I've worked quite a bit with the organization that produced this guide. It tries to be focused on numbers and provides some solutions. Overall nothing ground breaking but an interesting read. What...
I've worked quite a bit with the organization that produced this guide. It tries to be focused on numbers and provides some solutions. Overall nothing ground breaking but an interesting read. What do you think of it?
I am wondering and maybe someone can inform me or link some articles to explain to me. In reality how would taking the steps listed to reduce their Carbon Impact in the "What can we do?" section...
I am wondering and maybe someone can inform me or link some articles to explain to me.
In reality how would taking the steps listed to reduce their Carbon Impact in the "What can we do?" section impact climate change when it seems like the vast majority of the problem stems from industry and policies that your average person cannot effect.
I can understand the changes in culture can have an effect on policy and technology and I have an understanding of the power of voting policies and politicians that understand and work to effect this problem, but does it matter if I or even thousands of us eat meat and drive our cars.
Or is the Individual solutions only effective if everyone did it or at least a vast majority.
I am on my phone, so finding articles is a bit harder, but there's a lot that are similar to this. I think we often break these down a bit too much, so it's easy to loose sight of how much an...
I am on my phone, so finding articles is a bit harder, but there's a lot that are similar to this.
I think we often break these down a bit too much, so it's easy to loose sight of how much an individual can do. Though, unfortunately the real change really does have to happen at the corporate level. It's true, most of the damage is done even before we bring a product into our home, but we are still consumers deciding to do so.
Poor farming is responsible for a majority of the easily fixable degradation but stopping eating meat isn't going to restore degrading farmland, or recreating forest in a rapid enough time to be...
Poor farming is responsible for a majority of the easily fixable degradation but stopping eating meat isn't going to restore degrading farmland, or recreating forest in a rapid enough time to be worthwhile. It will prevent further clearing which will be a boon so it's definitely required.
I think not eating non-regeneratively farmed meat is critical (I say that because I live in a climate that needs grass control to prevent fire while fields/pasture is being re-treed and it's better than glyphosphate or mowing and what the farmer does with their tithe is their prerogative), but getting out of the house and restoring degrading ecosystems is the next best step. By doing that, you can have a local impact on rainfall and fauna/flora habitat, get exercise, and feel good at the same time. It's desperately needed. Active photosynthesis is the current best tool that the human race has to reduce climate change. The small water cycle is broken the world over and feet on the ground is the only way to fix it.
This is a really good point. No solution is one step, but the first step has to be taken. I live in a pretty dry climate, but this year's been terrible, so we're actively watering grass and trees.
This is a really good point. No solution is one step, but the first step has to be taken.
I live in a pretty dry climate, but this year's been terrible, so we're actively watering grass and trees.
Interesting, I had heard that because lamb/mutton tends to use marginal land it isn't as greenhouse gas intensive as beef. Is this just not as relevant as I'd been lead to believe?
Interesting, I had heard that because lamb/mutton tends to use marginal land it isn't as greenhouse gas intensive as beef. Is this just not as relevant as I'd been lead to believe?
You raise a good point as I always thought beef was slightly worse. I think they have taken the average to get 14.1 gCO2eq / kcal but unfortunately the link to the source for that diagram is...
You raise a good point as I always thought beef was slightly worse. I think they have taken the average to get 14.1 gCO2eq / kcal but unfortunately the link to the source for that diagram is broken so we can't see the methodology atm.
Both animals are ruminants and need either large grass areas or big amounts of feed. Lambs can use worse land but I don't think they are as efficient (meat per animal) as cows?
Right, lamb farming in the UK tends to be on hillsides that would be very labour intensive to grow crops on. Probably just not economic. Although maybe if there were no lambs there we'd let trees...
Right, lamb farming in the UK tends to be on hillsides that would be very labour intensive to grow crops on. Probably just not economic. Although maybe if there were no lambs there we'd let trees grow...
Shame that the study is down, although I'm generally avoiding Lamb anyway because it's so damn expensive!
I had not seen the per-capita carbon footprint by country map before. I am really surprised that Poland is lower per person than Germany, given our reliance on coal for everything. I assume that...
I had not seen the per-capita carbon footprint by country map before. I am really surprised that Poland is lower per person than Germany, given our reliance on coal for everything. I assume that must be related to Germany’s higher industrial output?
I've worked quite a bit with the organization that produced this guide. It tries to be focused on numbers and provides some solutions. Overall nothing ground breaking but an interesting read. What do you think of it?
I am wondering and maybe someone can inform me or link some articles to explain to me.
In reality how would taking the steps listed to reduce their Carbon Impact in the "What can we do?" section impact climate change when it seems like the vast majority of the problem stems from industry and policies that your average person cannot effect.
I can understand the changes in culture can have an effect on policy and technology and I have an understanding of the power of voting policies and politicians that understand and work to effect this problem, but does it matter if I or even thousands of us eat meat and drive our cars.
Or is the Individual solutions only effective if everyone did it or at least a vast majority.
I am on my phone, so finding articles is a bit harder, but there's a lot that are similar to this.
I think we often break these down a bit too much, so it's easy to loose sight of how much an individual can do. Though, unfortunately the real change really does have to happen at the corporate level. It's true, most of the damage is done even before we bring a product into our home, but we are still consumers deciding to do so.
Poor farming is responsible for a majority of the easily fixable degradation but stopping eating meat isn't going to restore degrading farmland, or recreating forest in a rapid enough time to be worthwhile. It will prevent further clearing which will be a boon so it's definitely required.
I think not eating non-regeneratively farmed meat is critical (I say that because I live in a climate that needs grass control to prevent fire while fields/pasture is being re-treed and it's better than glyphosphate or mowing and what the farmer does with their tithe is their prerogative), but getting out of the house and restoring degrading ecosystems is the next best step. By doing that, you can have a local impact on rainfall and fauna/flora habitat, get exercise, and feel good at the same time. It's desperately needed. Active photosynthesis is the current best tool that the human race has to reduce climate change. The small water cycle is broken the world over and feet on the ground is the only way to fix it.
This is a really good point. No solution is one step, but the first step has to be taken.
I live in a pretty dry climate, but this year's been terrible, so we're actively watering grass and trees.
This was very well presented. It's a good summary and reminder of our actions and actions we can make. Thanks for posting.
Interesting, I had heard that because lamb/mutton tends to use marginal land it isn't as greenhouse gas intensive as beef. Is this just not as relevant as I'd been lead to believe?
You raise a good point as I always thought beef was slightly worse. I think they have taken the average to get 14.1 gCO2eq / kcal but unfortunately the link to the source for that diagram is broken so we can't see the methodology atm.
Both animals are ruminants and need either large grass areas or big amounts of feed. Lambs can use worse land but I don't think they are as efficient (meat per animal) as cows?
Right, lamb farming in the UK tends to be on hillsides that would be very labour intensive to grow crops on. Probably just not economic. Although maybe if there were no lambs there we'd let trees grow...
Shame that the study is down, although I'm generally avoiding Lamb anyway because it's so damn expensive!
I had not seen the per-capita carbon footprint by country map before. I am really surprised that Poland is lower per person than Germany, given our reliance on coal for everything. I assume that must be related to Germany’s higher industrial output?