'Go veggie to save the planet' UN, EU plans debunked

@Ralph5

When you said "assuage our guilt" did you mean "sausage our guilt" ? Easy mistaka to maka.

Soylent Green mmmmmmmmmmm

Cannot we kill two birds with one stone here. Too many veggies not enough beefsteaks. I suggest we militant carnivores just eat all the veggies. They can be properly marketed and packaged as Soylent this n that. Kentucky Fried Soylent. etc.

At the very least if it doesn't save the planet it will at least make the place a lot quieter and happier.

As my mum said...Eat all your Veggies!

Easy solution:

Eat vegetarians. That's what us carnivores do.

Wait, what?

"A better plan, he argues, would be to encourage more efficient animal farming techniques as developed in the rich world."

So, what, the Reg is championing battery farming to save the planet from the carbon emissions that aren't really a problem anyway (thanks, Orlowski)?

Just color me confused.

(A better reason not to eat meat, btw, is the extreme pressure livestock farming puts on land and water resources in marginal agricultural areas. Of course, the first thing to do in that direction might be to stop Dubai making fucking artificial islands for stupidly rich people to live on. There's plenty of blame to go around...)

Maybe it's humans....

That are the cause of all of this?

And in order to be able to tell if this is the case I propose a simple experiment. If you are convinced absolutely that humans are the sole cause of climate change we need you to do the following test.

Take a measurement of the CO2 levels in your immediate surroundings.

Hold your breath continuously for 15 minutes, no sneaky breathing in the meantime.

Take a second measurement of the CO2 in your immediate surroundings. If the CO2 has significantly dropped then you have a case. If it doesn't, then not.

Just a thought...

Maybe Politicians using the green adgenda to divert people from their own fuck ups could join you in this experiment?

Can I have the TRUTH, please?

I eat meat AND dairy everyday, and hate vegetables. But I don't buy this Prof.'s conclusions just because they are convenient to my beloved lifestyle.

Can't we have really unbiased studies, PLEASE, to at least know as best as we can what is actually going on, in a fair way?

It's either the ecowarriors preaching doom and gloom and that, whatever we do, we will undoubtedly destroy the world in a few decades, or the industry-shill, everything-is-well-forever-so-keep-consuming, scientist-are-all-corrupt (unless it's a scientist we like, of course, just see El Reg lately) pundits saying we can go on doing whatever we want regardless, because those hippies can't possibly be right and nothing I do can possibly be bad.

I'm sure the truth is somewhere in between, and in different places for different issues. I just would like to know what the reality is! It does not mean I will turn vegan anyway, but I'm not one of those who need to justify my choices to feel less guilty.

OK, so the UN numbers were "dodgy", for whatever reason. Maybe yes, maybe no. Now, has El Reg bothered to check who finances the Prof.'s work, or collaborates with him, for example? Of course not. And what does his just "three percent" of the GHG figure include in the calculations? Just animal farts? Everything but transportation? What? Without that simple info, that was happily supplied about the 2006 report to "debunk" the UN's numbers, it is hard to have an idea whether the Prof's numbers are not equally flawed. If I have to go read and analyze the original reports to get that balanced comparison, then why would I be wasting time reading "journalism"? I would just go directly to the primary sources every time. And no one has the time to do that for everything.

I didn't dig deep at all, just a quick search because I don't have the time now (I thought this "investigating" thing was something journalists should do, but apparently they only do it when they don't like the target or the conclusions). But Frank Mitloehner’s Facebook page (the publicly visible part, and at least for now) says he's a "fan of" the California Beef Council. Hm... OK, another guy under suspicion. Specially since he advocates sending the "Western-style farming practices", you know, quite likely the ones the CBC recommends, to the poor countries. Does not mean he's wrong, but does not bode well.

Bad taste

Your cow with the flaming flatulence was in extremely bad taste indeed.

Good show, keep it up.

Don't eat meat

Eat vegetarians.

It's Sensible. It's sustainable. And with the right cooking it's delicious*

After all they love the ickle wickle cuddly animals. I'm sure many would be happy to make the ultimate sacrifice for their beliefs.

*Although I have no personal experience of this.

If God hadn't intended us to eat beef...

If God hadn't intended us to eat beef, He wouldn't have made it so damn yummy.

A few days ago I had a 8.4-oz steak (yes, they measure to the tenth of an oz, probably Troy...) that cost $50. Just for the meat, but it included a free potato side. Nice.

Anyway...

Whispered: "Concrete." This is the ultimate low hanging fruit. Capture the CO2 from the concrete plants. Point sources. Right beside rail tracks. Multiplied ratio, since lime gives off yet more CO2. It's the ultimate "duh!" Take "Concrete Steps for Climate Change".

Hmmm

So basically El Reg digs up a report from a scientist that states on his Facebook page that he's a "fan of" the California Beef Council. Hmmm, yeah, he certainly sounds independent (props to J 3 for that, btw). But we know the normally sensible Reg puts on it's tinfoil hat and screams "CONSPIRACY!!!" when it comes to carbon emissions and climate change, and doesn't mind a bit of tabloid style reporting when it suits this agenda.

So the UN's figures are too low when it comes to emissions from transport, so you say the whole idea that reducing meat production to reduce carbon pollution is "debunked"? Don't think so, because any carbon pollution reduction is better than no carbon pollution reduction. Less meat still = less heat, so getting people in the wealthy west to sensibly reduce, but maybe not give up their consumption of meat is not a bad thing (it's ok for their health, too).

The Daily Express would be proud of this article. I'm hoping for some Diana conspiracy theory stories from The Register soon.

Industrial Farming is the problem

No mention made of the fact that Organic farming actually sequesters carbon - it's the Industrial monocultures and farming processes which make heavy use of fossil fuels throughout that are bad for the environment. Meat and animal products grown organically or near organically provide good healthy nutrition and help the environment.

Balance

Neither extreme makes any sense in this world. Plenty of flat space for crops in England, bugger-all here in Wales, which is why we have lots of sheep (mmmmm!) - any spare bit of hill will do for them. So if we go the whole veggie route we won't be able to grow much here.

Badger, because I think you can go too far with animal farming and we are about to wipe out (sorry cull - just the first step) a load of badgers to see if it helps keep the cattle free from TB.

Bwahahaaha

Thanks to 007 up there ^ for this gem:

"Writing the synthesis was supported by a $26,000 research grant from the Beef Checkoff Program, which funds research and other activities, including promotion and consumer education, through fees on beef producers in the U.S."

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9336

"The Beef Checkoff Program increases profit opportunities for producers by keeping beef top-of-mind with consumers and purveyors, and by working to ensure a wholesome, quality beef-eating experience every time. Efforts include:

• Promoting high-quality U.S. beef in foreign countries.

• Working to continue growth in beef demand.

• Funding product-enhancement and beef-safety research programs to address safety and quality issues.

• Investing an average of $4 million annually on beef-safety and product-technology research.

• Delivering beef-enjoyment messages to consumers through a checkoff-funded national radio and print advertising campaign.

• Identifying management practices through Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) to strengthen consumer confidence in beef as a wholesome, safe quality product.

• Introducing new products into the marketplace. From 1996 to 2008, more than 2,500 new beef

products addressing consumer preferences reached the market."

http://www.beefboard.org/producer/CBBFinalUnderstandingBrochure.pdf

Beef-enjoyment messages! Mmmm beefy goodness.

Yeah that UN report has been thoroughly debunked.

The Register sinks to a new low.

The Only Way To Be Sure...

Is for all the eco-imperialists and their doom-friends in politics to end themselves and their personal carbon cycles. Then the rest of us can live without worry of a global meltdown. The results would be instantaneous, a large portion of the dead-weight in society will be gone, tied up funds would be immediately available for more worthwhile things, and developing countries would be able to develop for a change instead of being slapped around by these enviro-fascists.

flame thrower bottomed cow pic

Quality.

How To Find the Posts I'll Like

Some methane-emitting veggie has been going through all the posts and "thumbs downing" ones that make fun of the veggie lifestyle.

How pathetic is that?

At least I know which posts I'll like. I just scan down the list, and look for the ones with "One Thumb Down."

Place Thumb Down Here --->

Climate Change Nutters

I want to hear(see) all the research possible, otherwise you are letting the nutters dictate eco policy. Carbon trading is a joke compared investment in renewable energy.

Cucumber the real villian

When looking at CO2 emissions one also has to look at the value of the "food"

Cucumbers are an eco-disaster. They are grown using heated greenhouses, transported miles in cooled lorries for ABSOLUTELY NO nutritional value!

Even broccolli comes out no better than meat, in the land-use/energy use stakes. when looking at calories, and there is a lot of protein in meat!

Ban Salads I say

The New Noah

Like veggies are the answer

Find a bit of land that has been growing veggies (for human consumption) at anywhere near a commercial level for 200 years and compare that to land that has been growing beef for the same amount of time. I don't know any centuries old areas other than orchards that are still producing nutritious food. Even the California iceberg lettuce growing areas are showing a lack of the merger nutrients compared to just a few decades ago.

The green sub-text. People have to die on a large scale.

There is a reason Earth supports a more people than it has historically.

Its called organised farming for profit.

I think the poster proposing to tarmac over the UK and import *all* food had his tongue firmly in his cheek.

A lot of the green agenda has a sub text that the Earth cannot support this level of population (despite the fact that it is) and ultimately the population has to be reduced. By a lot. Note that in the UK the average birth rate is already *below* maintenance levels (neglecting immigration).

With the exception of various nomadic tribes in rain forests and desserts Earth is *not* a hunter/gatherer society. Monoculture is energy intensive and other options exist to improve its efficiency.

Having said this the US fondness for beef consumption has a very significant effect on farming practice in Central and South America. Cows may (or may not be) the problem, but the knock on effect of encouraging land clearance (especially in the Amazon) *is* significant.

I like animals. I like people *more*.

@ Nerdo: Utter Bollocks

A few reasons why meat eating is no more harmful to the environment

Myth 1: 10kg of grain = 1kg of beef.

On the face of it this appears correct as you can produce more calories from vegetables than from meat on arable land. The key here is the words 'arable land' - there is significant land area which is not suitable for crops but which is suitable for grazing livestock

Myth 2: Methane production from livestock is contributing to greenhouse gasses

While livestock do produce methane it pays to bear in mind that the carbon from which this methane is formed comes from grass and other feeds, not fossil fuels. As such is part of the natural carbon cycle. Secondly, techniques such as mob grazing result in MORE carbon being fixed by grasses in their root systems than is emitted in methane. Centuries ago, tens of millions of bovines roamed the grasslands of North America and Africa - our climate didn't collapse then.

Myth 3: Switching to a vegetarian diet will save the planet

If more people switched to vegetarianism then we would be able to support a larger population. Ironically this is the biggest problem of all. Overwhelmingly it is PEOPLE that damage the environment. The surest way of managing environmental damage is to reduce the world's human population. By increasing food supplies you are only increasing the global population.