Enviornmental Issues...

[DeletedUser25606]

its funny that you try and be patronizing in your reply's ,

let me put this in terms you might understand : what your saying is like saying eddie murphy wasnt donkey in shrek .

im not making this up , this is "world expert" opinion , why is it that they all agree?
is it bause they've studied this for decades , have all the relevant data and technology to reach these conclusions or is it because this is just common sense.

your trying to argue a point that its more and more obvious you know nothing about .
Stupidity isnt ignorance , stupidity is when the facts are presented and you still cant understand.

as much as i dislike the term , your just a troll , every point you make has absoultey no basis on relevance or fact ,

Globally, livestock is the largest methane source emitter (third in the United States). Atmospheric methane is increasing, can linger in the atmosphere for ∼9 to 15 years, and is more than 20 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

Once again a well documented fact , livestock IS a major player in climate change , warming , and the cause of it bieng a factor primarily is methane , you referring to carbon in this context shows that you dont understand even the basics of the contributing concerns.

You know none of the facts ,yet you persist to try and argue this , im done , to me your nothing but a good example of whats wrong with education and information presented in the commerical media .

 

[DeletedUser]

its funny that you try and be patronizing in your reply's ,

let me put this in terms you might understand : what your saying is like saying eddie murphy wasnt donkey in shrek .

im not making this up , this is "world expert" opinion , why is it that they all agree?
is it bause they've studied this for decades , have all the relevant data and technology to reach these conclusions or is it because this is just common sense.

your trying to argue a point that its more and more obvious you know nothing about .
Stupidity isnt ignorance , stupidity is when the facts are presented and you still cant understand.

as much as i dislike the term , your just a troll , every point you make has absoultey no basis on relevance or fact ,

Globally, livestock is the largest methane source emitter (third in the United States). Atmospheric methane is increasing, can linger in the atmosphere for ∼9 to 15 years, and is more than 20 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

Once again a well documented fact , livestock IS a major player in climate change , warming , and the cause of it bieng a factor primarily is methane , you referring to carbon in this context shows that you dont understand even the basics of the contributing concerns.

You know none of the facts ,yet you persist to try and argue this , im done , to me your nothing but a good example of whats wrong with education and information presented in the commerical media .

Are you Talking to me? I did not say that industrial plans produce more carbon, they produce more pollution. Pollution is more than just air pollution. Industry is more polluting, but they do not have to pay the environmental costs. As far as cows or organic life forms are concern, they are going to be there whether or not humans are using them for meat and milk so you cannot really keep them in the equation. They are just a given that you have to accept unless you want to wipe them out.

I am not trying to be condescending I am just stating well known facts and presenting an analytical conclusions.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

Believe me ,the last way i'd see your post is condesending , and seeing ive been (i wont say debating) correcting sumdumass for a couple of pages i cant see how you thought it was directed at you .

but lets have a look at your known facts:

Livestock : Cows were'nt roaming the savanah ,demositcated cattle and current breeds of cow are results of human intervention. Livestock is a grown crop , the numbers are artifically higher than natural ecology could sustain hence the impact on climate. Its hard to debate a point thats not a point but more general everyday information/common sense.

Industry levy on polution: i'll start with america

Colorado
In November 2006, voters in Boulder, Colorado passed what is proclaimed to be the first municipal 'carbon tax'. It is a tax on electricity consumption (utility bills) with deductions for using electricity from renewable sources (primarily Xcel's WindSource program). Their goal is to reduce carbon emissions to those outlined in the Kyoto Protocol; specifically to reduce their emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by 2012

California
In May 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which covers nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, passed a carbon tax on businesses of 4.4 cents per ton of CO2.[151]
Some states are considering the imposition of carbon taxes. For example in 2006, the state of California, passed AB-32 which requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Maryland
In May 2010 Montgomery County, Maryland passed the nation's first county-level carbon tax.[153] The new legislation calls for payments of $5 per ton of CO2 emitted from any stationary source emitting more than a million tons of carbon dioxide during a calendar year

worldwide:

China

The Chinese Government Ministry of Finance has proposed to introduce a carbon tax from 2012 or 2013, based on carbon dioxide output from hydrocarbon fuel sources such as oil and coal



India

On July 1, 2010 India introduced a nationwide carbon tax of 50 rupees per metric tonne ($1.07/t) of coal both produced and imported into India.[50] In India coal is used to power more than half of the country’s electricity generation


South Africa

A tax on emissions has been proposed for South Africa. Announced by Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, the tax will be implemented starting September 1, 2010 on new motor vehicles

South Korea

On August 22, 2008 The Chong Wa Dae, also known as the Blue house – the executive office and official residence of the South Korean head of state, confirmed a list of 40 new administrative strategy agenda, which included substitution of a carbon tax with the current transportation tax
Taiwan

In October 2009 vice finance minister Chang Sheng-ho announced that Taiwan was planning to adopt a carbon tax in 2011


Australia

Carbon tax passed,

New Zealand

In 2008, the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme was enacted via the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008.[75]




Europe

In Europe, a number of countries have imposed energy taxes or energy taxes based partly on carbon content.[18] These include Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK


(i can go into each if you wish )




ok, so there's your "facts". Debating is opinion based on fact ,like ive said to sumdumass , you cant just make up things then assertively try and pass them as facts.



if you dont know or cant grasp the very basics of the facts that lead to discussion,then dont contribute ,or you just end up looking like "sumdumass"

 

[DeletedUser30834]

its funny that you try and be patronizing in your reply's ,

Actually, I was trying to lighten them up a bit.

let me put this in terms you might understand : what your saying is like saying eddie murphy wasnt donkey in shrek .

Change that to, Eddie Murphy wasn't a donkey in Real life and only in Shrek and I might agree with you.

im not making this up , this is "world expert" opinion , why is it that they all agree?
is it bause they've studied this for decades , have all the relevant data and technology to reach these conclusions or is it because this is just common sense.

Common sense is not a couple of pennies two or more people find at the same time and decide to split it. You need to stop putting blind faith in people or organizations, especially science. Science by design is meant to be wrong at times and to have things once thought as fact to be removed.

your trying to argue a point that its more and more obvious you know nothing about .
Stupidity isnt ignorance , stupidity is when the facts are presented and you still cant understand.

Globally, livestock is the largest methane source emitter (third in the United States). Atmospheric methane is increasing, can linger in the atmosphere for ∼9 to 15 years, and is more than 20 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

Once again a well documented fact , livestock IS a major player in climate change , warming , and the cause of it bieng a factor primarily is methane , you referring to carbon in this context shows that you dont understand even the basics of the contributing concerns.

You know none of the facts ,yet you persist to try and argue this , im done , to me your nothing but a good example of whats wrong with education and information presented in the commerical media .

Go back and read what I said, then tell me, where does the methane come from. And start from the source.

The methane comes from plants that only exist to feed the cattle. The plants grab the carbon in the atmosphere, get harvested (in some locations), feed to cattle, the cattle digest it creating methane in the form of farts and belches, they poop and methane from the excrement is produced. You see, it's a closed loop or neutral cycle. It is not adding much to the atmosphere that wasn't just taken out because of it. It's the same reasoning to why using ethanol and bio diesel is better then using fossil fuels- is neutral resources are used to produce it, you aren't adding anything to the atmosphere.

But eliminating cattle production is worse because you need roughly ten times as much vegetables, grains and fruits to replace the nutrition gained from meat. Not eating meat also has a problem with b12 deficiency but that's another topic altogether. The fact is, the Carbon released in meat production, outside of what is added by the process itself (cracking natural gas for nitrogen or using fossil fuels to till the land and produce feed stock which will still be done producing alternatives to meat), the same carbon release will happen through the ingestion of any other food by humans with the exception of fruit in which the bulk of the carbon will stay with the trees until they are replaced and used for other stuff.

Don't get stuck on the concept of methane being different then Co2 or stuck thinking the carbon magically appears where it once wasn't. The laws of thermal dynamics will not allow that. The only net increase of carbon in the atmosphere from meat production comes from the amount of fossil fuels used in the production of it. Those same fossil sources of carbon will be used on the production of everything that replaces the meat consumption as the process is the same. The methane in meat consumption is primarily carbon pulled from the atmosphere already and not added to it.

If you could competently claim that without meat production, all the sequestered carbon would continue to be sequestered and be removed from ever reentering the atmosphere, you might be correct. The problem is that you cannot make that claim at all. The studies you quote cannot make that claim at all. No one can make that claim at all because it is simply untrue.

 

[DeletedUser]

You need to stop putting blind faith in people or organizations, especially science. Science by design is meant to be wrong at times and to have things once thought as fact to be removed.....

But eliminating cattle production is worse because you need roughly ten times as much vegetables, grains and fruits to replace the nutrition gained from meat.....

orly? Science is meant to present a framework through which physical events can be explained in a coherent model, subject to modification upon evidence of new events. Thus far, all the events have added up to the validity of global warming and related things. Across nearly all political parties, counties, and organizations, this has been the consensus based on numbers. You can't argue with that! Unless everything is just a lie, but then there is Occam's razor

You'll need to back up that meat = 10 * (vegetables + grains + fruits) thing with some evidence.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

you just dont understand the point or problem

methane is the contributor in livestock in climate change (overall) , not CARBON , carbon is the contributor from industry, fossil fuels etc , but methane in context to global warming is important because it lingers for 9-15 and holds heat more than co2 , worldwide the sheer numbers of cattle make the methane a major factor in global warming/climate change

do you even understand that very basic point in cause and effect .i never said carbon in ralation to livestock,

and then i went on to give example after example of world leaders in thier field saying the same thing ,look up thier data .

again , you dont even understand the points to argue this on.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Science is not a consensus. You do not take a vote and agree that the Sky is yellow, then automatically, it is yellow. You perform tests and experiments to validate assumptions and learn how to correct those assumptions. If something is not falsifiable, it simply cannot be scientific. And as I said before, if someone claims it is science, doesn't mean that it is and groups use science to support their agendas all the time. Remember eugenics and the groups like Planned parent hood that sprang from it? They used science too, but abandoned a lot of the scientific wisdom at time.

As for the ten times claim it was a generality, but it does take more to replace meat. 4 ounces of Pinto beans is equivalent to 2 ounces of meat according to the USDA. and that is one of the most dense alternative to meat there is. It only gets worse from there.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

and if i was quoting one crackpot voice in the wilderness scientist you'd be right.

But im not , im quoting a group of world leading respected scientists from a cross section of countries who's finding are from decades of data (not myth's) just straight out facts & figures.

You dont have an argument

You clearly don't even know the basics of the topic

 

[DeletedUser]

Believe me ,the last way i'd see your post is condesending , and seeing ive been (i wont say debating) correcting sumdumass for a couple of pages i cant see how you thought it was directed at you .

but lets have a look at your known facts:

Livestock : Cows were'nt roaming the savanah ,demositcated cattle and current breeds of cow are results of human intervention. Livestock is a grown crop , the numbers are artifically higher than natural ecology could sustain hence the impact on climate. Its hard to debate a point thats not a point but more general everyday information/common sense.

I figured you were writing about "sumdumdumass" but as your comment followed mine I could not be sure.
As far as cattle in the mid-west USA is concerned there were free roaming bovine known as Buffalo long before cows were in the picture. I cannot speak to the other countries as I don't live there. I do not support turning a living creature into a production line as has been done with cows, but I do not consider them a hazard to the environment. I am more concerned with the industrial pollution that is above the law when it comes to their pollution output due to their political influence.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I would overall go with this chaps take on it.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy.You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. I am of the opinion the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

An analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has shown that most climate change might well be the result of….wait for it and take a deep breath ....the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence. It is simply what the climate system does.

Roy W. Spencer Ph.D. in meteorology

Unfortunately the word taxes are very appealing to governments, theres no surprise in carbon taxes becoming popular and could be applauded on the face of it, however selling carbon tax credits to others to offset their footprint shows what level of seriousness it is really being taken, its not. It is imo at the moment just another revenue stream.

In short Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

No vic

Yes there's always been warmer and colder periods in the earth's history and they are cycles ,however since 1900's the figures show a constant rise in temperature ALLOWING for the natural cycles , if you like i can get the figures ,but frankly ive had enough of cutting and pasting just to show the basic facts of the argument, its all there go find it yaselves


and the problem , the worlds best leading scientists are screaming about this , but because of industry (mainly) thinktanks there's a culture of disbelif and climate change conspiracy theroies . Why?,because its not convienient and any program that looks to adress it is certainly going to cost industry .

Like i keep repeating , showing quotes etc , the worlds best scientic minds in this area have been saying and understanding this for decades with no outside considerations such as corp or policy , its just that simple

factor in deforestation, factor in emisons , factor in polution , still think there's nothing going on?

the climate change debunkers have always taken just one element and used it as proof,,its never been just one element ,its the entire picture ,

in global and scientific terms the arguments well and truely moved past the "what if there not right" stage and (as i pointed to in an earlier post ) gone to legislation ,or proposed legislation.It's a dead argument to say it could be wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

Vic, yes, it happens, but not at the magnitudes that we have witnessed recently, such as the tornado at Joplin, MO. These extreme events are occurring at ever greater intensities and frequencies.

"Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization." <click me>

 

[DeletedUser]

Vic, yes, it happens, but not at the magnitudes that we have witnessed recently, such as the tornado at Joplin, MO. These extreme events are occurring at ever greater intensities and frequencies.

"Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization." <click me>

Don't forget about water pollution and oil spills killing off the plankton that produces much of the worlds oxygen from CO2 (more than the rain forest). Ocean covers the majority of the earth and plant based plankton produce more oxygen than any other single source.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

another relevant point on oceans (which is the origin of me taking an intrest in this area) farming/livestock also dramatically affects there too , some estimates at 23% of cause of ocean polution .

 

[DeletedUser16008]

If youll note I havn't said said there isnt a manmade force contributing to it but rather to what degree. Ive had a lot of debate and information searching over the years on this and swung back and forth and I have concluded the scientific community is indeed biased towards their sponsers and have to be to gain further funding I hate it but its true, the purse strings also stretch and influence that community too. No one really denies theres a contributing factor including me, what I dislike is the complete disregard for natural climate change and global warming in this picture and frankly the gov funded scientific community for a long time now have had grants being funded on the basis of including "study of climate change" in applications purely to be granted funding whether their work has or hasn't anything to do with it. Meteorologists ive found to be the most realistic and least sensationalizing of the lot as a sub section. Plus they are well qualified to understand climate etc unlike the mass of scientific shirttail grabbers this subject has picked up over the past 20 years. Mainly to get continued funding, recognition and in some cases no more than a livelihood. Do not get carried away with believing all the hype or reports that are sometimes produced. It is imperative the scientific community not become slaves to their funding partners, unfortunately to a large degree they always have been and some of the greatest discoveries have been made by "fringe scientific nutcases" that were ignored by their peers on their own limited budget only to be proven correct at a later date. You would do well to always remember that

rice there are other things to consider such as position in the milky way, cycle of rotation and lot more besides, planet earth does not hang on a string and float around the universe at random. There are terrific forces at work out there and to suppose man is capable of competing is arrogant to say the least. Actually its more like 40 - 45% effect i included that already.

lets move past the idea I am on the anti side because im not rather the level and manner its being prostituted with carbon taxes as the main trick for hire.

Answer me please on this point do you think it is right carbon tax credits can be bought and sold on the market to hide others footprints ?

Oceanography is something i have a keen interest in being a diver so crack on scamp I havnt gotten into that either but am more than happy to.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

Oceanography is something i have a keen interest in being a diver so crack on scamp I havnt gotten into that either but am more than happy to.

wow vic ,do a bit of diving few times a week and your an expert

15 yrs deep sea trawl ,my working life i've LIVED on the ocean ,10 day trips ,2 days home , culminating as 1st mate on the biggest volume landing trawler in south east trawl sector /australia , in one of the roughest oceans on the planet ,the southern .

you want to talk about a few things you've read? ,cool , i can talk of things ive seen & lived , let alone expert opinion face to face conversations i've had with leading researchers AFMA ,CSIRO that have come out for research on trips.Vic ,be my guest mate.

and vic ,yea a lot of what were told is b.s and a lot of it is from people personal agenda's , i know from other posts you've done on a broad range of subjects you know this and more ,but there are the rairities when its on the level. There's just too much overwhelming (respected) research on this .

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok everyone, lets talk less about each other and more about our respective points (if any).

Just because someone writes something in a D&D-thread you don't have to reply to it.

I will add the OP:s intention once more:

Hello everyone. I am opening this thread to calmly and peacefully discuss the environment. And as you might guess, the environment is pretty important to me. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the current issues dealing with the environment (Such as global warming) and to state our opinions of what we would do to solve these issues if we had the money, the means, and the knowledge to do so. Comments and observations are welcome as long as the discussion does not get out of hand and turn into an argument.

This forum has a 10 page rule, but since this is such a huge topic and you actually manage to cover different aspects of 'Environmental issues' I will let it continue for a while.

Happy debating.
Mod-Edlit

(...Moving into private mode...)

I can't say that I'm following all aspects of this debate, but I saw a claim in here that using vegetable protein requires more resources than animal protein, this is according to my sources not correct.

When comparing the two you must consider the amount of resources going into the animal so that they in turn can be used as a nutritional resource.

A quick search on the topic gave me this: http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/664S.full (and you can just read the abstract if you want).

/Edlit

 

[DeletedUser]

I can't say that I'm following all aspects of this debate, but I saw a claim in here that using vegetable protein requires more resources than animal protein, this is according to my sources not correct.

When comparing the two you must consider the amount of resources going into the animal so that they in turn can be used as a nutritional resource.

A quick search on the topic gave me this: http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/664S.full (and you can just read the abstract if you want).

/Edlit

I would agree that in farming this would be mostly correct; however trapping wild game requires little resources but cannot be relied upon to feed everyone in our current infrastructure. Too many people are gathered in large cities for hunting and gathering to be a viable option. On the other hand there is no way you are going to convince the majority of people to turn vegetarian; its kinda a catch 22.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

I can't say that I'm following all aspects of this debate, but I saw a claim in here that using vegetable protein requires more resources than animal protein, this is according to my sources not correct.

When comparing the two you must consider the amount of resources going into the animal so that they in turn can be used as a nutritional resource.

A quick search on the topic gave me this: http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/664S.full (and you can just read the abstract if you want).

I do not know if you were talking about what I said, or another claim buried within the thread. However, there are some issues to consider. First, if it was my comment, I was talking about the amount of nutrients density of the foods and how it related to carbon emissions. You simply need more plant based food per serving then a serving of meat to equal the same amounts. Second, the study your link is referencing used the eating habits of omnivores verses vegans in Switzerland and the commercial production of beef verses organic production of grains, vegetables and fruits.

The two basic distinctions between vegetarians or vegans verses omnivores is that vegans have portion control in mind when eating as they are primarily more concerned about what they put in their mouth. Omnivore eaters generally don't pay that close of attention and will over consume their portions of meat. Most food guidelines will say a 2-4 ounce portion of beef is a serving where most menus will offer 4 to 12 ounces or more (especially in the US). If we do an apples to apples comparison, we would need to consider the diet of one converted to the nutritional equivalent of the other, not the habits of two distinctly different groups of people. The later basically says if group a behaved like group b, we would have result X. The problem is they do not behave the same and likely would not behave the same even if meat was removed from their diets. They would still over indulge in the foods they liked. With this in mind, you need to compare the equivalent of consumption to get an accurate idea of the amounts of food production per person needed which is a huge hinging point of their clam. The study is correct insomuch as if grup behaved like the other, there might be a reduction. You can think of it as more of a if we put fat people on a diet, less food would need to be produced therefore it would be better for the environment.


Another issue to consider, and they even acknowledge it, is the types of agriculture employed in the study. It's like comparing a sports care to a Yugo then concentrating on the purchase price of the cars as an indicator of environmental impact. If meat was removed from our diets, the agriculture employed to make up the difference in food production will likely be a traditional commercial setting that is more cost effective then an organic operation which is more environmentally friendly. Again, its not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

another relevant point on oceans (which is the origin of me taking an intrest in this area) farming/livestock also dramatically affects there too , some estimates at 23% of cause of ocean polution .

As this sub section though part of the huge connected topic of the environment is massive in itself ive gone PM scamp, much as id be happy here its just ... well simpler.

Back on the main subject, it is a massive problem and probably insurmountable, this thread being a perfect example on a micro level of the problems this throws up on worldwide level. Everything is connected, it always was and allways will be. The butterfly effect if you will, make everyone understand that and then youve a good base to start with