X R idiots blocking roads

[Swervin_Mervin]

I’d say it’s pretty basic common sense that:
Plant > livestock > human food requires way more resources and energy input than Plant > human food.
If fact I’m not sure how it can be argued against?

Plants that animals eat grow fairly easily without much if any input from us. So why would it be more resource hungry than plant>human? And additionally, plant-based produce often requires far more intensive processing than animal-based produce.

Read the above Guardian article - it's particularly focussed on land use in animal agriculture.

And yes, I still believe that any industrialised/commercialised food production on a large scale will have significant impacts somewhere along the way.

[Mito Man]

That article glosses over many things. I'm not sure what part of America she's in but over here the cattle need to go in for winter, they don't do well in frost and the grass stops growing. Then you require many tons of hay and silage per day, as well as supplementing with other crops like sugar beets. Most of which are specifically farmed in other fields just to feed the cattle overwinter. A smaller proportion of their feed will come as byproducts from other farm produce and rejected produce because it looks funny. Also have you seen how much fecking water a cow drinks?

So I stick with my plant direct to human food being much more efficient, probably at least 3 times more efficient just from what I've seen in the field. Plenty of scope there for transporting peas and processing it into meat alternatives and still having a smaller footprint

[Simon]

To step back a minute, I think that we're fucked.

COP26 is a distraction, XR, IB, AR can piss off who they like and they might even get a small change in policy, but at the end of the day look at where the emissions come from. Ten's of millions of Americans think the election was stolen and that Biden is some kind of blood sucking paedo. Do you really think that a country that can't even get paid parental leave on the statute books is gonna really reach net zero in less than 3 decades? That's only as far forward as we are from 1991 right now.

India too. The country barely has basic sanitation in large parts but we do think everyone there's gonna switch to a Tesla or Honda-E before we hit a 2.5 degrees rise?

The only large economy that has a chance, ironically, is China, because they are an authoritarian dictatorship who can get things done. However, they will only do enough for China, and to hell with everyone else if it's not enough for the rest of the world.

So sure, UK will decarbonise, stop selling ICE cars, stop fitting gas boilers, switch to heat pumps, some will change their diet, and the North Sea will no longer be for its oil fields but instead be fields of offshore wind generation. But it won''t be enough, because as I've said you can't change the world by pissing off drivers on the M25.

[mik]

Unfortunately…. most of that.

We also need to tackle rising population as it is a massive factor. It doesn’t matter if each individual reduces by 50% if there are twice as many individuals…. It has to remain a choice as opposed to any government mandate/control, but people need to be educated.

[Nefarious]

I started to write something, then I remembered I commented on the XR protests a few years ago. Not a whole lot has changed.

Unfortunately, protests like this only tend to entrench people's pre-existing views, and in some ways may serve as a disincentive to action.

Basically, and I know I'm personally as guilty of this as the next person, people want their every-increasing consumerist quality of life above all else, and while they quite like the idea of a cleaner, less-fucked planet, they'd rather have their personal guilt assuaged by tickling around the edges than actually grasp the nettle and accept that their fundamental values have to change in order to make a meaningful impact.

Want three foreign holidays a year? Want to eat red meat seven days a week? Want to spend your weekends using pointless retail as a leisure activity? Sure, crack on with all that, so long as you make the right noises, forego plastic straws and sign the odd petition for somebody else to sort the problem. You too can feel smug as fuck as you drop half a dozen bottles off for recycling out of the back of your 3-ton SUV.

At the very very heart of the problem is that reducing environmental damage and increasing national wealth are directly contradictory objectives - tax polluting companies and they move to china, tax car production and people lose jobs, tax imported food and people's grocery bill goes up, tax road travel and people complain that their real wages have fallen due to increased commuting costs. As a nation, we are a million miles from saying "yes, I'm willing to forego more trinkets and baubles to save some animals I'm never going to see or protect a forest that won't even be planted until long after I'm dead".

And TV images of crusties being dragged away by the cops doesn't do much to sell the kind of fundamental lifestyle and value change that's needed. The sub-conscious messages are that environmentalism is extreme (so the little concessions you makes are a *fair* compromise), that taking any positive steps makes you more like those smelly people you hate (and more importantly, look down on), and that ultimately, it's all a bit pointless anyway.

If change is going to happen, it has to happen *within* the realm of established social and political norms. I hate to say it, but those pushing for change need to learn a lesson from the UKIP playbook - sell an idea that genuinely speaks to people's fears and desires, convert the support of the people you persuade into ballot box numbers, and scare mainstream political parties into incorporating the narrative into their own ideologies.

[RobYob]

Thing is @mik , birthrates drop when education and access to healthcare improves, a virtuous circle there.

The other virtuous circle I have hope for is the decentralisation of electricity generation and storage. A remote dwelling that would otherwise never have the opportunity to progress from a diesel generator now has options for generation and storage that should be lower maintenance and running cost.

It's not that the means isn't available to fix this, it's lack of political will.

[RobYob]

Might have posted it before but this is a very watchable guide that scopes out the problem and potential solution.


@Mito Man see 8:38 for a fun fact on US beef production.

[Swervin_Mervin]

That article glosses over many things. I'm not sure what part of America she's in but over here the cattle need to go in for winter, they don't do well in frost and the grass stops growing. Then you require many tons of hay and silage per day, as well as supplementing with other crops like sugar beets. Most of which are specifically farmed in other fields just to feed the cattle overwinter. A smaller proportion of their feed will come as byproducts from other farm produce and rejected produce because it looks funny. Also have you seen how much fecking water a cow drinks?

So I stick with my plant direct to human food being much more efficient, probably at least 3 times more efficient just from what I've seen in the field. Plenty of scope there for transporting peas and processing it into meat alternatives and still having a smaller footprint

We're going to need to spend a lot of time eating peas to get the energy we need to live on a daily basis And I don't fancy trying to chow down on a sugar beet either - isn't its use as animal feed partly a by-product of the sugar industry we have anyway?

Also the energy density of meat is significantly higher than most veg and grains. You have to factor that in as well. When you actually start trying to think about all of this you quickly realise what a horrendously difficult task it must be to actually have to put numbers against all of this, in terms of energy usage, nutrition, carbon footprint etc.

And part of the issue is that we look at meat production in its current form (let's say beef specifically as it seems to be the worst), with all the terrible and inefficient practices that go on, and not what perhaps it could be with many of the advances and modern aproaches that are being investigated. And yet we compare that currently inefficient and highly impactful process with how we believe plant/lab-based alternatives will be produced, taking out of the equation what is more liekly to happen once its scaled up to global supply levels and the manufacturers drive production costs down to maximise profit.

And that's just meat vs alternatives, without getting into the many other areas of food production where similar ineqquities will exist (nut milk anyone?)

[ZedLeg]

There isn't really a correct answer except that whatever stage of capitalism we're at is bad and there's a good chance that we're too far down the line to reverse it .

[Rich B]

All this, and in 3-4 years that woman's children are going to die apparently.

[V8Granite]

All this, and in 3-4 years that woman's children are going to die apparently.

I don’t know about you but I think my kids have a bright and exciting future ahead.

Dave!

[ZedLeg]

Based on how the last 20 years have gone, I wouldn't put a bet on that

[Gavster]

The reason why it's so hard to find solutions that work are because food is so intimately personal (what else do you put inside your body on daily basis? Actually, don't answer that ) that it's incredibly divisive.

Governments have the most potential to enact change through regulation and legislation - end of story. However, their willingness to do so is hindered by the most powerful actors in food supply - the large businesses. Consumers are utterly meaningless, because the industry defence that 'consumer is king' doesn't play out until profits are at risk. Local activism is as much use as a chocolate teapot in terms of progress towards global change, however, any positive action that individuals can take which makes them feel good about their life is a good thing.

The new EU farm to fork strategy is a step in the right direction and to the envy of the US. As usual, these plans are a struggle and get watered down. The UK National Food Strategy response is due before too long and it will be unlikely to adopt the best suggestions that have been put forwards.

The fundamental part of all this food systems nonsense which is slightly dystopian is that at each stage we are trying to outsmart nature. Since two plants were first spliced together, through the industrial revolution, the green revolution, gene editing etc etc, we are endlessly determined to prove how sophisticated and clever we are at out-running nature. Humans are incredibly arrogant in that respect, we believe we are so smart that we can innovate our way out of any problem. Yet, we consistently head in the wrong direction. That's why I'm not a fan of lab grown meat, because I suspect that if we continue to try to pull ourselves out of this food/climate problem using the same thinking that we used to get into it (technology), then it's not going to work in the way people hope, it will have negative side effects.

[Mito Man]

That article glosses over many things. I'm not sure what part of America she's in but over here the cattle need to go in for winter, they don't do well in frost and the grass stops growing. Then you require many tons of hay and silage per day, as well as supplementing with other crops like sugar beets. Most of which are specifically farmed in other fields just to feed the cattle overwinter. A smaller proportion of their feed will come as byproducts from other farm produce and rejected produce because it looks funny. Also have you seen how much fecking water a cow drinks?

So I stick with my plant direct to human food being much more efficient, probably at least 3 times more efficient just from what I've seen in the field. Plenty of scope there for transporting peas and processing it into meat alternatives and still having a smaller footprint

We're going to need to spend a lot of time eating peas to get the energy we need to live on a daily basis And I don't fancy trying to chow down on a sugar beet either - isn't its use as animal feed partly a by-product of the sugar industry we have anyway?

Also the energy density of meat is significantly higher than most veg and grains. You have to factor that in as well. When you actually start trying to think about all of this you quickly realise what a horrendously difficult task it must be to actually have to put numbers against all of this, in terms of energy usage, nutrition, carbon footprint etc.

And part of the issue is that we look at meat production in its current form (let's say beef specifically as it seems to be the worst), with all the terrible and inefficient practices that go on, and not what perhaps it could be with many of the advances and modern aproaches that are being investigated. And yet we compare that currently inefficient and highly impactful process with how we believe plant/lab-based alternatives will be produced, taking out of the equation what is more liekly to happen once its scaled up to global supply levels and the manufacturers drive production costs down to maximise profit.

And that's just meat vs alternatives, without getting into the many other areas of food production where similar ineqquities will exist (nut milk anyone?)

Energy density this energy density that. Some things are black and white and some are more debatable. Plant diets being more efficient is black and white.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore
I’m not saying that I want to live the rest of my life on peas and beans but it’s clearly better for the planet.

[Swervin_Mervin]

That article glosses over many things. I'm not sure what part of America she's in but over here the cattle need to go in for winter, they don't do well in frost and the grass stops growing. Then you require many tons of hay and silage per day, as well as supplementing with other crops like sugar beets. Most of which are specifically farmed in other fields just to feed the cattle overwinter. A smaller proportion of their feed will come as byproducts from other farm produce and rejected produce because it looks funny. Also have you seen how much fecking water a cow drinks?

So I stick with my plant direct to human food being much more efficient, probably at least 3 times more efficient just from what I've seen in the field. Plenty of scope there for transporting peas and processing it into meat alternatives and still having a smaller footprint

We're going to need to spend a lot of time eating peas to get the energy we need to live on a daily basis And I don't fancy trying to chow down on a sugar beet either - isn't its use as animal feed partly a by-product of the sugar industry we have anyway?

Also the energy density of meat is significantly higher than most veg and grains. You have to factor that in as well. When you actually start trying to think about all of this you quickly realise what a horrendously difficult task it must be to actually have to put numbers against all of this, in terms of energy usage, nutrition, carbon footprint etc.

And part of the issue is that we look at meat production in its current form (let's say beef specifically as it seems to be the worst), with all the terrible and inefficient practices that go on, and not what perhaps it could be with many of the advances and modern aproaches that are being investigated. And yet we compare that currently inefficient and highly impactful process with how we believe plant/lab-based alternatives will be produced, taking out of the equation what is more liekly to happen once its scaled up to global supply levels and the manufacturers drive production costs down to maximise profit.

And that's just meat vs alternatives, without getting into the many other areas of food production where similar ineqquities will exist (nut milk anyone?)

Energy density this energy density that. Some things are black and white and some are more debatable. Plant diets being more efficient is black and white.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore
I’m not saying that I want to live the rest of my life on peas and beans but it’s clearly better for the planet.

It really isn't, but I've lost the will on this one.

[V8Granite]

Based on how the last 20 years have gone, I wouldn't put a bet on that

Ok, acid rain, rising sea levels, ozone layer, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mass union strikes of the 80s, leaded petrol, local smog.
We had teams coming to our primary school in 1988 with a huge Lego model, they told us how much of East Anglia would be under water due to melting ice caps.
We had people showing us how bad acid rain was and a walk around Peterborough Cathedarel with a model showing it would be half gone by the time we were 30.
No O-Zone so we would be living like Australians.
All our oil will run out in 2040 if they were to be believed.

All these affected Peterborough, add in queueing for powdered milk at the chemists and then queueing for childcare allowance.
Then off home to watch the rented Granada television and having toastie Thursdays as the food had run out on Wednesday. Food especially is about half the actual cost it was 30 years ago.

I think what as an average we have now is vastly better than 30 years ago, the challenges are just as big but different and they will be addressed by the generations who want to make change.

Doom mongers can fuck off.

I’ve said it before but Blue Peter did more for Making a difference than any of these militant shouty pricks have done.

Support local business, don’t eat processed crap, try and live on whatever food takes the minimal distance from being alive to being on your plate and enjoy the outdoors.

Oh and say morning to strangers on your walks outside, a smile goes a long way.

Negative thinking woe is me the end is nigh bollocks is a self fulfilling prophecy that needs fucking off.

Dave!

And breathe

[Rich B]

I concur.

[ZedLeg]

We improved all those things by making huge changes though. Taking lead out of fuel and making road vehicles run much more cleanly in general made a huge difference to a lot of the issues you listed.

Anyway, like I said harking back to the good old days isn't going to help. We're past that and need new solutions to deal with the things we're facing now. Both on a small scale and a large scale.

[V8Granite]

We improved all those things by making huge changes though. Taking lead out of fuel and making road vehicles run much more cleanly in general made a huge difference to a lot of the issues you listed.

Anyway, like I said harking back to the good old days isn't going to help. We're past that and need new solutions to deal with the things we're facing now. Both on a small scale and a large scale.

Who is harking back to the good old days ?

Change was made and things improved. Positive improvements are always happening and guilt trips on everyone by those who have nothing else to contribute do not help.

If they all got together and started a company doing minimal profit home insulation it would be a million times more affective than laying down on a motorway.

Dave!

[Rich B]

We improved all those things by making huge changes though. Taking lead out of fuel and making road vehicles run much more cleanly in general made a huge difference to a lot of the issues you listed.

so now you're saying we've made huge changes to improve things in the last 20 years? That's pretty much the opposite of what your previous statement was intimating?