Land use and biomass but what about meat!!!

[Sum Doood]

I nearly became involved in my own road rage incident yesterday as I was driving along listening to this news on Radio 4. Professor bloody Beddington has apparently never considered that growing meat is an obscenely wasteful use of land and finite resources. Or, if he has, he felt it wasn't sufficiently important to mention.

[Sum Doood]

19 views, but none of you viewers felt this to be sufficiently important, or sufficiently interesting, to reply? I'm disappointed.

Surely a web forum for vegans can't consider a matter of (almost literally) earth-shattering importance not to be worth an e-discussion at the very least?

Tony at Viva! is "on the case".

[harpy]

I don't have any particular sympathies with the Prof but I don't think you can conclude he hasn't considered meat-eating just because it isn't mentioned in a report like that.

This one does mention meat-eating on the part of the newly affluent as a contributory factor to food shortages

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...cichief106.xml

Obviously it would be nice if he explicitly mentioned reduced meat eating as a way of alleviating the problem. The trouble is policy-makers in the UK may not have much direct influence over whether people in China and India eat more meat

[Sum Doood]

I don't have any particular sympathies with the Prof but I don't think you can conclude he hasn't considered meat-eating just because it isn't mentioned in a report like that. This one does mention meat-eating on the part of the newly affluent as a contributory factor to food shortages http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...cichief106.xml Obviously it would be nice if he explicitly mentioned reduced meat eating as a way of alleviating the problem. The trouble is policy-makers in the UK may not have much direct influence over whether people in China and India eat more meat

Your reference to influence over diets in China and India simply reminded me that "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."

[harpy]

Not sure why you're getting ratty with me, at least I answered your message

The trouble is that Westerners can't really start telling people in China and India not to eat meat while the majority of people here still do. It's like that business about accusing people in developing countries of causing environmental destruction by buying consumer durables, when we're awash with them ourselves.

Frankly I would think the best bet for discouraging meat consumption in developing countries is if it could be made to seem un-cool and therefore not something to aspire to do as soon as you have enough cash. What we probably need is more vegan film actors and pop stars Some bloke in Whitehall telling them not to will probably have no effect at all.

[Sum Doood]

Not sure why you're getting ratty with me, at least I answered your message Frankly I would think the best bet for discouraging meat consumption in developing countries is if it could be made to seem un-cool and therefore not something to aspire to do as soon as you have enough cash. .

Sorry, I was certainly feeling ratty (poor old rats, eh), about the issue.

I'm thinking a healthy situation would be one where an example were set (in the UK initially?), and eating meat and other animal products came to be considered bad behaviour in much the same way as drink-driving is.

[harpy]

Yes, that would be great.

I seem to remember govt spokespeople emitting the odd feeble bleat about "too many" animal products being bad for the environment, but I can't see them doing more than that any time soon, because of the various lobbies involved.

Anyway people don't take much notice of what the govt says do they? So it's probably down to us lot to convince people.

[Sum Doood]

So it's probably down to us lot to convince people.

How best to do that, d'you think? By example only, would be a long old job............. Especially as we're up against a powerfully greedy industry although I suppose there might be quite a lot of vegetarians and vegans who don't feel "we're up against" anything of consequence?

[Risker]

19 views, but none of you viewers felt this to be sufficiently important, or sufficiently interesting, to reply? I'm disappointed.

Sometimes people just like to read.

[Mzee]

Hi, Sum Dood.

This is the big issue that was recognised by the Club of Rome in the 1970's in their report "Limits to Growth". It was true then, but nobody did anything and it's even more urgent now.
They are still there, and even published a 30-year update. You can find it with Google and download it as a .pdf. If you can't find it, PM me your e-mail address and I'll send you a copy from my PC. Everybody should read it! It's obvious if you think about it, we only have one planet, population is rising exponentially, finite resources are being used up, producing more pollution in the process. If this is not checked voluntarily, the death rate will rise due to starvation and poisoning from the pollution until only a sustainable population is left. Very few are prepared to consider this, prefering to 'bury their heads in the sand'.

However, it is easily proved; it is exactly what happens every time beer or wine is made. A rich sugary liquid has a few yeast cells added. These reproduce exponentially until there is very little sugar left. With the lack of food (sugar) and the rising level of pollution (alcohol), most of the yeast will eventually die.
Many years ago in College I saw the experiment done with animals!
A few maggots were put on some food and the experiment was covered with a cage of metal gauze. After 2 weeks most of the food had gone and the cage floor was covered with a layer of dead flies!

Why do humans think our fate will be any different?

[Mzee]

This is the link:

http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/limitstogrowth.pdf

Under "Business as usual" the authors predict that food shortage, exhaustion of resources and increase in pollution will cause the population to start to decline after 2030. Perhaps if everybody went vegan tomorrow, this could be extended by about 10 years, but this is not specifically mentioned. They look at various alternative scenarios; the only one which is sustainable is:

"Scenario 9: World Seeks Stable Population and Stable Industrial
Output per Person, and Adds Pollution, Resource and Agricultural
Technologies from 2002. Moving in this direction, in another scenario
the world seeks stable population and stable industrial output per
person, and adds pollution, resource and agricultural technologies
starting in 2002.
In this scenario, population and industrial output are limited as
in the previous run, and in addition technologies are added to abate
pollution, conserve resources, increase land yield, and protect agri-
cultural land. The resulting society is sustainable: Nearly eight billion
people live with high human welfare and a continuously declining
ecological footprint.
Under this scenario, the world decides on an average family size of
two children and sets modest limits for material production, as in the
previous scenario. Further, starting in 2002 it begins to develop, invest
in, and employ the technologies that increase the efficiency of resource
use, decrease pollution emissions per unit of industrial output, control
land erosion, and increase land yields until food per capita reaches its
desired level.
The society of this scenario manages to begin reducing its total bur-
den on the environment before the year 2020; from that point the total
ecological footprint of humanity is actually declining. The system brings
itself down below its limits, avoids an uncontrolled collapse, maintains
its standard of living, and holds itself very close to equilibrium."

[eve]

Where can I find this la la land?

[Sum Doood]

Thank you Mzee, very, very much for your contribution. I am greatly relieved to find that, along with harpy, someone here is prepared to make a valid contribution to this urgent discussion. And yours is particularly valid.

I notice the document is viewable in html making it very possible to copy and past from it.

Do you think it might almost be necessary nowadays to be almost as ancient as Neil Young before one feels inclined to protest?

[Mzee]

Where can I find this la la land?

Hi, eve!

Well if we don't want to end up like the flies in the College experiment , there really is no alternative. All the other scenarios considered end disastrously around the middle of this century, in the lifetime of most of the members of this Forum. Plenty of incentive there, then to do something, tell everybody, make a fuss, make sure governments are listening, etc.!

Still, although I am renowned for always looking on the bright side , the omens aren't good. The world had this information more than 30 years ago, when it would have been much easier and less painful to make the required changes and did almost nothing.
[The much-maligned Chinese, though, with their one child per family policy, prevented mass starvation in their country and now have achieved the economic miracle the rest of the world is so jealous of, while so far using much less of the world's resources per capita.]

On an individual level, we have to see through the unattainable goal of continuing economic growth. The poor of the world have to become richer and the rich have to become poorer. (Not many votes in the West for that?)
What is the alternative - wars over resources, mass starvation in the Third World while the First World continues to increase its consumption and pollution?

There is some hope in that climate change is becoming so obvious that it is difficult to ignore. If everybody can see that, maybe they'll start to get involved - a bit of "People power" could have an effect.

[eve]

Mzee, you say that the much-maligned Chinese, ... now have achieved the economic miracle the rest of the world is so jealous of, while so far using much less of the world's resources per capita. Are you kidding me? One can scarcely breath in Beijing these days because of the polluted air. I recall once waiting to cross a road in Beijing, waiting for all the bicycles to pass, and said to my friend that at least there are no cars. A local who spoke English, turned to me and said that very soon everybody in China will have cars! Well this was in the mid 1980s, and why would I begrudge them their cars, but omg.

I can certainly understand that you are renowned for always looking on the bright side. I don't want to rain on your parade, but I'm definitely not optimistic about the future. Fortunately for me I won't be here to observe the outcome, but my grandchildren will, and that saddens me.

Good wishes

[Mzee]

A local who spoke English, turned to me and said that very soon everybody in China will have cars! Well this was in the mid 1980s, and why would I begrudge them their cars, but omg.

Fortunately China is not just Beijing (and fortunately the UK is not just London!)
London used to have terrible fogs which were contaminated by smoke, chiefly from burning coal very inefficiently on open fires in houses. The combination of smoke and fog was dubbed "smog" and it killed thousands. I lived in London in the late 1960's, when things had improved a lot, but you could still taste the sulphur in the air on foggy days. There were a lot fewer cars than today, but things improved when coal-burning was controlled by the "Clean Air Act".

China's coal-fired power stations are a lot more efficient than those old open fires. The Three Gorges Dam, for all the concerns, will at least provide some clean electricity. Chinese cars will hopefully be small and clean rather than "gas-guzzling SUVs".

The Chinese bought the British Rover company, which made reasonably efficient small cars (I used to have one), so they have access to the relevant technology.

I can certainly understand that you are renowned for always looking on the bright side. I don't want to rain on your parade, but I'm definitely not optimistic about the future. Fortunately for me I won't be here to observe the outcome, but my grandchildren will, and that saddens me.

Enough about the Chinese, let's look on the (literally) bright side - solar energy!

Australia is very well placed to take advantage of this, and could become the green man of the Pacific Rim. Let me try to inspire you and your grandchildren!

Have you heard of Concentrated Solar Power? It has been successfully trialled in Spain and, to a lesser extent, in the US. An array of mirrors tracks the sun and focuses it onto a water boiler. (In the Spanish case the boiler is at the top of a tower surrounded by the mirrors.) The water boils and the steam drives a turbine to produce electricity.

Imagine these solar power stations in the deserts of Australia. They would send most of their electricity to the coastal cities, where some would be used to power desalination plants. Some of the fresh water produced would be pumped back to the desert areas, where it would be used for growing crops. Trees would also be planted to re-establish forests, which would modify the climate and increase rainfall.

So Australia would become a green and pleasant land. It would have enough electricity without burning coal. It would not need to import food and could afford to refuse to even export any coal, leaving it in the ground until the technology to capture the CO2 from coal-burning had been perfected.

Make sure your new Kyoto Protocol - signing government knows about these possibilities and SMILE!

Good wishes

[Sum Doood]

I'm flummoxed. It seems to me that only 4 or 5 out of the how many(?) people who use this forum are sufficiently interested to contribute to this vastly important topic, one which is especially relevant to veganism.

On this forum has the subject matter already been done to death?
Are we full of despair?
Or are we apathetic?

[puffin]

We have talked about this before but just because everyone hasn't replied it doesnt mean we dont care. We read everyday on here and look at many links that people put on here and learn a lot. Thank you for the link.

[Mzee]

Well done, Puffin, I'm glad you've been reading this thread. You're one of our most active members and joined in the very early days of the Forum.

Can you give us newer members advice on how to properly keep abreast of new threads? I've only been a member for 8 months and Sum Doood is newer still.

There are so many threads, some going back years. I happened on this one by clicking on 'New Posts' and the title just caught my eye as something that I might be interested in, but it was still 2 days after the thread started and I might easily have missed it altogether.

I think this is the real reason that it appears many members are not interested; they just haven't seen the thread. Time is always limited; people will often just go to a couple of threads that they are interested in and then log off. I have set up to automatically get an e-mail to tell me if there has been a new post to a thread I have posted in. However, this tends to clog up your inbox, and many very active members have to stop this automatic notification!

So tips from you (and anybody else who reads this!) will be most welcome.

[puffin]

Only 2.2 posts a day so dont think i am top of the pile in posting but i am a oldie

I usually go to new posts to. If i cant find what i am looking for i type it in the search bit at the top.

I agree that time is limited, i usually go on the chat threads to lighten my day up and dont usually get involved in the threads that concern the environment and animals rights but i do read them to find out what is currently going on. Some of the threads are to sad to read, some are to complex to have an answer for and some are just to time consuming.

If people dont reply doesnt mean they haven't read them and thought about it. I have started threads that not many people have replied to but i like to think it has been helpful to someone.