Lots of hot air

[TominDales]

I think you should increase your scope about oil and remember it is not just a case of oil = petrol, oil = diesel, a great number of products are made from it and its unlikely we'll be able to replace them all with interwoven strands of plant matter.

Hey guys there is no need to be extreme, on this or on changes to our diet and behaviour etc. Plastics account for about 3% of global of emissions. Petrol, diesel, fuel oil and heating oil and gas are the big emitters from refineries. The chemical industry is looking at sustainable plastics and finding ways to recycle and re-use plastic, it will take some time but is not the biggest concern right now. Transportation and heating are the big emitters. As I've said before, we do need to adopt to net Zero but it can be done without abandoning everything we desire, there is no need for a hair shirt. We can make the changes needed if we act now, use technology wisely and innovate to make the changes affordable. Main stream climatologist and the IPCC reports are not calling for such extreme behaviour.

 

[fixit45]

Well I am caring for my dying wife and I am 76 with heart problems. So I don't give a toss, I am just trying to make the most of what there is.

 

[Spectric]

Look back to 9 / 11 when all aircraft were grounded, I remember reading that the high altitude air droped by 3° C during this period.

In extreme situations or circumstances then extreme measures need to be taken to bring things back to acceptable or to ensure survival, I doubt that people who resorted to cannibalism did it for any other reason than they were in a dire situation. This is probably not helping our current climate issues or the will to act more swiftly because although we can see what might be coming we are still not at that point where we just resort to drastic action which will be to late.

 

[hairy]

Using what we have more efficiently should be the top of everyone's agenda.
Labelling it Climate Change and pointing out fire/flood/quake/less icecap etc etc, using fear to stoke anxiety (but not in the MSM as previously pointed out of course), dubious modelling obviously skewed by those with vested interests, all removes credibility and hinders the investment people should have in our future.


It does seem that grass breaking down in a ruminent stomach emits the same gases in the same quantity as if it were rotting at the end of the season in the field. It's not the animal, it's what would happen anyway, the animal is an emitter not a producer. A cow chomping 6" of grass down to 1" which leaves a live plant with the soil structure intact while manuring it in the process has to be better than a hybrid maize crop with the heads harvested, the rest ripped out with lots of pesticides and artificial fertiliser required to repeat? You won't have any biome in the soil with modern arable farming.

Bioavailability of what humans need is much greater from meat than veg. We've been eating meat for a long time, to change to not doing that and instead eating more processed food will create how many problems? A vegan friend of mine had a detached thigh muscle which refused to heal over almost a year. They had spent a long time in India and loved how people lived there, couldn't see an issue with how their diet may compromise their health. Their GP suggested maybe eating meat for a short while at least could help. It did, fixed.

A while ago I looked up if I was getting enough calcium and it seems I wasn't. The levels required are in themselves puzzling, and where do countries that don't do milk products after breastmilk get theirs from anyway? But I would have to eat kilos of kale every day according to the UK guidelines I read.

 

[hairy]

Every sensible person in the world today agrees that EVs will save the planet from Climate Change.

Taking a leaf from the highly successful and rigidly adhered to tactic with Covid vaccination of targeting the most vulnerable, I do not think it is right to put the heaviest demands on the few, who often are nowhere near where help is needed. Inefficiencies abound.

Why should Jonathon from Tunbridge Wells be required to put so many miles on his personal EV to ensure glaciers remain frozen?

It's just not fair.

So, I suggest that after a worldwide triage of deciding who and where is/are the most vulnerable, followed by the longest and most in depth series of modelling constructs ever seen of the earth's climate, so probably all done whilst queueing for a salted mochachino with skimmed almond milk, I think airdrops of EVs should be undertaken forthwith.

How can anyone in all seriousness help the Sudanese subsistence farmer when he continues to use a pair of polluting oxen to draw his plow to feed his family? A couple of Teslas deposited right where needed will increase rainfall, yields and happiness by just the right amount according to Us.

Polar bears on a tiny piece of ice not even big enough for her and her kids? A few more Teslas, with a sprinkling of Leafs all on a container ship confiscated from one of those shocking companies who dare to export anything whatsoever. Instant ice sheet, happy bears.

Recent fires in Sicily? A couple of dozen Prius's should do the trick, less heat, a little more rain, less unburnt undergrowth all by itself as if by magic.

I don't know why the likes of Gates, Musk and Bezos don't just get on and do it. Waiting for the few remaining doubters to agree is so tedious.

 

[TominDales]

Using what we have more efficiently should be the top of everyone's agenda.

It does seem that grass breaking down in a ruminent stomach emits the same gases in the same quantity as if it were rotting at the end of the season in the field. It's not the animal, it's what would happen anyway,

Bioavailability of what humans need is much greater from meat than veg. We've been eating meat for a long time, to change to not doing that and instead eating more processed food will create how many problems?

I agree with your essential first point that we all need to be efficient with resources. Also we can achieve net zero by making reasonable adjustments to our lifestyle and encourage innovation and the uptake of new technology such as EVs etc. There is no need to mass hairshirtism.

However as a chemist I feel the need to point out a couple of misconceptions about the carbon cycle
Methane gas is a by-product of anaerobic digestion processes. In the absence of air bugs make methane. In the presence of air they make predominately CO2. Both processes are natural, but they vary in extent in different systems. And in natural systems a lot of carbon is locked up undecomposed.

As such most vegetable matter left to rot/decompose will form a carbon rich matter that is on the whole good for the soil and the environment, it what created peat, forest floors and in the past coal seams etc. Some of the matter is digested by organism that use the carbon for energy and building their own bodies eg fungi etc. This give off CO2, but over a long time period, much longer than intensive farming timescales. Some methane is given off, especially in wetlands and tropical wetlands give of more. The amazon gives off both CO2 and methane.
However intensive livestock farming gives off much more methane (and CO2), so the drive is to reduce our reliance on intensive cattle farming. If we can moderate our diets (I mean moderate) we can prevent more of the amazon being turned into farmland and reduce methane emissions that accompany livestock - cattle farming. This does not mean abandoning meant eating, just going back to more sustainable levels of a few years ago.

The population of China and South East Asia has historically been much higher than in the west and this was partly because they have largely vegetarian diets that could be sustained in India, China and south Asia. As China adopts a more western diet its demand for meat has increased
. There is nothing wrong with a balanced vegetarian diet, its healthy and billions of people live like that in Asia as they have for millennia. At the same time, we don't have to ban all meant. Just some restraint is what is required.

 

[TRITON]

Every sensible person in the world today agrees that EVs will save the planet from Climate Change.

I think I broke the formula.
I'm a cyclist who has went from a 'manual' bicycle to an electric bicycle, so in effect where I wasn't using any electricity, I am now.
It's also a larger carbon footprint when constructing an electric over a manual.

I'm my defence, I'm expelling far less co2

 

[hairy]

It's odd that the discussion generally is meat vs veg (an), without considering grass fed vs intensive livestock as perhaps more suitable. Obviously Greenpeace won't consider that because they have a screaming nutter agenda to follow. If they became all sensible it just wouldn't be the same. (Did you see the secret recording last year of the BBC in talks with them, getting tips on how to induce widespread fear based on no facts whatsoever? Allegedly on YT for about 30 seconds.) ))

We have a high rainfall here, and you can smell when you dig that a lot of the rotten material is decaying without oxygen. Landfill also produces methane too of course. I hadn't thought about rotting grass under several years worth of dead material still maybe being in air. Here it probably isn't. Too much peat too, which refuses to allow anything to grow apart from a very few unhelpful things.

Fish and offal were not rationed. Fitness during times of rationing may be more to do with cooking from whole basic ingredients rather than anyone becoming a veggie. My Gran was distraught in the early 2000's when the butcher she had used I think since the 50's at least refused to sell her a whole pigs head It's a wine bar now, run by vegans.

 

[TominDales]

It's odd that the discussion generally is meat vs veg (an), without considering grass fed vs intensive livestock as perhaps more suitable. Obviously Greenpeace won't consider that because they have a screaming nutter agenda to follow. If they became all sensible it just wouldn't be the same. (Did you see the secret recording last year of the BBC in talks with them, getting tips on how to induce widespread fear based on no facts whatsoever? Allegedly on YT for about 30 seconds.) ))

We have a high rainfall here, and you can smell when you dig that a lot of the rotten material is decaying without oxygen. Landfill also produces methane too of course. I hadn't thought about rotting grass under several years worth of dead material still maybe being in air. Here it probably isn't. Too much peat too, which refuses to allow anything to grow apart from a very few unhelpful things.

Fish and offal were not rationed. Fitness during times of rationing may be more to do with cooking from whole basic ingredients rather than anyone becoming a veggie. My Gran was distraught in the early 2000's when the butcher she had used I think since the 50's at least refused to sell her a whole pigs head It's a wine bar now, run by vegans.

Personally I see nothing wrong with grass fed livestock. It's the intensive industrial scale American farms that I have issue with, they are a huge burden on the environment and produce unrealistically cheap meet which encourages higher consumption. In most US states meat is cheaper than salad. The feed is effectively subsidise by the US farm system.
I'm sure if we eased off the intensive farming, probably through regulation and beef became more of a premium food, we pay farmers a better living would learn to cook it well and saver it. Apparently chicken has a low CO2 burden.
My mum used to cook sheep's head, boiled in large saucepans and smelt terrible. I think it was mainly for dog food, not sure what bits we ate. We also ate mutton in those days, even lamb was allowed to grow to a reasonable age. Nowadays you hardly hear of mutton. I guess sheep's head is also banned.

 

[TRITON]

It's odd that the discussion generally is meat vs veg (an), without considering grass fed vs intensive livestock as perhaps more suitable. Obviously Greenpeace won't consider that because they have a screaming nutter agenda to follow. If they became all sensible it just wouldn't be the same. (Did you see the secret recording last year of the BBC in talks with them, getting tips on how to induce widespread fear based on no facts whatsoever? Allegedly on YT for about 30 seconds.) ))

We have a high rainfall here, and you can smell when you dig that a lot of the rotten material is decaying without oxygen. Landfill also produces methane too of course. I hadn't thought about rotting grass under several years worth of dead material still maybe being in air. Here it probably isn't. Too much peat too, which refuses to allow anything to grow apart from a very few unhelpful things.

Fish and offal were not rationed. Fitness during times of rationing may be more to do with cooking from whole basic ingredients rather than anyone becoming a veggie. My Gran was distraught in the early 2000's when the butcher she had used I think since the 50's at least refused to sell her a whole pigs head It's a wine bar now, run by vegans.

Vegetarians and vegans fart too. Probably produce more nasty climate gas than cows.

 

[Jacob]

........ Obviously Greenpeace won't consider that because they have a screaming nutter agenda to follow........

Unfortunately they are not screaming nutters. It's wake up time - the "non woke" have lost their culture war - dismissing everything they don't understand as nonsense just doesn't work!

Greenpeace is just another agency alerting us to the ecological and climate change disaster which people have known about for a very long time. People are now having to take notice and ask a few questions.

Greenpeace chooses to be confrontational, which annoys a lot of people but that's the whole idea - to get publicity for some urgent issues.
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/explore/about/about-us/

 

[Trainee neophyte]

A book by the founder of greenpeace:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56918041-fake-invisible-catastrophes-and-threats-of-doom
I've not read it, but it sounds interesting.

 

[Jacob]

A book by the founder of greenpeace:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56918041-fake-invisible-catastrophes-and-threats-of-doom
I've not read it, but it sounds interesting.

You mentioned him before. I'm afraid he is another "outlier", non scientist, with a dubious reputation:
"According to Greenpeace, Moore is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry" who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson".

Instead of scrabbling around for debunking evidence why don't you just start having a closer look at the facts? It wouldn't commit you to anything but you'd know more about what you are talking about. I don't see the point of choosing to be ignorant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)#Criticism

 

[Rorschach]

A book by the founder of greenpeace:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56918041-fake-invisible-catastrophes-and-threats-of-doom
I've not read it, but it sounds interesting.

Too late, Jacob already dismissed Patrick Moore as being just an astronomer in the pocket of big carbon, and dead.

EDIT: He is on the ball this morning. I mean of course PM is a crank, he says something that Jacob disagrees with and anyone who disagrees with Jacob or the prevailing narrative is a crank. Oh one day wouldn't it be wonderful if JC came out as a CC sceptic, I think Jacob would jump off a bridge, though he wouldn't die, the sea level would have risen loads by then so the fall is only 6 inches.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

 

[Jacob]

Too late, Jacob already dismissed Patrick Moore as being just an astronomer in the pocket of big carbon, and dead.

EDIT: He is on the ball this morning. I mean of course PM is a crank, he says something that Jacob disagrees with and anyone who disagrees with Jacob or the prevailing narrative is a crank. Oh one day wouldn't it be wonderful if JC came out as a CC sceptic, I think Jacob would jump off a bridge, though he wouldn't die, the sea level would have risen loads by then so the fall is only 6 inches.

It's not about belief it's about facts. I don't see the point of choosing to be ignorant.
Perhaps you could explain? Do you choose not to know about other things too?

 

[Rorschach]

The old "facts" again, you are as bad as Robin, you accept the facts that support your previous viewpoint and dismiss those that contradict. We all do it, but it is particularly disingenuous to believe that only you can be right, again, just like Robin. Ironic since you both disagree on lots of things.

 

[Jacob]

The old "facts" again, you are as bad as Robin, you accept the facts that support your previous viewpoint and dismiss those that contradict.

No it's the other way around - I try to have viewpoints which fit the facts

We all do it,

no we don't. You are the ones choosing facts to fit your viewpoints. Desperately searching for facts in fact!

but it is particularly disingenuous to believe that only you can be right,

What a very silly thing to say! Not only me, it's me and 97% of the highly informed scientific community world wide. Hardly a minority opinion.
What is most alarming is that what has been forecast is now happening, but sooner than expected. Probably due to the science being over cautious when faced with rabid ignorance and suspicion/superstition encountered everywhere, even on woodwork forums! Every forecast/comment made over the last 50 years or so has met with derision, sarcasm and opposition. The science probably backs off unconsciously; it's not easy to assert anything against continual opposition, and action has been delayed by the sceptics, and the fossil fuel industry of course.

 

[Rorschach]

See, you are doing it right now. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[Noel]

Anybody want to get a shout in before closing time?