# The elephant in the greenhouse



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

We appear to be going to Hell in a hand cart and the leading cause of global warming and environmental destruction is animal agriculture. However we seem not to be able to see this and tinker with lesser causes instead.

Did you know animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the whole of transport?

The production of one beefburger requires the equivalent amount of water as two months of showers.

One gallon of milk requires 1,000 gallons of water to produce.

These two films are quite shocking and the reasons why all this is not so well known and not even pushed by many environmental groups is also disturbing.

http://watchdocumentaries.com/cowspirac ... ty-secret/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p ... ll-carnage


----------



## AndreiV93 (Mar 29, 2017)

You sound like a vegan :roll: :lol:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

AndreiV93 said:


> You sound like a vegan :roll: :lol:


I'm rapidly being persuaded to become one.


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

All thats done for me is make me want a burger and milkshake!


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Did you watch either film?


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)




----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I laughed at that already :lol: Only this does have a serious aspect. Have you watched either film? The research seems a verified argument. Anyone got a counter reference to the important point made? Or is it too depressing? Are we just...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Counter reference? Is this supposed to turn into a BobBot style debate where we post videos at each other till we lose the will to live?

The problem with the argument is that it only works if you assume that addressing the causes of CO2 in order of magnitude makes any kind of sense. It doesn't.


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

I haven't watched your videos though I have seen plenty on the subject. It is a dilemma and the Asian take on protein is interesting, but when offered the choice of Beoufs en croute or sundried woodlouse, I'm not taking the woodlouse, even if they do dress it up in a cauliflower foam.


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

I've not watched the videos either, mainly as I just can't be arsed. Sometimes these videos have so much spin on them they'd be illegal in a game of cricket. 
I like meat (that sounds wrong) so I'm going to keep eating it. I like milk (that sounds better) so I'm going to keep drinking it.



John-H said:


> Anyone got a counter reference to the important point made? Or is it too depressing?


Yes. Certain species of animal will die out. Who's going to keep cows as pets? We struggle with two cats.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

ashfinlayson said:


> I haven't watched your videos though I have seen plenty on the subject. It is a dilemma and the Asian take on protein is interesting, but when offered the choice of Beoufs en croute or sundried woodlouse, I'm not taking the woodlouse, even if they do dress it up in a cauliflower foam.


Thanks - it is a dilemma. What struck me (and this in response to Spandex too) - it does seem that mankind, in its efforts to fight climate change, is ignoring (burying head in sand and no seeing) the biggest contributor to the problem. It seems to me that it is more profitable to this effort to address the biggest issue rather than tinker with lesser influences.

That mankind is having an effect on the planet is accepted by most (unlike the bobbots) and although undoubtedly our main problem is the exponential growth of our number and consequently sustaining ourselves, the corresponding and exacerbating problem appears to be, from the evidence presented, our consumer expectation of dietry demands and its profitable supply by animal agriculture.

If developing countries also buy into the Western lead model then the problem gets worse as time goes on.

Perhaps we should be changing our habits to ameliorate the problem - and/or reducing our growth for a sustainable future? And I don't fancy eating insects for protein either. Yuk but I've long known that crops to feed people makes more sense and is far more efficient than crops to feed animals to feed people.

I'm just surprised, as an engineer/science bod who tries to go by the evidence and tries to keep an open mind, that the apparently stark evidence is so suppressed by politics and vested interests - well perhaps that's not so surprising after all?

Stiff - I think ultimately we are all going to die and species too. Do you remember Easter Island - discovered uninhabited with the weird statues? Apparently they all died out because they couldn't stop burning trees and didn't realise until it was too late. An example of unsustainable development.

It's funny how as conditioned adults we think nothing of drinking cows milk - meant for calves - but we baulk at the thought of drinking human milk. Take a step back and the whole thing is weird :?


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't watched your videos though I have seen plenty on the subject. It is a dilemma and the Asian take on protein is interesting, but when offered the choice of Beoufs en croute or sundried woodlouse, I'm not taking the woodlouse, even if they do dress it up in a cauliflower foam.
> ...


Im not sure what milk you drink but mine is definitely not meant for calves, I mean how would they even buy it nevermind open the container! Then god knows if they woul even like the taste???


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

But why would the theory that it's the largest contributor mean that it's the most important to tackle, or that it should be prioritised over other CO2 contributors? There are numerous other factors that determine where our efforts are best focused, but you're ignoring those - presumably because, as a vegetarian, it's convenient to do so.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> But why would the theory that it's the largest contributor mean that it's the most important to tackle, or that it should be prioritised over other CO2 contributors? There are numerous other factors that determine where our efforts are best focused, but you're ignoring those - presumably because, as a vegetarian, it's convenient to do so.


That's a prejudiced assumption. I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that the opportunity to tackle the biggest contributor should be ignored - is that because you eat meat and it's inconvenient? Touché :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > But why would the theory that it's the largest contributor mean that it's the most important to tackle, or that it should be prioritised over other CO2 contributors? There are numerous other factors that determine where our efforts are best focused, but you're ignoring those - presumably because, as a vegetarian, it's convenient to do so.
> ...


Because, as I said, there are numerous factors that affect which is the priority (I'll just ignore the bit where you invented me saying it should be ignored).

You need to look at the speed with which you can reduce the CO2 output of a given contributor. You need to look at the percentage of the total for that contributor that you could realistically reduce (it would be dumb to imagine you can reduce it completely). The total amount of CO2 produced by something is irrelevant if you can't realistically reduce it by much within a useful time frame. So if the crux of your argument is simply that animal farming is the largest contributor, my response is "meh". Imagine me doing it with a Gallic shrug, if that helps.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Oh, and the data you're using* for the comparison to transport greenhouse gas emissions is over 10 years old. I haven't looked for up to date data, so I have no idea if it's changed but when BobBot does that you and I would pull him up on it.

*cowspiracy references a 2006 paper titled 'livestock's long shadow', which in turn uses data from 2006, 2005 and 2001.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

By ignore I mean decide not to act on which you said didn't make sense to do so as if you knew why and presumably could provide a reason as to why the greatest contributor (nobody seems to be saying it isn't true - you are just saying some data is old - but as far as I can see it's not being disputed as true by anyone) is not being tackled first? The evidence that man can land on the moon is old but still perfectly valid. Nobody credibly disputes that. This is not aBobBot situation. I have not heard arguments disputing the information given in the film. It's just not being discussed much which is surprising given its significance.

True, that there is a reason for the biggest contributor not being tackled - there's a reason for everything - but what is the reason(s)?

You suggest that speed might be a reason. Well it could but what is holding it up? It's not like we need to invent new technology like a more energy dense battery is holding back electric cars or fusion realisation is holding back not needing to burn oil coal and gas.

We could plant new crops to directly feed humans tomorrow and consumers could decide not to eat meat so demand would fall and animal agriculture would diminish and even if it only halved, the effect would be enormous. The effect of that change it would seem could be quite quick relatively speaking as there is no fundamental discovery or development to be made to hold us back - it's just lead by choice.

So what is the reason(s) for it not being on the target list of various environmental organisations?

The reasons suggested by the film (and he did ask many NGOs and government) was that many of these organisations survive on donations and the donations would be hit hard if they came out against eating meat because it would go against people's conditioned habits of s lifetime which are hard to change. It's easier raising money and protesting about pollution etc which we all don't like rather than upset your supporters' dietary faith. But peoples' minds can be changed and some organisations are trying to do that but not all.

Another reason given was that over 1,100 environmental activists had been assassinated in Brazil by loggers and farmers who are more interested in the profit of chopping down the rain forests which is driven by animal agriculture.

Another reason mentioned was someone who used to be a farmer but became active speaking out against his industry and was sued for his efforts by the industry. After years in the courts he won because he proved his case was true. But then they brought in the patriot act and now were he to repeat the same things he would be guilty of harming the animal agriculture business. Truth is no longer a defense there it seems and it's a dampener on speaking out against vested interests.

Perhaps you can think of other reasons but it seems so far that the main reason holding back a change for the better and tackling the biggest contributor to climate change lies in our own minds.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I didn't even say it didn't make sense to act on it. Jesus John, you're hard work sometimes. What I talked about was priorities - at no point did I say that we can only tackle one thing at a time and therefore by prioritising something else, we must do nothing about agriculture. That being said, 'doing something about agriculture' doesn't have to mean stopping eating meat, any more than 'doing something about transport' has to mean walking everywhere.

As for comparing old data to landing on the moon, don't be so bloody stupid. Do I really have to explain why old data may not still be correct, even though it was historically correct at the time? Really John? FFS. And my point about BobBot still stands - you wouldn't let him get away with it so don't act like it's not an issue when you do it.

As for why I'm not denying the data (other than pointing out that it may no longer be correct due to its age), it's because I've not really looked into it. And because, as I may have mentioned once or twice, it shouldn't be the primary factor when deciding on what we prioritise.

Do you honestly think you could ever convince the *entire world* to become vegetarian? If not the entire world, that just confirms my point about the total CO2 output for an activity isn't important, the 'realistically avoidable' output is what counts. What if the realistically avoidable output from agriculture is less than the realistically avoidable output from transport? Would you suddenly change your mind which should be prioritised?

And what if you could reduce 10% of the worlds total CO2 output within 10 years by prioritising transport, but could only reduce 7% of the worlds output within 10 years by prioritising agriculture. Would you suddenly change your mind which should be prioritised?

Your posts are looking more and more like BobBots every day. Multiple links to biased source material, links to videos that no one will watch, conspiracy theories...


----------



## AndreiV93 (Mar 29, 2017)

Pipe down ladies, no need to get personal!

I've not watched those videos, but I have seen plenty of others on this matter; 
In my opinion, I think they're "prioritising" what to tackle or focus on "first" by looking at what's most achievable, which I think makes sense. For example, I think changes in transport, using less petroleum based fuels, going electric, generating renewable energy, etc, are the most realisable tasks.

Whereas trying to convince people to eat less meat, potentially going vegetarian and whatnot is just not realistically achievable. And I may be saying that because I like eating meat (couldn't think of a less wrong sounding way to say it!), but we know that changing people's ways is near impossible.


----------



## falconmick (Mar 12, 2018)

I'm enjoying a nice bacon sandwich and milky coffee whilst reading this saga. Whilst I accept it is a serious subject, I don't use my time thinking about things that I have no control over and also like most on the forum will be dead long before it impacts. Live for now and enjoy life.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> I didn't even say it didn't make sense to act on it .... What I talked about was priorities ...


Really? Previously...



Spandex said:


> The problem with the argument * is that it only works if you assume that addressing the causes of CO2 in order of magnitude makes any kind of sense. It doesn't.


My argument * and my question was why you were ignoring it - it being the biggest and technologically the simplest as a determinant of priority. That does not mean not do it at all. I was questioning why your and perhaps other people's priority would be different?

Why did you mention the data was old if you didn't update it? It could have been an aside but the implication you appear to make is it's of lesser worth for being old. My moon landing reference is just a simple demonstration of that being an incorrect assumption.

To bang it home further you say I would pick up BobBot for using old data. Rubbish. I'd only do that if there was new data that contradicted it.

The BobBot argument is specious. In the case of climate change you know full well that climate change deniers are in the minority scientific view and quite rightly ask him why he chooses to believe a view in opposition to the scientific mainstream.

This case I'm talking about is different because the facts don't seem to be in dispute. They are just not talked about much. Not prioritised. That's hardly the same thing is it now? The facts don't seem to be in dispute just what you consider should be done about it.



Spandex said:


> ...
> 
> Various scenarios....
> 
> Would you suddenly change your mind which should be prioritised?


Yes Why are you trying to imply I can't be rational about it?

You are hardly being fair or polite spandex. Attacking the person, rather than the argument, with obtuse misinterpretions is very disappointing. Come on be nice.

All I'm saying is it's an elephant in the room which isn't being talked about as regards what can be effective. What seems to be holding back progress in this respect is people's unwillingness to change their habits. That's the main argument being put forward here. I've already suggested that was the main reason.

We could all do our little bit if we wanted to. In that respect it's like voting. Perhaps as the seas rise the tide will turn the demographic?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't even say it didn't make sense to act on it .... What I talked about was priorities ...
> ...


I still can't see how you can conclude that I was saying not to act on it. I'm simply saying that you don't choose what to act on in order of magnitude. That statement doesn't preclude acting on multiple things at once, nor does it mean you ignore anything that's not the highest priority. That being said, it _may not_ make any sense to act on this particular issue, if the other factors point to it not being worth the effort. But you'd have to look beyond the simple 'magnitude' to make that decision.


John-H said:


> Why did you mention the data was old if you didn't update it? It could have been an aside but the implication you appear to make is it's of lesser worth for being old. My moon landing reference is just a simple demonstration of that being an incorrect assumption.


Your moon landing reference is ridiculous. To say that it is analogous is just plain bizarre. We landed on the moon in the past, but that doesn't mean we are still currently landing on the moon. We measured CO2 output at certain levels in the past, but that doesn't mean we are still outputting the same levels now. Yes?



John-H said:


> To bang it home further you say I would pick up BobBot for using old data. Rubbish. I'd only do that if there was new data that contradicted it.


No, the age of the data alone should give you pause. As I said, it may still be the same, it may not, but the more time that passes, the less reliable we have to consider it.



John-H said:


> The BobBot argument is specious.


No, you're behaving like he does. You're applying an idealogical approach to the problem, and ignoring the reality of the situation.



John-H said:


> This case I'm talking about is different because the facts don't seem to be in dispute.


You'd need to present a lot more evidence to make this assumption. Unless you mean the facts aren't in dispute just on this forum, based on a handful of responses, none of whom claim to have looked into it in detail, or even watched your videos.



John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Various scenarios....
> ...


Don't be melodramatic. I've called your argument dumb, but I don't believe you are. If anything though, that just makes it all the more frustrating that you're ignoring obvious issues with the argument youv'e put forward.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm not concluding that you are saying not to act on it or that you can not do multiple things at once. Where did I say that? I find it hard to understand how you've misinterpreted what I've said but to be clear and at the risk of repeating myself - I was questioning why you do not think the major contributor should not be a priority? That invites you to explain how you decide on priority.

As regards the moon landings I was citing evidence that man "can" land on the moon which happens to be old evidence but just because it's old evidence didn't make it any less valid and I therefore disagree with your statement that the older the evidence is the less reliable it is. Are you now saying that the moon landings are now less believable with the passage of time?

I think it's a ridiculous twist of yours that you are implying my example has anything to do at all with whether we are currently landing on the moon or not. How obtuse is that?

Of course CO2 levels can change I never implied they were fixed.

I'm certainly not behaving like BobBot by being an idealist. I simply saw two films and shared then for comment because as far as I can see the data is still valid (for lack of evidence to the contrary - plus I hear more recent evidence in support) and perhaps it should make us think about what we are doing?

If I'm faced with obstinacy to the idea of change does that make my argument irrational or those who oppose without considering the evidence?

But thank you for not believing I am dumb. I didn't believe I was ignoring any arguments, just throwing the question to the floor to invite a discussion and some thought. Thanks for the contribution as always.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:
 

> As regards the moon landings I was citing evidence that man "can" land on the moon which happens to be old evidence but just because it's old evidence didn't make it any less valid and I therefore disagree with your statement that the older the evidence is the less reliable it is. Are you now saying that the moon landings are now less believable with the passage of time?


Are you seriously carrying on with this gibberish?



John-H said:


> Of course CO2 levels can change I never implied they were fixed.


Does whether or not we landed on the moon change like CO2 levels can? Cos if it doesn't, I think we might have found the flaw in your analogy :wink:

The scientific measurements of an atmospheric variable, and subsequent calculations of that variable per activity, are a record of that variable at a particular time. The records themselves don't become less reliable over time (unless flaws are found in the methodology or assumptions), but the likelihood of them representing the *current* measurements does reduce. If you wanted to know whether or not to put on a coat and someone told you the thermometer in their car said it was 10 degrees an hour ago, you'd probably assume it will still be within a degree or two of that now. If they told you it was 10 degrees last week, you might question the usefulness of that information, despite trusting its historical accuracy.



John-H said:


> I'm certainly not behaving like BobBot by being an idealist.


You're behaving like BobBot because you're demanding a higher degree of evidence in order to change your mind than you demanded in order to make it up in the first place. You were convinced of the need to stop eating meat based on the claim that meat production produces more CO2 than transport. You didn't really look into which area could show the easiest/quickest/largest reductions in CO2, because the headline 'total output' figure had an appealing 'shock value'.

But in order for you to change your mind about what our priorities should be, you would need to be convinced by those very factors. Why? They're either important or they're not. They shouldn't be something you only care about if they prove you wrong.


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

This might not sound too appealing but I actually quite fancy trying it out..

https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article ... oach-flour


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Stiff said:


> This might not sound too appealing but I actually quite fancy trying it out..
> 
> https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article ... oach-flour


Quote:

" Do people enjoy the breads baked with the cockroach flour? Everybody who has tasted our breads are unanimous in saying that the change in taste is almost imperceptible. "

I seem to remember the same thing said about 
Cocoa Cola and Mars when they changed the recipe.

I think it might be safe to say that I would be able to tell the difference


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

leopard said:


> I think it might be safe to say that I would be able to tell the difference


Give it a try. What's the worst that can happen?


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Already been tried - @ 2:40


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > As regards the moon landings I was citing evidence that man "can" land on the moon which happens to be old evidence but just because it's old evidence didn't make it any less valid and I therefore disagree with your statement that the older the evidence is the less reliable it is. Are you now saying that the moon landings are now less believable with the passage of time?
> ...


Well you seem to be quite happy carrying on talking gibberish :lol:

Sorry, I've been a bit busy with more pressing matters on a different matter. I took advantage whilst engaged in this to discuss some of the claims made in the film with a real environmental expert consultant to industry yesterday. He is a meat eater by the way before you ask but he did nonetheless confirm that the animal agriculture industry is by far the biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses - more than the whole of transport and he confirmed the figures for consumption of water etc.

So again, I see nothing to dispute the claims made in the film. The validity of the evidence is still current. I checked.

Now, as regards priorities - that is precisely the main point I was making; - What are the reasons the biggest contributor is not being tackled as a priority (given the advantages and that we have no technological difficulty to its implementation). The film claims that apparently (given the absence of other reasons they were asking for) it's due to vested interests and because basically people don't want to change their habits whether they admit this or not or simply avoid consideration of the comparison. I can't see other evidence to explain.

I know for example the technological difficulties with nuclear fusion, fission unacceptability, renewables and battery energy storage density limitations both for this and for transport and the infrastructure to connect it are all worth doing but difficult and certainly not as easy as planting a different crop and choosing to eat less meat.

Answer me this: Which is more efficient for food production and produces less greenhouse gas and consumes less water?

(1) Growing crops for direct human consumption, or
(2) Growing crops to feed animals for human consumption.

I don't really need to say any more


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Now, as regards priorities - that is precisely the main point I was making; - What are the reasons the biggest contributor is not being tackled as a priority (given the advantages and that we have no technological difficulty to its implementation). The film claims that apparently (given the absence of other reasons they were asking for) it's due to vested interests and because basically people don't want to change their habits whether they admit this or not or simply avoid consideration of the comparison. I can't see other evidence to explain.
> 
> I know for example the technological difficulties with nuclear fusion, fission unacceptability, renewables and battery energy storage density limitations both for this and for transport and the infrastructure to connect it are all worth doing but difficult and certainly not as easy as planting a different crop and choosing to eat less meat.


So basically, your argument is that it would be easy to do the thing you think we should do, if it wasn't for all the things that make it incredibly difficult.

You've certainly drilled right to the crux of the issue there.



John-H said:


> I don't really need to say any more


I have an awful feeling that's not true.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

https://www.quora.com/Cowspiracy/How-ac ... Cowspiracy


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

CO2 impact of individual actions:










Taken from:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 326/aa7541


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Wow, that's a very interesting chart. Makes you think.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> https://www.quora.com/Cowspiracy/How-accurate-is-the-movie-Cowspiracy


I did read through that at but I suspect it's not an impartial view given the author's chosen area of work is Animal Science, Forage, Range & Beef Specialist. We need an impartial and wide ranging view and something more up to date is preferable.

So here we go - some more up to date information I missed and some just published:

*
"Avoiding meat and dairy is 'single biggest way' to reduce your impact on Earth"*



> "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use," said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. "It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car," he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... t-on-earth



> Huge reduction in meat-eating 'essential' to avoid climate breakdown


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -breakdown



> Overwhelmed by climate change? Here's what you can do


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... lar-panels












> We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN












https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -un-report


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

Just sayin' -


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> I did read through that at but I suspect it's not an impartial view given the author's chosen area of work is Animal Science, Forage, Range & Beef Specialist.


Your quest for impartiality would be a little more convincing if you'd not started this by posting the Cowspiracy video. :wink:

Even if it was *my personal* single biggest way to 'reduce *my* impact on the earth', that ignores the real issue which is the companies which are ultimately responsible for CO2 production. Demonising the 'end user' is a famously bad way to change behaviour and will ultimately lead to very little change. In much the same way, announcing that the solution is for people to give up meat entirely, rather than simply reduce their meat consumption, will have the opposite effect.

In order to tackle the negative effects of smoking, the most effective policies have been ones that go after the companies that profit from tobacco, not the individuals smoking it. Whilst there are punitive policies in place that go after smokers directly, they tend to only have the effect of annoying people. Smoking ends up costing them more money and they become annoyed with people telling them how to live their lives. If anything, they 'double down' on their attitude to smoking.

"reminder that 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions and presenting the crisis as a moral failing on the part of individuals without noting this fact is journalistic malpractice."
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/stat ... 6154242048


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

The film presented a reasoned argument which is now being backed up by the world's researchers and climate scientists.

They do talk about reducing meat consumption to perhaps one day a week as a practical aim for those who eat it. Going vegan was just being held as an example but we do need to take drastic action on climate change I'm sure you'd agree.

Meat free product manufacturers are already seeing year on year strong growth long before the climate argument became mainstream and going vegan is a growing trend now.

You can still buy cigarettes so arguably it's the message to consumers that's had the influence on its reduction. Part of that was to stop the advertising and explain why it's bad. I expect something similar could be done.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> You can still buy cigarettes so arguably it's the message to consumers that's had the influence on its reduction. *Part of that was to stop the advertising and explain why it's bad.* I expect something similar could be done.


And stopping advertising is a policy targeted directly at the tobacco companies, not the consumer.

I get it. Going after the end users feels like an achievable aim, particularly for someone like you who isn't in a position of power. But you'll achieve nothing by trying to make people feel, unfairly, that their dinner is destroying the world.

And none of this addresses the fact that you're still targeting a CO2 generator that will be incredibly difficult to change. You can't just make a list of all the CO2 producing activities in the world, sort them by size and say "well that's the one you need to stop". As I said before, you need to look at what are the most achievable CO2 reductions in the short term and attack them. If meat consumption was the largest CO2 producer, but the hardest to reduce, then it's not the best target if you need to get maximum impact in minimum time.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well at least the experts agree with me :wink:

Oh and that's not what I said. Look to the title of the thread. I was commenting on why the biggest contributor was getting ignored and didn't at any stage say that's the only thing that should be tackled.

Oh and stopping advertising is clearly aimed at the consumer. Telling the manufacturer to change their packaging was one thing and outlawing advertising stopped retailers and agencies doing it but the design aim was to influence the consumer who is still free to buy it.


----------



## AndreiV93 (Mar 29, 2017)

SwissJetPilot said:


> Just sayin' -


 [smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Oh and stopping advertising is clearly aimed at the consumer.


What? *Advertising *is aimed at the consumer by the industry. *Stopping* advertising is a measure against the industry which wants to use advertising.

Maybe we can claim that stopping advertising was directly targeting ash tray manufacturers... :lol:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

It's a public health measure. Not a manufacturers health measure.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Yes, one that targets the manufacturer directly.

Christ this is tedious. At least The BobBot makes me laugh...


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

If you seriously believe there's too many cows farting up the planet, then by god, me and Bubba will build y'all a bigger BBQ pit and Mary-Sue can bring on the fixins!

Salad...?? No thanks, the cow got mine so we're even.









* For those not familiar with the term "fixins", it's a Southern expression with two possible meanings; 'a side dish' or 'to prepare'.

At a BBQ place, you might hear your waitress ask - "So what kinda fixins would y'all like?" In which case she's asking if you'd like beans, coleslaw, corn on the cob, baked potato, etc.

When a ******* is upset or angry, you might hear it used in a sentence such as - "I'm fixin to whoop y'alls ass!"
.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Entirely predictable :lol:

Spandex, you originally said the direct target was the "manufacturer" but as you know the law was against anyone advertising (including tobacconists, TV, radio, newspapers etc) but the aim was to influence (or to prevent the influence of) consumers.

Let me post what you said earlier in this different context...

_Going after the end users feels like an achievable aim, particularly for someone like you who isn't in a position of power. But you'll achieve nothing by trying to make people feel, unfairly, that their *smoking* is destroying their *health*.
_

But they have  They did it by removing positive persuasion of consumers and adding negative persuasion - in a sensitive way. All I'm saying is that they can do the same thing if needed.

Possibly there will be too much resistance however and we'll all end up going to Hell in a hand cart.


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

SwissJetPilot said:


> If you seriously believe there's too many cows farting up the planet, then by god, me and Bubba will build y'all a bigger BBQ pit and Mary-Sue can bring on the fixins!
> .


Count me in!
Dammit, I'm feeling all hungry after seeing that pic.








Chicken tonight


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

This is very interesting reading and pretty much backs up what Spandex mentioned earlier.

*Billionaires Are the Leading Cause of Climate Change*

https://www.gq.com/story/billionaires-c ... =synd_digg


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Spandex, you originally said the direct target was the "manufacturer" but as you know the law was against anyone advertising (including tobacconists, TV, radio, newspapers etc) but the aim was to influence (or to prevent the influence of) consumers.
> 
> Let me post what you said earlier in this different context...
> 
> ...


If you can't understand the difference between targeting something and a downstream effect of targeting something then i think, thankfully, this conversation is over.

I suggest you go back to spamming with links and unfunny memes. It's working well in the Brexit thread.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Excuse me SJP but you appears to have intruded into a private discussion between 2 members about a "very serious subject" and the introduction of such levity, as presented in your posts, will be studiously ignored by both of the protagonists.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Tee hee  but I chuckle at many things :wink:


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

@ ZephyR2 - You know what, I believe that's exactly what's happened. So, given the course of events, you and Stiff are invited over for some ribs, smoked sausage and brisket.  These other fellas can argue until the cows come home. And when they do, we will promptly put them on the grill. 
[smiley=chef.gif]


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

They say laughter is "corpsing". How apt :wink:


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Gives you nervous ticks too!


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

SwissJetPilot said:


> @ ZephyR2 - You know what, I believe that's exactly what's happened. So, given the course of events, you and Stiff are invited over for some ribs, smoked sausage and brisket.  These other fellas can argue until the cows come home. And when they do, we will promptly put them on the grill.
> [smiley=chef.gif]


I'm on my way. Global warming or not .... I'll risk it for some brisket.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Here's something more positive and healthy. My daughter made a fantastic salad dish recently. Absolutely gorgeous and very filling


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)




----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

If that were true then why do humans not produce their own vitamin C internally?


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

Is someone trying to drag me into this debate on vegans vs carnivores?

Because if so, my reply is quite simple - "Excuse me, waitress, may I omnivore ribs and brisket please!?" 

As to your concern about vitamin C, note the attachment below. Problem solved.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I am so glad I wore my corset, for I fear my success have split :roll:


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

Hey John-H

I think your food looks fantastic but I like meat and fish too. BTW don't believe everything you read and see on the internet
or in movies. I began to watch the videos you linked and got as far as the motivation for the narrator being the movie " Inconvenient Truth" which in many areas has been shown to be inaccurate and misleading. Remember there is a whole industry behind man made climate change, academic grants, certain sides of politics etc just as there was behind Y2K. Climate change modelling like all modelling requires accurate inputs which in the case of climate change variables is very problamatic and it is easy to over egg catastrophic outcomes. Many scientists also agree that solar flares have a more of a dramatic effect on climate change than man made causes since the industrial revolution. Finally I thought everyone knew that cows are the largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions (via methane and other ) but they are not the problem, it is the ever growing human population that requires efficient protein ingestion. The reason this may be a shock to the greeny in the video is because the logical extension of their argument is to cull humans which I am sure would suit many elites and virtue signallers many of whom are on guaranteed pay rises that allow them to afford every increasing power bills as a result of subsidised renewable energy. Apologies in advance if this offends anyone but the issues are complex and there are vested interests everywhere. Also I don't look forward to driving an electric TT either..


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I fear we are doing a grand job of culling ourselves unfortunately :?


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

John-H said:


> I fear we are doing a grand job of culling ourselves unfortunately :?


Exactly ! Mother nature will sort out the problem for herself. Human population will become self-limiting as we drown in our own toxins. We are only a small part of the bigger jigsaw.


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

I am more optimistic than you guys. Technology and the market will work it out and either focre behaviour change or find a way to reduce emissions from beef. The over egged predictions are playing a part in this but until the economics make sense and there is a non politized approach then its going to be rocky road for a while until the sea level eventually rises and their predictions match their modelling.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I think it will require government intervention as I think waiting for the market to sort out the problem will be too long a wait if it ever would happen. Cigarettes are a good example of where the government has acted as a public health measure to reduce consumption. I think it needs to be policy led but we haven't good long.


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

> I am more optimistic than you guys. Technology and the market will work it out and either focre behaviour change or find a way to reduce emissions from beef.


*Green Energy Scientists Unveil 800,000-Ton Potato Capable Of Powering Entire City*

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... ratdvh.jpg

https://www.theonion.com/green-energy-s ... 1828577530


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

It`s mainly about bringing the third world out of poverty by providing cheap energy

China, the United States, and India are the three largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world and only the United States has decreased its emissions from 2005 levels as the graph below denotes. China and India do not intend to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions-only their carbon intensity-and investing in wind and solar energy will only bring negligible changes as wind only supplied 1.4 percent of the world's energy in 2015 and solar provided only 0.4 percent.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... hstanding/

Fracking to start in Lancashire

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-45833774

The German Environment Agency calculated that Germany emitted 906 million tons of CO2 in 2016 - the highest in Europe

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/13/ge ... hypocrite/

What is it called Global warming then climate change now climate disruption, they use that nasty gas in green houses, plants appear to love.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well, at least what the vast majority of climate scientists say is now headline news


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

Agreed and lets hope their predictions are wrong again. Bottom line no governement is going to blow up their economy over climate change and in some countries this tipping point is getting close as noted in the link re Germany not meeting its emissions targets now that it has gone away from nuclear energy (big mistake IMO - look at France).


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

But we've not reached the predicted tipping point of catastrophe yet and the corroborating trend evidence mounts confirming what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying. That it is happening is only contested by a few mavericks so to hope the majority is wrong is rather a forlorn hope. Countries need to gain the political will and lead on driving through change.


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

The tipping point I am talking about is the people rebelling (read voting in politicians like Trump) because the cost of climate change is blowing up their economies and putting people on the street


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well, at least there's no point in saving for a pension, unless you live in Loughborough where at least you already have everything you need to become a beautiful seaside town already.


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

Twenty years ago we would have killed it, now we let it go. The world is changing although it will take a bit longer for those that don't have reliable power and eat meat


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

*Eat insects to save the planet from global warming?*

With a growing world population, increasingly demanding consumers, and a limited amount of agricultural land, there is an urgent need to find alternatives to conventional meat products. Livestock production is, moreover, a *leading cause of anthropogenic-induced climate change. * :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-0452-8

Here is the Guardians take, the Spandex Bible.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sty-trendy


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Many cultures have been eating insects for years. I've only tried fried crickets myself but they were pretty good.

What's your point? You'll be long dead by the time any of these changes take place anyway, so why do you care?


----------

