Absolute no-brainer win-win ideas that have many benefits all over the place. e.g.
Stopping people driving short trips through towns and cities and actually supporting active travel and public transport *not only* cuts emissions directly, but also reduces localised pollution (both particulate and noise), reduces traffic congestion, reduces road wear/repair costs, reduces the need to build expensive new roads (a big emitter thanks to all the concrete and bitumen), reduces the healthcare burden of pollution related illness, traffic accident injuries (including permanent disability), reduces rates of obesity, inactivity, depression, cancer, and social isolation, reduces total energy demand (which makes the task of providing 100% renewable energy significantly *easier*), reduces costs to individuals (cars and fuel are expensive).
Insulating homes not only cuts emissions, but also reduces energy demand (increasing energy security, making the renewables transition easier), reduces individuals’ bills, reduces the burden of sickness that results from fuel poverty.
But the politicians are too cowardly and the public refuses to budge.
So we’re all going to live horrible lives.
Won’t work. Conservation and re-wilding doesn’t look like what Joe/Joanne Public thinks it should so it won’t gain public and therefore political acceptance.
Deer culls to protect new planted woodland, pigeon shooting to protect crops and the controlled burning of moorland that overtime absorb more carbon than unmanaged moorland and woodland are essential in the process. However these are unpalatable to the majority of people that don’t read past the headline and are at best tolerated but only due to the fact they are carried out discreetly.
It’s not about the science of what works it’s about the political point scoring by some clueless but powerful organisations that will be the undoing of the whole thing which is a shame.
No one ever mentions food waste. Food waste contributions the same emissions as the meat and diary industry but gets none of the same coverage.
Brits throw away a stupid amount of food and going all veg but not addressing that problem is shifting emissions from one box to another.
Food waste and methane production it causes in landfil is a massive pollutant. It should be in the conversation every time it comes up.
I don’t know if they do or don’t, but should we not be teaching in schools the truth about the meat/dairy industry by now?
Those things being the negative environmental impact of the industry, how those in developed nations do not need meat or dairy in their diets and then obviously how fucked up the whole idea of breeding a sentient being just to torture it before killing it and eating it’s flesh is?
First 2 points should be a given in any science curriculum by now surely?
Literally no reason to eat animal produce other than liking the taste, but that obviously doesn’t justify the cruelty, trillions of animal deaths per year, climate damage, zoonotic diseases, etc.
If anyone would like sources, or advice on eating a more plant based diet, feel free to ask.
Whenever i try to talk to farmers about vegan diets and rewilding they say that the whole vegan diet is a myth that its lower carbon footprint, they heavily lean on.
– cows in UK are often grass fed, on land that couldnt be used for other crops
– feed can be parts of other crops which arnt used for other purposes and would otherwise be wasted
– local grass fed beef has a lower footprint when taking into account vege alternatives that might have needed a lot of water(surely not less than cows though??) And was transported across the world
It always sounds like Bullshit but i dont have the data or knowledge to challenge them but it annoys me seeing all these farming pages tear down the arguments i see here and many people gobble it up
Anyone can help me understand the credibility of their claims so i can appropriately challenge them? Or maybe they have a point?
6 comments
A lot of climate-friendly policy is like this.
Absolute no-brainer win-win ideas that have many benefits all over the place. e.g.
Stopping people driving short trips through towns and cities and actually supporting active travel and public transport *not only* cuts emissions directly, but also reduces localised pollution (both particulate and noise), reduces traffic congestion, reduces road wear/repair costs, reduces the need to build expensive new roads (a big emitter thanks to all the concrete and bitumen), reduces the healthcare burden of pollution related illness, traffic accident injuries (including permanent disability), reduces rates of obesity, inactivity, depression, cancer, and social isolation, reduces total energy demand (which makes the task of providing 100% renewable energy significantly *easier*), reduces costs to individuals (cars and fuel are expensive).
Insulating homes not only cuts emissions, but also reduces energy demand (increasing energy security, making the renewables transition easier), reduces individuals’ bills, reduces the burden of sickness that results from fuel poverty.
But the politicians are too cowardly and the public refuses to budge.
So we’re all going to live horrible lives.
Won’t work. Conservation and re-wilding doesn’t look like what Joe/Joanne Public thinks it should so it won’t gain public and therefore political acceptance.
Deer culls to protect new planted woodland, pigeon shooting to protect crops and the controlled burning of moorland that overtime absorb more carbon than unmanaged moorland and woodland are essential in the process. However these are unpalatable to the majority of people that don’t read past the headline and are at best tolerated but only due to the fact they are carried out discreetly.
It’s not about the science of what works it’s about the political point scoring by some clueless but powerful organisations that will be the undoing of the whole thing which is a shame.
No one ever mentions food waste. Food waste contributions the same emissions as the meat and diary industry but gets none of the same coverage.
Brits throw away a stupid amount of food and going all veg but not addressing that problem is shifting emissions from one box to another.
Food waste and methane production it causes in landfil is a massive pollutant. It should be in the conversation every time it comes up.
I don’t know if they do or don’t, but should we not be teaching in schools the truth about the meat/dairy industry by now?
Those things being the negative environmental impact of the industry, how those in developed nations do not need meat or dairy in their diets and then obviously how fucked up the whole idea of breeding a sentient being just to torture it before killing it and eating it’s flesh is?
First 2 points should be a given in any science curriculum by now surely?
Literally no reason to eat animal produce other than liking the taste, but that obviously doesn’t justify the cruelty, trillions of animal deaths per year, climate damage, zoonotic diseases, etc.
If anyone would like sources, or advice on eating a more plant based diet, feel free to ask.
Whenever i try to talk to farmers about vegan diets and rewilding they say that the whole vegan diet is a myth that its lower carbon footprint, they heavily lean on.
– cows in UK are often grass fed, on land that couldnt be used for other crops
– feed can be parts of other crops which arnt used for other purposes and would otherwise be wasted
– local grass fed beef has a lower footprint when taking into account vege alternatives that might have needed a lot of water(surely not less than cows though??) And was transported across the world
It always sounds like Bullshit but i dont have the data or knowledge to challenge them but it annoys me seeing all these farming pages tear down the arguments i see here and many people gobble it up
Anyone can help me understand the credibility of their claims so i can appropriately challenge them? Or maybe they have a point?