Greta Thunberg

Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,169
But the point is great. The dog doesn't understand what is right and wrong. He eats what he has evolved to eat through thousands of year. Humans seems to forget we have evolved over tens of thousands of years with meat in our diet. You cannot just switch off that tap over night without complications in health.
Food cravings in humans are linked to nutrient deficiencies, although obviously not always.

I don't see why it would be different in animals.

evolution pretty much determined the diet, you can't suddenly change it, some animals can they even process vegetables? the strictly carnivores or is it just that in nature it would be impossible to meet their protein requirements with vegetation/fruit/seeds/nuts etc

not like they are reliable food sources either, every animal on the planet goes vegan and probably all of them are going extinct...
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
10,987
The lack of meat is making you thought process wonky

Please don't go back and edit this - hopefully my quote maintains your spelling/grammar mistakes :cry:

Apparently the cholesterol from your high meat diet is shrinking the blood vessels to your brain :cry:

If he does go back and edit it, it read:

"The lack of meat is making you thought process wonky"

You thought process wonky, ugg ugg :D

Even though cavemen nearly constantly ate only plant based diets.....
 
Caporegime
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Posts
25,572
So, you spend the same as I do each week but you grow veg and herbs. So, how is a vegan diet more expensive? And, as I’ve demonstrated, you don’t have to eat the same stuff. I appreciate some stuff is certainly more expensive, oat milk for example is a fair bit more than dairy milk. However in my experience I’m spending a lot less than when I ate meat and fish.

LOL, it's a few veggies from the garden, not a 100 acre farm.

Broadly speaking it seems my diet including meat costs about the same as your vegan diet. There's no financial disincentive to change between the two, but no financial incentive either.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,785
It would be interesting to see what correlation exists between Vegan diet (for ecological reasons) and household income.
(ie. there is a vegan premium, be that down to genuine supply costs or just manufacturer margins), and also, correlation with International flight use
(ie vegans, in a contrary attitude are consuming carbon elsewhere that dwarfes dietary benefits)
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
"Greta Thunberg has called Cop26 climate summit a “failure” and said meaningful action to stop the climate crisis will only come from “massive pressure from the outside”.

Speaking at a surprise panel event chaired by Emma Watson on Thursday, the 18-year-old environmental activist said “change will not come from inside any of these conferences”."

Cop26: Political leaders ‘passing responsibility of saving world to young activists’ (msn.com)



No wonder why - stupid Australia has all the land on Earth for solar installations, yet burns coal like no tomorrow :mad:


"The Morrison government will not join more than 40 countries committing to phase out coal power, with Angus Taylor declaring Australia was focused on developing technology not “wiping out industries”.

The pledge at the Cop26 climate summit to end the use of coal power – by the 2030s “or as soon as possible thereafter” for the wealthy, and the 2040s by developing nations – was backed by five of the biggest 20 coal power users: South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Poland and Ukraine."

Australia refuses to join 40 nations phasing out coal as Angus Taylor says Coalition won’t ‘wipe out industries’ (msn.com)
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jan 2018
Posts
14,658
Location
Hampshire
Rich people need to act, the top 1% that is - more so than the average person. Greta is right, its 'Blah blah blah' typical virtue signalling from the elite while continuing as normal.

There is a good article here.

The richest 1% – which is a population smaller than Germany – are on track to be releasing 70 tonnes of CO2 per person a year if current consumption continues, according to the study. In total they will account for 16% of total emissions by 2030, up from 13% of emissions in 1990. Meanwhile, the poorest 50% will be releasing an average of one tonne of CO2 annually
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,059
To be fair, some of their local utilities are pumping solar and wind like no tomorrow. Solar is seeing a huge uptake across Australia from its citizens and its cyclical with their usage due to air conditioning being everywhere.

The issue is that their existing infrastructure is coal based like ours is gas based. Neither of us are going to turn that off until what ever replacing it is in place.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
The gas infrastructure even more contributes to the global warming because burning gas releases much more potent greenhouse gas methane.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
8,833
To be fair, some of their local utilities are pumping solar and wind like no tomorrow. Solar is seeing a huge uptake across Australia from its citizens and its cyclical with their usage due to air conditioning being everywhere.

The issue is that their existing infrastructure is coal based like ours is gas based. Neither of us are going to turn that off until what ever replacing it is in place.

In fairness solar is pro cyclic daily and annually with demand in most of Australia due to Air Conditioning demand. But at present there is no replacement for fossil fuels for security of supply. Only Norway to the best of my knowledge can store enough renewable energy to meet its needs.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Posts
19,798
Location
Glasgow
It would be interesting to see what correlation exists between Vegan diet (for ecological reasons) and household income.
(ie. there is a vegan premium, be that down to genuine supply costs or just manufacturer margins), and also, correlation with International flight use
(ie vegans, in a contrary attitude are consuming carbon elsewhere that dwarfes dietary benefits)

I suggest there’s a correlation between richer (better off would be a better phrase perhaps) households and those who are interested/do something. Look at the Insulate Britain protesters, or the ones I see in Glasgow seem older and ‘better off’. However, it’s also likely that those better off households are more polluting so perhaps feel they need to do something. I live in a poor area, and there’s no one round here caring/interested/doing much from what I can tell!

We’ve got a bin strike, but the majority of houses in my street put their bins out to be collected (and most are still out, full) so I’d argue that would suggest people here, in a poor area, aren’t particularly aware of current affairs and potentially climate issues. Whereas you go to the richer areas and there are more posters, flyers, recylcying opportunities, etc.

I have a decent household income, and prepandemic I flew a lot for leisure and suspect I will again in a couple of years. I guess I’m therefore aware I ought to try and do something elsewhere to try and offset it, even partially. I also don’t want/have kids which I suppose brings my average down. However I do work in the car trade which isn’t particularly great! I appreciate it could be called hypocritical but you can do what you can, and lots of small changes will make bigger change. Certainly the supermarkets are providing more vegan/plant based options due to customer demand. However, driving my 2.2 diesel car to the supermarket to buy my vegan groceries probably does undo a fair bit of work.

I guess my position is do what you can, and try and do better. Im getting the train, and paying much more for it, than flying for my next trip for example.
I disagree that there is a vegan premium though.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
36,743
Location
Southampton, UK
Bad excuse given how much wind they can exploit, too:


Your map doesn't really show much and for some reason your slapdash approach to evidence grates on me, despite the fact I agree with your high-level points.

Australia does have opportunities for wind generation but also has significant challenges, such as much of the wind generation capacity being well away from the population centres and therefore sources of demand. Transmission is a huge barrier to onshore wind, although offshore does look more promising.

This is a much more informative map:

Aus.jpg
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jan 2018
Posts
14,658
Location
Hampshire
Your map doesn't really show much and for some reason your slapdash approach to evidence grates on me, despite the fact I agree with your high-level points.

Its not just me then, his ridiculous argument about North sea wind being a prime example. He cant seem to grasp that wind speed and direction is not a constant.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Its not just me then, his ridiculous argument about North sea wind being a prime example. He cant seem to grasp that wind speed and direction is not a constant.

The North Sea is an extremely wind-intense hotspot and is perfect as is for wind energy generation.. :D

The only better place for wind energy generation along the UK islands is way off the west coast deep into the Atlantic Ocean :rolleyes:

 
Back
Top Bottom