Climate Change

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Taf

I think that is a red herring. How much the ENTIRE country emits is realistic.

Sorry, will have to disagree with you

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Ok, now look at emissions based on a per person basis, China is nowhere near the worst offender

The worrying thing about that stat is that China, India and other such quickly developing nations still have a vast % of their populations still in remote rural areas that are still very poor and not yet accessing the benefits of their nations development.

That will change, as these countries continue to lift their populations out of poverty and a like, the populations will then want access to electricity, cars, and all the trappings of modern civilisation ( and they deserve it) but the demand for power ( still best and cheapest provided by fossil fuels) will continue to increase.

So as China’s and India’s massive populations start to suckle on power more widely expect those figures to change.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The worrying thing about that stat is that China, India and other such quickly developing nations still have a vast % of their populations still in remote rural areas that are still very poor and not yet accessing the benefits of their nations development.

That will change, as these countries continue to lift their populations out of poverty and a like, the populations will then want access to electricity, cars, and all the trappings of modern civilisation ( and they deserve it) but the demand for power ( still best and cheapest provided by fossil fuels) will continue to increase.

So as China’s and India’s massive populations start to suckle on power more widely expect those figures to change.

Agreed.However….. they doesn’t mean to say we can’t be targeting highest polluters per capita now…

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The worrying thing about that stat is that China, India and other such quickly developing nations still have a vast % of their populations still in remote rural areas that are still very poor and not yet accessing the benefits of their nations development.

That will change, as these countries continue to lift their populations out of poverty and a like, the populations will then want access to electricity, cars, and all the trappings of modern civilisation ( and they deserve it) but the demand for power ( still best and cheapest provided by fossil fuels) will continue to increase.

So as China’s and India’s massive populations start to suckle on power more widely expect those figures to change.

The first change we will notice as people come out of poverty is the demand for meat will increase, with the subsequent impact that'll have on the planet.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The first change we will notice as people come out of poverty is the demand for meat will increase, with the subsequent impact that'll have on the planet.

What's wrong with meat? An important food and absolutely delicious. This stuff about methane from farts and burps should be factored in not eliminated.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The first change we will notice as people come out of poverty is the demand for meat will increase, with the subsequent impact that'll have on the planet.

Ironically, despite what I have posted above. The best thing to do for the environment / Climate is to lift people out of poverty. We may take a hit in the short term ( 50-100 years) but when people aren’t worried about how they’re going to feed their family tomorrow, they can then turn their attention to other matters such as the environment and climate.

That’s why it’s very rich for modern Western civilisations to preach and dictate to developing nations about their use of fossil fuels, as we’ve already benefited from them to the point we can start to move away from them, developing nations don’t have that luxury yet.

The stark reality is that fossil fuels will be around for the next 100 yrs minimum and beyond.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What's wrong with meat? .

Cancer, heart disease, BSE, as well as climate change ....

Have a nice Nut Roast - save the planet and yourself. Merry Christmas

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Cancer, heart disease, BSE, as well as climate change ....

Have a nice Nut Roast - save the planet and yourself. Merry Christmas

There’s meat ….and there’s meat. Just like there’s calories and there’s calories and there’s fat and there’s fat.

It’s important to know the distinctions.

My own personal philosophy is….if you can’t buy it in a greengrocers or butchers then don’t eat it. ( there’s a few exceptions such as natural yogurt etc, but you get the point)

Anything that you have to pierce the lid and/ microwave is your enemy.

Nothing wrong with meat, humans have been eating meat before they started walking upright. They haven’t been eating meat recovered and processed in factories though except for around the last 50 years.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What's wrong with meat? An important food and absolutely delicious. This stuff about methane from farts and burps should be factored in not eliminated.

You need a chat with Greta, she'll set you straight, we deforest large areas to make room for grazing animals...

---------- Post added at 21:38 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ironically, despite what I have posted above. The best thing to do for the environment / Climate is to lift people out of poverty. We may take a hit in the short term ( 50-100 years) but when people aren’t worried about how they’re going to feed their family tomorrow, they can then turn their attention to other matters such as the environment and climate.

That’s why it’s very rich for modern Western civilisations to preach and dictate to developing nations about their use of fossil fuels, as we’ve already benefited from them to the point we can start to move away from them, developing nations don’t have that luxury yet.

The stark reality is that fossil fuels will be around for the next 100 yrs minimum and beyond.

There's taking people out of poverty like in Africa where the focus is on things like water and crops and poverty in Asia where people are leaving agriculture for the city's factories where the jobs are so horrible suicide is often more preferable than returning to work after lunch

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You need a chat with Greta, she'll set you straight, we deforest large areas to make room for grazing animals...

---------- Post added at 21:38 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------



There's taking people out of poverty like in Africa where the focus is on things like water and crops and poverty in Asia where people are leaving agriculture for the city's factories where the jobs are so horrible suicide is often more preferable than returning to work after lunch

What parts of the UK have been de-forested to grow meat? We can be totally self-sufficient in meat and not import Brazilian produce, for example. What utter cobblers some of you eco-warriors spout.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What parts of the UK have been de-forested to grow meat? We can be totally self-sufficient in meat and not import Brazilian produce, for example. What utter cobblers some of you eco-warriors spout.

Pretty much every field in the UK was once a forest wasn't it?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Pretty much every field in the UK was once a forest wasn't it?

yes

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Pretty much every field in the UK was once a forest wasn't it?

True, but there’s very little equivalence between rapid deforestation in the tropics and incremental deforestation in temperate latitudes. For a start the land area we’re talking about here is much smaller than what’s being lost in Brazil year on year, and has been deforested over a much longer period of time (there’s evidence of forest clearance in Great Britain going back thousands of years). And in terms of the carbon cycle, the tropical rainforests lock up a lot more of it than vegetation growth at high latitudes is capable of doing.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What parts of the UK have been de-forested to grow meat? We can be totally self-sufficient in meat and not import Brazilian produce, for example. What utter cobblers some of you eco-warriors spout.

And of course, extensive de-forestation of the Amazon (and other areas) will have no negative effect on the U.K…

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And of course, extensive de-forestation of the Amazon (and other areas) will have no negative effect on the U.K…

Nothing to do with meat eating in the UK using UK produce.