Should be compulsory
Will you change your diet because of Climate Change?
- Thread starter Judgeneo
- Start date
Should be compulsory
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,590
best thing I've read all day. doubt anyone will be laughing when that day comes, even those astride their high horses!
ban meat!
that'll learn em
Who said you need to kill a cow for milk?
that'll learn em
Are we going to give up drinking cow's milk, as well eating as their beef, to reduce methane emissions (after reducing the amount of cattle to the ones sacred in (Hindu?) countries?
Who said you need to kill a cow for milk?
Last edited:
Generating electricity and space heating I would imagine
Cement manufacture is also an enormous contributor but is excluded from the figures on the grounds that the CO2 generated in producing the cement will, eventually, be reabsorbed.
This is why a vast expansion of nuclear electric generation is the only way that any significant dent is to be made in CO2 production.
Meat will skyrocket in price anyway once the world population grows further and demand for it increases in places like China. People will only change their habits once it starts hurting their wallet. Maybe the meat/protein growing in a petri dish will work out and solve that problem.
Food be it meat/milk/veg is already expensive and production is subsidised by the EU to bring those costs down.
Who said you need to kill a cow for milk?
You dont, You milk the Cows and eat the Bulls. That is how it works!
In very blunt and simplistic terms yes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,308
I could indeed... at least those who wish to hunt and provide for their families, anyway. As it happens, I have done this and there are loads of free-range farms around here too. Pretty practical from where I'm sat.
I have killed animals every now and then, either through direct hunting or by trapping, though always with the aim of feeding off it as well... except the fish because I hate trout, so that went on everyone else's plate.
It's impractical if the whole population were to take it up, perhaps... although we'd come sustainably close if we just went for a drive late at night - Almost hit a deer Monday night that would have fed my family (dogs included) right through to the Sunday Roast!
But then we are supposedly way past a sustainable population anyway, so even more unnatural...
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 668
If we lower our meat consumption will we reduce the average UK height to that of vegetable-eating countries? This is exactly what the govt wants to impose their tyranny on us - short people that can't defend themselves. I am posting this discovery to infowars ASAP.
Also VeganGains is a govt shill. I tried vegan diet and lost all my gains.
Also VeganGains is a govt shill. I tried vegan diet and lost all my gains.
Soldato
If live stock =15% and also = more than all transportation on earth combined. At a max live stock and transport takes 29.9recurring so I'm more concerned about what the other 70.1% is coming from?
Either way sorry but bacon is good for me!
Either way sorry but bacon is good for me!
Energy production, manufacturing, concrete etc.
Soldato
Of course!
It's just the way you see the media drone on about how we need to have special recycling bins and light bulbs and drive less. How much does the government practice lowering these problematic gases? Is this documented anywhere I would love to read it
I believe very strongly, that confronted with a choice of saving the planet/whales/snow leopards or continuing to live comfortably, most people will opt for enjoying the here and now.
If you could prove that 5 more years of cars would bring about the end of the world, most people would say "Oh well, we've got 5 years, let's enjoy it." Silly example, I know. But the principle is nobody wants to give up anything. Science can only go so far... science cannot change people's attitudes or the selfish impulses of the great majority of the world.
I'd personally be happy to cut down/give up on meat, because it's not a big deal for me. Giving up something like TV or computers would be a much bigger ask.
If you could prove that 5 more years of cars would bring about the end of the world, most people would say "Oh well, we've got 5 years, let's enjoy it." Silly example, I know. But the principle is nobody wants to give up anything. Science can only go so far... science cannot change people's attitudes or the selfish impulses of the great majority of the world.
I'd personally be happy to cut down/give up on meat, because it's not a big deal for me. Giving up something like TV or computers would be a much bigger ask.
If by next few years you mean "not for several decades at least" then sure.
Of course!
It's just the way you see the media drone on about how we need to have special recycling bins and light bulbs and drive less. How much does the government practice lowering these problematic gases? Is this documented anywhere I would love to read it
Not noticed the push for renewables? Or nuclear? Or grants and schemes for electric cars and charging points, and ever increasing emission standards for cars (when they don't cheat)
These things however are decade long projects, way pass are 2020 commitments. Things like light bulbs make perfect sense, old inefficient styles aren't needed. And they lower power usage which lowers emissions.