? The overproduction of meat must be curtailed to align with the drop in demand, sending most livestock farmers out of business. They will cull their herds as is happening in China to their pork industry, bulldozed into the ground. These animals will not be kept in retirement no one can afford that, so bye bye to all that. Will that happen naturally or will big sticks need to be used?
 
And the louder the guidelines, recommendations, (cherry picked, poor quality) research based education grows the less chance we will have to be heard in response before the legislation follows. Once it is in place too late then to object.
 
I am not hysterical, I am fuming. Zoe Harcombe and others have combed through the diet proposed by EAT Lancet and found it to be nutrient deficient. Cui bono? Big Food i.e Grains, pseudo grains and legumes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…