Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. neRok

    neRok Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,253
    Location:
    Perth NOR
    There's been a steady stream of articles lately with grim stats like this. However, there is no point in posting in this thread, because this isn't where the deniers or fence-sitters live.

    Then we have prominent voices saying stuff like this (behind paywall, but you will get the gist): Business Council chief to lash the Act, saying ‘green tape’ is hurting the national economy, jobs

    Business Council chief to lash the Act, saying 'green tape' is hurting the ... a “silent and costly dead weight” on the national economy and jobs.​
     
  2. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,094
    Location:
    Brisbane
  3. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,318
    Location:
    Veg City
    Well played Melbourne Inner City - made the headlines. :cool:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...ouncil-decision-angers-meat-industry/11427866

    "[Moreland City Council should] maybe look at the harder questions around [how it operates] and the key areas they can cut back on [where] they themselves impact on [the environment], such as utilisation of certain machines and papers and how they manage waste, including food waste, in their council."


    Aaaaaand this is why we don't let ranches dictate climate policy.
     
  4. neRok

    neRok Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,253
    Location:
    Perth NOR
    Related: This Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cow Emissions by 99%—and It Could Soon Be a Climate Gamechanger

    Should the government be creating and running these seaweed farms, even if it isn't profitable to do so? Of course, that idea won't be accepted by a lot of people when considered on face value (leave it to the free market, etc). However, when you also take into consideration the current political climate, whereby voters will not accept taxes or cost increases, perhaps loss-making exercises like this could be the way to introduce meaningful changes? Being a new technology/industry then leads to the potential of being the world leader in it, which could lead to profits (via produce, or possibly even patents).
     
  5. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,227
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Yeah we leave it to the Coalition at a federal level, and councillors at a local level who'd rather dictate food choices to their guests than adjust the thermostat on their air con.

    One lot have to be seen to be not doing anything, and the other need to be seen to be doing anything at all.

    This has been known about for a while to some degree, how it would be commercialised is a good question, hopefully we'll see some movement on it sooner rather than later.
     
  6. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,318
    Location:
    Veg City
    Cut out the middle cow, we should be eating the seaweed ourselves and restoring as much land as we possibly can back into forest.
     
  7. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,227
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Could possibly be an option, I reckon seaweed is a great food. But beef production is largely done on land that wouldn't grow "forests" as such; and it's freehold, so if you mean "we" as in the government, they'd either have to buy it or incentivise the conversion to native vegetation.
    As I've said before in here, (largely to silence), removing the bulk of cattle and sheep operations from production will only directly remove their GHG emissions, and effectively remove the land from any productive use. It won't free up land for crops or reforestation in any large volumes, because the studies that are so often quoted around land use make extremely optimistic calculations around what would grow in Class 5 and below land, and that's when they've bothered to even look at land class rather than just raw hectares.

    If you have moral issues with consuming animal products, that's your call, but if a government came to power that dictated and end to animal agriculture, even phased, you would starve a huge number of people in poorer countries just to prove a political point.
     
  8. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,318
    Location:
    Veg City
    I used to think that too, until I read "The Bush" by Don Watson, and holy hell, did we fuck the forests to hell and back to the bring them to state that we have today. "The Bush" is a very grim read of the past 200 years of Australian History, detailing how wave after wave of settlers raped and pillaged everything precious in our forests back to mineral earth and dust storms. And make no mistake, today such destruction is still on going.

    10 facts about deforestation in Australia
    https://www.wilderness.org.au/news-events/10-facts-about-deforestation-in-australia

    Regarding your side note, how would we starve people in poorer countries if we stop feeding grain to live stock? :confused: Might need to check some numbers there...
     
  9. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,227
    Location:
    NW Tasmania


    No disagreement there. I'm personally dealing with a pretty major regeneration due to some highly questionable decisions made on my place from ~1870 to 1960.

    But the point is on the value of areas as carbon sinks. The super marginal areas that get posted up as the vegan "poor grazing practices" and climate change perpetrators wont grow shit. It's easy to point to coastal areas, the tropics and temperate zones, but that's where your crops are grown, not the bulk of free range beef production.

    If you want to test out a diet based on feed quality grain, be my guest. But morally, I'd find it objectionable to do the testing on poor people in developing countries after there's no going back just to satisfy vegan egos.

    If you're really serious about cow genocide, you'd have to do it globally, not just in Australia, otherwise you're just distorting the commodities and other countries will pick up the slack in supply due to higher prices.
     
  10. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,318
    Location:
    Veg City
    Very fair points, but also don’t forget what Brazil is doing to their great rainforests as we type, and have been doing for decades now- leveling it for cows.

    Interesting point about cattle quality feed. But like I said, let’s check some production numbers, and you take live stock out of the equation and suddenly there’s a whole lot of food that doesn’t need growing anymore. And for anything poor quality, it can be pushed to ethanol... which itself is another reason why our forests fell. :(
     
  11. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,227
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    I'm not forgetting it, I'm just being realistic about the influence that we can have on it. Individually we can't do anything about it, and our government has lost any moral and political capital they ever had on climate change in a global sense. And that's aside from the fact that developed countries are regularly telling developing ones that they can't do what we've already done.

    Nobody grows feed quality grain deliberately , and the only areas that might cease production in that setting would be pretty much desert anyway. Any grain that goes into ethanol raises food prices btw.
     
  12. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    14,392
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019 at 8:02 AM
  13. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,227
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Sort of like everyone else's consumption decisions? You can keep trying to deflect the whole problem onto farmers all you like, but the city dwellers unwavering demands for cheap food mean that most don't have the economic means to make wholesale changes even if it makes sense to.
     
  14. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    14,392
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    They eat what is offered.
    The demand side thing is a myth. Demand is manufactured by advertising and the supply side.
    The onus is on consumers to demand change to some degree.

    Or it’s just an advert for beef or seaweed...
    O wait ...
     
  15. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,227
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    So demand driven economics is a myth, but consumers need to demand change?

    It's pretty clear that your position is disliking farmers, and your wishy washy arguments are adjusted to support that position.
     
  16. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    14,392
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    Consumers won’t consume that which isn’t available.

    No it isn’t about disliking farmers.
    Ridiculous notion. I eat their produce.

    I dislike the plague paradigm.

    Consumers have some power to reject produce that is shoved at them, to a degree.

    But that depends on the menu offered (supply side)
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019 at 8:42 AM
  17. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,227
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Like you have a choice.

    How about you be a little more specific. What exactly are farmers growing that consumers want to reject in any real numbers?
     
  18. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    14,392
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    Whatever they don’t buy

    There is some choice.

    But constrained by supply.

    I choose not to buy ivory products of increasingly endangered species for example.

    With such wide product ranges there’s quite a lot of choice. But only of what is offered.

    Hardly a point worth making, seems obvious.

    But it is largely up to the supply side obviously to set limits and all sorts of issues related to what is acceptable to people in society making choices.

    If it is carte Blanch consumer whim driving the market with no regard for consequences where anything goes. Cos that’s what consumer wants. There’s also a choice not to supply that desire. For whatever reasons.

    It isn’t just point the finger at “the other”

    Whether supplier or consumer or both.

    Vegetarians might push their reasons.
    I eat a little beef. Some eat a lot.

    I don’t particularly want to push angst about beef with you. :lol: in a beef cattle genocide. But that was tree plant. Not me.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019 at 12:09 PM

Share This Page

Advertisement: