Climate catastrophe

zeupater

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

... Yes the flying was a negative and I have looked into a company to plant trees or some other kind of help to combat the carbon from that trip for my husband and I. Not the best however better than nothing ...

Hi

Again, it's virtually impossible to offset the carbon from flying ... fossil carbon from millions of years ago has been released into the high atmosphere & it'll likely take millions of short carbon cycles to lock it away underground again ...

Anyway, on offsetting ... just like many others around the country, there's a scheme around here where various individuals paid considerable sums to atone for their need for overseas trips by offsetting the carbon into a nice plantation of hardwood species - of course, although each of the ~1.5m saplings were capable of growing into 'mighty-oaks' locking away the tonnes of carbon described in the scheme's glossy literature, as they were planted at ~2m intervals, the vast majority of the trees planted (~95%) would be sacrificed when thinning and so never reach maturity or their claimed sequestration potential ... for every 5tonnes of flight offset CO2 sold, 75years years after the flight there may be a realistic 250kg of mature wood standing, the remainder either being in the atmosphere or somewhere within subsequent carbon cycles ...

If you've got a log burner then investing in a sustainable source of short-cycle timber may make sense, however, even if flights were powered by ash & oak the very fact that emissions are high in the troposphere or even in the lower stratosphere (long-haul) then the CO2 is so far removed from the photosynthesis process at ground level that the carbon cycle is massively extended ... once it's up there it's not going to be convinced to return to ground level that easily, no matter how much morality & political correctness is applied ... and that's with log-powered aircraft, so just consider the impact of high altitude hydrocarbons and their combustion residues ...


We're fortunate, we have enough space to grow our own trees for fruit or amenity & so we've planted quite a few over the years ... wouldn't touch a carbon offsetting scheme with a barge-pole though! ... You can't buy absolution from guilt - either do the deed, accept the guilt and live with the consequences, or choose to remain innocent in the first place ...

HTH
Z

spadoosh

Nick_C wrote: »

As is usually the case, everyone is concentrating on things that will simply enable even more people to infest our overcrowded planet.

The biggest problem is overpopulation. We are all consuming natural resources and emitting CO2 and CH4.

If you really care about the planet and the other poor creatures trying to share it with us, limit yourselves to one child per couple.

OVercrowded planet?

Yet here we are with more food than ever, more power than ever, more people than ever (and growing), more water available to us, more fuel available to us.

“What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us . . . . In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.

Im sure you agree with the above quote no? It was written by Tertullian around 200 AD, when the world population was about the same as todays UK and Mexico combined.

I bet hes turning in his grave at how silly and wrong he looks.

Apodemus

Doom and Gloom, I’m sorry if I upset you, it wasn’t my intention.

We all make choices, some good, some bad. Scratch the surface and we all do things that are harmful to the planet. I like red wine - a frivolous purchase of something that can’t be made locally (or at least not well!) and is shipped half-way across the world, put into glass bottles and briefly passes through a human body before going into the waste water system and into the sea. Totally needless waste of resources! I could switch to the local product. But even if I drink single-malt whisky from my nearest distillery, I can’t actually guarantee that the grain is local. And even if the grain is local, I can’t be sure that the local farmer doesn’t use the money from his grain sales to buy a new Range Rover or fly to the Caribbean.

Equally, I can’t be sure that the venison in my local butcher‘s wasn’t shot by a Saudi Prince or Russian oligarch. Every time we spend money it disappears into the global economy and our spending choices probably make a lot less difference than we might like.

Meanwhile back on your soya beans... you do know that more than 80% of world soya production is GM...;)

pile-o-stone

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

The single flight itself likely resulted in more CO2 emissions than eating well over 1lb of red meat each per week for the whole 12years ... worse than that, the CO2 emissions would be in the high atmosphere where it's not readily available to be re-absorbed into the carbon cycle (at ground-level) and the source of the CO2 is fossil hydrocarbon combustion (as opposed to short carbon cycle agriculture/animal husbandry) so the long-term impact would be far more damaging than directly comparing on an over-simplified mass basis ...

It's highly likely that the single flight you mention would have had an overall ecological impact greater than all of the meat that an average omnivore would consume in their entire lifetime ....

The argument used on meat CO2 comparisons is very similar to that recently seen when comparing the short cycle (decades) carbon released by biomass combustion with the long-cycle (geographical period) of consuming gas or coal ... biomass combustion can be balanced & sustainable, fossil fuel combustion simply returns carbon fossilised millions of years ago to the atmosphere, therefore cannot be sustainable ...

We eat meat and will continue to do so because we like to do so. There's an accepted argument that meat-production is an inefficient use of available land in terms of food calories/acre if looked at on a pure area basis & that's reflected in us eating considerably less than we used to some years ago ... however, there's normally little consideration of the relative land quality - It'd certainly be interesting to see the ecological outcome of someone attempting to grow crops on some of the land around here which is currently used for animal husbandry!

HTH
Z

I'm not sure that your figures are correct:

"A kilogramme of beef protein reared on a British hill farm can generate the equivalent of 643kg of carbon dioxide. A kilogramme of lamb protein produced in the same place can generate 749kg. One kilo of protein from either source, in other words, causes more greenhouse gas emissions than a passenger flying from London to New York."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/22/festive-christmas-meal-long-haul-flight-meats-damaging-planet

Apart from this, I'm not quite sure of the point you're making? Are you saying that you don't fly anywhere and so the carbon savings from that are used to allow you to eat meat?

If not, then I'm not sure how flying and meat eating are connected?

Doom_and_Gloom

Apodemus wrote: »

Meanwhile back on your soya beans... you do know that more than 80% of world soya production is GM...;)

Again the majority of that goes to animals, the secondary farmed food source that is wasteful of many resources.
You may have misses that I said organic, organic can't be GM.
Also many supermarkets and companies now have policies that even if the soya for human consumption is not organic that they do not use GM either.

I also hold a very strong belief that people should not have more than two children (unless 1st or 2nd pregnancy is multiples that make it so they have more than 2 as no one should be forced into foetus selection or the like). A replacement system is better for the planet in many ways. Having lots of children on an earth that is struggling to maintain itself is selfish.

The thing is if people thought more about waste the world would be better off.
Think about the 5p plastic bag legislation. It has helped but as a cashier I do see way too many people still constantly buying these or other bags. They forget the resources that went into making it in the first place. Reusable for shopping is not just possible but better.
People have got too used to just putting the heating up in winter for another example. What is wrong with a jumper, or sitting on the sofa with a blanket before turning on the heating? Again people don't think too much into how and what happened to get their home heated.
Many people cook too much or buy too much take out and instead of putting it aside for later or the next day they simply throw it away. They don't think about how it got to them and everything that that involved to just get wasted. They could have made just enough or bought what was needed if they don't like leftovers but no they simply don't think about the waste seriously.

zeupater

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I'm not sure that your figures are correct:

"A kilogramme of beef protein reared on a British hill farm can generate the equivalent of 643kg of carbon dioxide. A kilogramme of lamb protein produced in the same place can generate 749kg. One kilo of protein from either source, in other words, causes more greenhouse gas emissions than a passenger flying from London to New York."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/22/festive-christmas-meal-long-haul-flight-meats-damaging-planet

Apart from this, I'm not quite sure of the point you're making? Are you saying that you don't fly anywhere and so the carbon savings from that are used to allow you to eat meat?

If not, then I'm not sure how flying and meat eating are connected?

Hi

The point was related to a post describing meat consumption as resource wasting (so bad) and low frequency flying being better than doing so on a more frequent basis (so good), which is a little conflated when dissected and considered in context ...

Regarding the article, protein is protein, meat is meat, in terms of what's written 643kg when related to protein as opposed to meat simply looks 4 times more impressive than what it really says, and of course, anyone can select data at the extreme upper end of the series and write an article on an 'up to' basis, which unless challenged logically can be both a misleading & questionable approach ...

The majority of academic resources tend to cluster UK reared red meat at around a volume adjusted average of ~9-10kg CO2e/kg (12.65beef/11.86lamb/~3.1pork) per the PAS2050 standard, so averaging somewhere around 20kg CO2e/kg over the counter, or around 80kg CO2e/kg of protein.

To conclude, two seats on a return flight UK/Japan is estimated (https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators/new) to have a 7300kg CO2e so around 800lb ((7300/20)*2.205) of uncooked meat, which over 12years is over 1lb/week (800/12/52) as originally stated ...

HTH
Z

Apodemus

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

You may have misses that I said organic, organic can't be GM.

I didn’t miss it! You actually said “organic from China”, which opens up other cans of worms, which I wished to avoid for fear of upsetting you again!

Doom_and_Gloom

Said it before and will say it again. Most soy goes to animals as feed. Around 2m tonnes of soya meal and around 1m tonnes of actual soya beans are imported into the U.K. with a very small percentage being human consumption.

It is stupid to import when soya can be grown in the UK although up beyond York right now seems to be incompatible due to soya not really growing above 600m above sea levek. Soya is a crop that enriches nitrogen in soil and is compatible with pea and legume rotations. It is also a rather high yield crop even in the UK; they have successfully grown in Kent as well as other UK farms.

I found it aggravating to not find a UK source when trying to buy earlier this year when I know it is possible to grow it. I researched a UK supplier for my quinoa and bought that in bulk to save on resources.
The demand and the possibility is there so why don't farmers do it? If someone says profit it is a good crop for profit. 2/3rds of the price of bought soya would be profit margin in the UK.

cuddlymarm

UK farmers will only grow what is beneficial to them. If they cannot make enough profit on a certain crop they won’t grow it.
The arguements on here seem to all be global. But what about the small things we need to change that can add up. I had an early appointment this morning so when out in the dark and the amount of shops, pubs etc that have their signs lit up, lights on all night is such a waste. Where we live there are a lot of old houses that are hard to heat so again waste power. The shops all sell perfect food in lots of packaging, again waste.
What we need to do is cut down what we are using and what we do need to use. Use it smarter. I’ve got clothes that I’ve had for years and they are still perfectly ok and then get turned into cleaning rags when they are no use.
It needs to be easy for people to do or they won’t do it.
So it needs to be easier to use green energy than oil, so the cost needs to be less or easier than fossil fuelled. Green cars and the ways to refuel them shouldn’t be difficult. Supermarkets should be encouraged ( by us and the government) to use more local suppliers and offer cheaper single products rather than having multi buys where you get waste. People need to be educated on freezing food that won’t get used in time and being able to tell when something is ok.

There are a lot of you talking about flying and bringing in foods from the other sides of the world and the problems these cause. But we can’t change those, we are a global world. So change needs to be local as much as possible with using local items sensibly and using up everything. Make do and mend needs to be the new mantra. Fads and fashions need to go.

Please can you stop the negativity, picking at each other about their ideas and bring positivity and if you can’t be nice, don’t say anything.

Cuddles

Doom_and_Gloom

cuddlymarm wrote: »

I had an early appointment this morning so when out in the dark and the amount of shops, pubs etc that have their signs lit up, lights on all night is such a waste. Where we live there are a lot of old houses that are hard to heat so again waste power. The shops all sell perfect food in lots of packaging, again waste.

Agree lights on places that are closed is certainly a waste of resources and should be illegal, or at least heavily taxed during certain hours to encourage places not to do it, in my opinion unless they are lit by solar energy.
The government have got incentives for old buildings but I agree more should be done.
What annoys me as a checkout assistant is seeing people buy a single loose item such as a carrot, onion, potato, apple etc and still put it in a clear produce bag. What is the point of that? People will even do this with mangoes, avocados and the one that really puzzled and upset me was with a watermelon! People see these bags as free and there so just use them even when not needed. People use them with lots of small sweet packages and the like to keep them all together. Not only is this annoying to try and scan but it is against the bag legislation, though try and explain that to people *rolls eyes*, and a complete waste.
When I buy loose I don't use the plastic bags, I have a couple of paper bags for brussel sprouts, mushrooms and the like that I reuse until they rip, but for carrots, onions etc I don't use anything. You can buy reusable produce bags, or make them, however for most items just loose is fine.

cuddlymarm wrote: »

What we need to do is cut down what we are using and what we do need to use. Use it smarter. I’ve got clothes that I’ve had for years and they are still perfectly ok and then get turned into cleaning rags when they are no use.

Yep I've got some clothes from when I was 13, still in use. Yes I do still buy new clothes from time to time, or buy from charity/boutiques, but only when I need to. Old clothes get turned into pillow stuffing, cleaning rags or other things. If they are still usable and I no longer want them I give them to friends or charity.

cuddlymarm wrote: »

It needs to be easy for people to do or they won’t do it.
So it needs to be easier to use green energy than oil, so the cost needs to be less or easier than fossil fuelled. Green cars and the ways to refuel them shouldn’t be difficult. Supermarkets should be encouraged ( by us and the government) to use more local suppliers and offer cheaper single products rather than having multi buys where you get waste. People need to be educated on freezing food that won’t get used in time and being able to tell when something is ok.

So change needs to be local as much as possible with using local items sensibly and using up everything. Make do and mend needs to be the new mantra. Fads and fashions need to go.

Greener car incentives again are there, the original cost of the car however can be out of a lot of peoples budgets and yes the needs for the car need to be easier. However I also think that we need to make public transport the better option. Employers should have a scheme with the government to encourage public transport use. When public transport is not a possibility encouraging use of a carpool system with employees should be in place. When public transport or carpooling used it could get logged into a system with rewards like cinema/musical tickets, gift cards, gym membership paid for x long etc.

I agree with more local and to not waste the product either.
Yes again people need education about how to use, refrigerate, freeze etc produce. However in the day and age of internet the information is easily found. It is easy enough people just don't do it.
These bagged produce items have dates on them which people see and throw it out at that date thinking it is gospel, that the product can't safely be used after this date. My sister does it and it is very wasteful. If I saw her on the correct day I could likely get a few days worth of produce for meals that she throws away because of this. I have strawberries in the fridge that I bought on the 13th that were reduced as dated that day, yet still good.
If we had a waste system that penalised for wasted food maybe people would think more?
That is another thing the government should have a separate food waste system in place, there is no logical reason for any food waste to go to landfill when it can be composted down and used by those with flowers, allotments, farmers etc.

Yes fad fashions do need to go I again agree, unfortunately too many people have the mindset that new is better etc. They simply have the message that old is something to get rid and the new product will make them feel better, people will like them more if they have x, y or z.
People also lack the knowledge of how to revamp clothing buy adding something or altering it to make it into a different looking item. Again the information is easily available on the internet but they deem it too much effort or simply think it a waste of time so get rid and buy something new.

Let's be honest it is easy enough to make changes, people just can not be bothered.