Vegan
Comments
-
Massaging the stats to make things look better than they are doesn’t seem useful to me. Questioning mainstream science about raising livestock being highly detrimental to both climate and biodiversity, gets us into the realms of climate change denial.
A quote by a climate scientist on CNN (Professor Bill McGuire of UCL) went something like this, ‘"If the fracturing of our once stable climate doesn't terrify you, then you don't fully understand it’.
So far I’ve mentioned veganism as a rational reaction to a climate emergency, which could buy us much needed time (we’ve passed the 1.5C target and are looking at 2c warming) . Even if it (less meat consumption) was just a stopgap until sustainable meat production became mainstream, possibly using precision fermentation, it would be of benefit
Business as usual seems to be the consensus, but won’t work.
0 -
last post from me about this. Out!
0 -
Yes, this is one of the conflicts in what counts as green. See also nuclear energy.
That said, if you care about the environment as you seem to and everyone has become vegan, it would seem silly to not switch to organic at the same time.
Plus, the plan is to decarbonise everything including farm vehicles.
0 -
I do find that Chickpeas and Green Lentils increase my methane output considerably. 😉
X that by the number of vegans in the world. It might be contributing to GHG.
Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
They should simply change the target to 5 degrees and we can all calm down for a while.
And Bacon.
0 -
As is often the case with many discussions, especially those surrounding climate change mitigation (e.g. "there's not the infrastructure to support 100% electric cars", " . . . if everyone was vegan 'x' would happen") people tend to look to the extreme end to form a basis for an argument against the measures.
However, if we look at the issues from the "mid point" (i.e. 50% vehicles were electric, people ate 50% less meat), there would be huge gains on the route to climate stabilisation. I don't think, for instance, it would be a huge sacrifice right now for anyone (especially in the UK) to halve their weekly meat consumption or halve single person journeys in privately owned non-electric vehicles (on average around the country), take 50% fewer flights per year, properly insulate house and so on. I am sure there are many other examples.
Much as it needs to, 100% reduction will not be achieved in our lifetimes. It is a generational thing. As people are educated (or alarmed!) into a more sustainable way of life, the next generation could be eating 20% of the meat that is consumed now. Cars could be 100% electric (it is conceivable that this may be achieved with domestic vehicles in our lifetimes). Energy could, I think, be pretty much 100% renewable in the next generation.
None of the above takes into account the inevitable advances in science and technology that will also play a big part in climate change mitigation that will emerge from one generation to the next.
To refuse to make changes right now on the basis of "whataboutery" is pretty shortsighted, willfully ignorant and very selfish given the magnitude of the problem the earth is facing and that humans have created.
Given the overwhelming weight of evidence and consensus within the scientific community, the argument against climate mitigation measures is, frankly suicide for the human race and genocide for most of all life as we know it.
Wilier Izoard XP1 -
If I took 50% fewer flights last year, I'd still be in Corfu!
Actually, you might be on to something there...
2
