Re: Soapbox time.
I'm disappointed that people didn't see the humour in your reply - I thought that it was quite funny. Oh well...
A scientific paper written with the aim of highlighting nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions has resulted in a crop of foolish headlines pointing out that the UK's waste of milk creates an environmental burden equivalent to having another 20,000 cars on the roads. To anyone with even a basic grasp on numbers - someone aware, let us …
I would not feel too bad about partaking in that meal as the money you had spent with the father ensured the survival of the whole family.
Contrast that with the story my mother told me of growing up in rural Ireland in the 40s, in a large family. Everyone used to dread the priest turning up because he always did so for Sunday dinner and got the best of the food and usually seconds too. After he left, the children got to eat whatever was left.
"Everyone used to dread the priest turning up because he always did so for Sunday dinner and got the best of the food and usually seconds too. After he left, the children got to eat whatever was left."
A simple "feck off" would seem to be in order there.
I am intrigued as to why people felt obliged or chose to provide for the priest ahead of their families and not have the courage to say "no" and tell him how it is.
I can only guess it was some existential threat like excommunication, hell and damnation, or misplaced peer pressure (and threat of being outcast) from everyone who was equally in the same boat but decided if they had to it so did everyone else.
...I always think the same thing, civilisations come and go, so do species.
When it's our time, it's our time!.
All this wishful thinking about man being able to halt an ice age reminds me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, pointless and above all arrogant.
Whereas it makes me think we just need to hurry up and get off this rock.
In ancient times we used caves as natural shelter because we couldn't build houses. Now we live in houses but use the atmosphere and magnetosphere of one convenient planet as a natural shelter because we can't build habitats off-world.
reminds me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, pointless and above all arrogant.
Except that Canute most likely did it to prove a point (that he did not have the power to command the tides), and not out of arrogance or power-drunk madness. From the wiki page:
It is believed that, on this site, Cnut tried to command the tide of the river to prove to his courtiers that they were fools to think that he could command the waves.
This post has been deleted by its author
Couple of years ago, euro-diary-producers were storming the barricades and in protest actions were spilling milk all over the place, demanding a "fair price" (i.e. a price increase) for a good that is subsidized, resulting in "social" prices (i.e. a price reduction) at the point to delivery and overproduction because there are too many producers, not to mention bad allocation of sparse resources like trucks, fuel, time and land.
And people are talking about MILK WASTAGE?
The same argument can be made for anything. "breathing makes more CO2!!!"
Sadly, it's not a helpful one. People need to look at being less wasteful in general. Then looking to cut out obvious waste (this helps a business etc monetarily as well).
Not that we do, or do not, have a reason to reduce CO2 emissions. But usually, if you are, you're also reduction your power bill.
As to other gas productions, anything to reduce things to a closed system is helpful.
Ummm, *respiration* creates CO2, breathing is merely the physical process of shifting gases into and out of the lungs.
To be fair to the (uni) guy meat is more energy expensive than veg - you're doing energy conversion and so it's inevitable. I'm not saying don't eat meat. Far from it. We're built to take advantage of both meat and veg (altho two of my friends disagree on the veg part). There's nothing wrong with reducing meat intake - it tends to be a dietary improvement for many ppl in the UK.
The milk argument is a bit of a joke tho - as has been covered already it's a CAP problem. plain and simple. It's the same with all farming issues to be honest. If you punish ppl for overproduction they're going to bin the excess.
The only realistic solution I can think of (and it's not necessarily legitimate) is to process the excess milk on-site (things like butter, cheese etc). You're not selling *milk*, so hopefully you'd avoid the DEFRA hammer.
"Just stop breathing for a moment, I am sure the respiration will continue as normal from there on. ;)"
1. You know when they do a lung transplant and the recipient doesn't die?
2. You know when someone ingests CN and they *do* die?
That's the difference. You can respire sans breathing. You can't do jack without respiring. It's an important distinction. If you're on bbc.co.uk you can probably get away with it. On a tech site like El Reg you can't really complain when the distinction is made :)
So the author here is basically saying 'its such a little amount, what's the point?'. What if every factory said that about their emissions? Or every country? What if every person said that about leaving a light bulb on?
Arguing that it is a tiny number and therefore doesn't matter is, to be honest, crass stupidity.
The average modern bulb tops out at 11w. Probably one of the most efficient items in your house. And light is somewhat necessary.
Devices on standby rarely take more than a couple of watts, yet they're portrayed as the spawn of the devil.
OTOH the TV - drawing 150-200w, is on for 12 hours a day, and is never mentioned.
Of course the people telling you how bad standby is and how evil lightbulbs are? TV advertising execs. The *last* people that would want you to turn the TV off.
I think I'd be a lot more receptive to environmental campaigners if their pamphlets advocated switching the TV off for a few hours in the evening and going down the pub.
They could even include helpful bullet points. By going to the pub you are reducing you carbon footprint by:
- Congregating in a moodily lit rooms, thus reducing the amount of electricity required for lighting.
- Staying in a reasonably close proximity to other people, sharing body heat and overall reducing the amount of energy used per person on heating.
- Vastly reducing the number of TV's required per person (if the boozer even has one at all).
- Consuming an energy rich liquid, thus reducing the need to farm less energy efficient foodstuffs.
Ah, the old "every little counts" theory.
Unfortunately, every little only counts if you concentrate that little in once place, so if everyone gave me a pound, then I would be fabulously wealthy. But at the end of the day, my fabulous wealth is still *nothing* compared to the world's economy.
localzuk said: "What if every factory said that about their emissions? Or every country? What if every person said that about leaving a light bulb on?" Well, it depends what you are measuring. I take it you are referring to CO2, in which case, probably nothing. Other, genuinely dangerous, pollutants might increase. Smog might return. Rooms would get slightly warmer. The utility bill payer would get proportionately poorer. Insects might be attracted to the lights. Burglars might be deterred.
How far do you want to go with this?
Actually, if your 12 feet underground, it might help sequence some of the carbon.
Don't worry though, if you look at it in what you eat, most carbon is in a closed system. You eat it, it goes back into the air, the plants soak it back up for you to eat again. It's the other bits like farming, transport etc that use the most fuel, cost and resources.
Coat, because mine would be the one with the goat for my own milk on tap. :P
Since human beings can't digest fossil fuels, every carbon atom in breath originally came from a plant or animal (which in turn got it from an animal or a plant); and every carbon atom in plants came from the atmosphere, by photosynthesis. Therefore, respiration is carbon-neutral: you are merely returning CO2 whence it originally came.
I can't follow the thread of the article enough to work out what percentage of milk is wasted. At a guess,a low one, as milk is probably turned to butter, cheese and yoghurt before it is thrown away.
Now, 25% of water is wasted on the way to consumers. I believe and hope that the figure for petroleum fuels is considerably lower, in the ppm range. Which one should I compare the percentage milk loss to?