Made In China Talk  

Go Back   Made In China Talk > International Business Talk > Import > Fashion & Accessories
Directory Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read 中文




Environmentalists would you go this far to ease global climate change?


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:54 AM
b2b b2b is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,569
Feedback: (0)
Default Environmentalists would you go this far to ease global climate change?

Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate change• Study looks at food impact on greenhouse gases • Return to old-fashioned cooking habits urgedAll comments () Juliette Jowit The Guardian, Tuesday September 30 2008 Article historyPeople will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change, a major new report warns.The report, by the Food Climate Research Network, based at the University of Surrey, also says total food consumption should be reduced, especially "low nutritional value" treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops - alongside more modern tips such as using the microwave and internet shopping.The report goes much further than any previous advice after mounting concern about the impact of the livestock industry on greenhouse gases and rising food prices. It follows a four-year study of the impact of food on climate change and is thought to be the most thorough study of its kind.Tara Garnett, the report's author, warned that campaigns encouraging people to change their habits voluntarily were doomed to fail and urged the government to use caps on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pricing to ensure changes were made. "Food is important to us in a great many cultural and symbolic ways, and our food choices are affected by cost, time, habit and other influences," the report says. "Study upon study has shown that awareness-raising campaigns alone are unlikely to work, particularly when it comes to more difficult changes."The report's findings are in line with an investigation by the October edition of the Ecologist magazine, which found that arguments for people to go vegetarian or vegan to stop climate change and reduce pressure on rising food prices were exaggerated and would damage the developing world in particular, where many people depend on animals for essential food, other products such as leather and wool, and for manure and help in tilling fields to grow other crops. Instead, it recommended cutting meat consumption by at least half and making sure animals were fed as much as possible on grass and food waste which could not be eaten by humans. "The notion that cows and sheep are four-legged weapons of mass destruction has become something of a distraction from the real issues in both climate change and food production," said Pat Thomas, the Ecologist's editor.The head of the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change, Rajendra Pachauri, also sparked global debate this month when he urged people to have at least one meat-free day a week.The Food Climate Research Network found that measured by production, the UK food sector produces greenhouse gases equivalent to 33m tonnes of carbon. Measured by consumption - including imports - the total rises to 43.3m tonnes. Both figures work out at under one fifth of UK emissions, but they exclude the indirect impacts of actions such as clearing rainforest for cattle and crops, which other studies estimate would add up to 5% to 20% of global emissions.The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for 15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread, pastry and flour for 13%.It also revealed which parts of the food chain were the most polluting. Although packaging has had a lot of media and political attention, it only ranked fifth in importance behind agriculture - especially the methane produced by livestock burping - manufacturing, transport, and cooking and refrigeration at home. The report calls for meat and dairy consumption to be cut in developed countries so that global production remains stable as the population grows to an estimated 9bn by 2050. At the same time emissions from farms, transport, manufacturing and retail could be cut, with improvements including more efficient use of fertilisers, feed and energy, changed diets for livestock, and more renewable fuels - leading to a total reduction in emissions from the sector of 50% to 67%, it says. The UN and other bodies recommend that developed countries should reduce total emissions by 80% by 2050.However, the National Farmers' Union warned that its own study, with other industry players, published last year, found net emissions from agriculture could only be cut by up to 50% if the carbon savings from building renewable energy sources on farms were taken into account. The NFU also called for government incentives to help farmers make the changes. "Farmers aren't going to do this out of the goodness of their hearts, because farmers don't have that luxury; many of our membeThere is not a bill or any legislation to force a rationing of milk or meat, you who didn't read the article are jumping to conclusions.I am curious if those who are concerned with global climate change are considering lowering consumption of milk and meat?BTW eating lower on the food chain is good for your health!!!
Reply With Quote




  #2  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:54 AM
click click is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 12,989
Feedback: (0)
Default Environmentalists would you go this far to ease global climate change?

The main cause of global warming is electricity production from fossil fuel burning, we should put our efforts into replacing coal and natural gas with nuclear before we go after anything else (wind and ground based solar can't do the job).Of course many of the same people who would support such a ration would also support a ban on factory farming (despite factory farming being quite a bit more efficient than free range). We should be able to get increased productivity out of genetically modified foods (already doing it with crops) which would also reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:54 AM
Joel Joel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 727
Feedback: (0)
Default Environmentalists would you go this far to ease global climate change?

The real truth is those who eat down in the food chain are taller, stronger and smarter than those who are vegans or it above them in the food chain. This is easy to see and prove and the reason the Romans feared the Celt’s and other north European groups. Even the Celtic women were stronger and smarter than the Roman men. History including even the writings of Caesar proves this. The average Scottish warrior was considered equal to 12 Romans, the average Scottish woman was considered equal to 6 Roman men in battle. The Scots did not eat fowl considering them only useful for keeping down the local insect population and because they did not want to be small, weak, sickly and dumb like tribes that did eat fowl.You can tell the meat eaters on this group easily from those who are vegans or fowl eaters. The veagans and others with unhealthy diets are usually liberal democrats and believers in the global warming hoax and any other liberal hoax being currently promoted. Skeptics on the other hand generally eat a more balanced diet and find it easy to see through hoax’s and scams to the truth and so do not get sucked into them and end up looking foolish like the less well nourished frequently do.Added info for those who have not studied nutrition, fish does now and always has been a problem health wise because they are carnivores and as such lacking in nutrition for omnivores, which we are. Second the omega 3 oils in fish are heavily contaminated with mercury and so a serious health risk. Omega 3 can be more safely obtained by including cooked cabbage in your diet as the Celtic people did or fermented cabbage like sauerkraut as the Germanic people do.Added: and the Korean people eat a cabbage dish similar to sauerkraut called kimchi that is very healthy if you can get past the smell. An interesting side not comes from both Germany and Korea where some farmers raising chicken fed these fermented cabbage dishes to them and others in the same locality did not. The flocks that ate the fermented cabbage lived and those that did not were wiped out by bird flue.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:54 AM
Bean Bean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,669
Feedback: (0)
Default Environmentalists would you go this far to ease global climate change?

Environmentalists are all different, you seem to have taken a report put together by a few researchers and imply all environmentalists agree on it and want legislation. We have an expresion for people who would wish to enforce such lmeasuress, they're called ecofacists. The article is of interest because it shows how important agriculture and diet is to the environment and offers useful information to those who wish to act,A high protien diet is preferable for warriiors and others of an equally demanding lifestyle.Most in the developed world on a high protien diet are relatively inactive, so a high protien diet causes obesity and heart disease, prime example; US. A vegan diet on the other hand reduces cancer and provides a balanced diet with all the vitamins and meinerals neccessary, prime example; traditional mediteranean and eastern quisines, now under threat from hamburgers It's the long chain omega 3 found in oily fish that improves intelligence, nothing else.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:54 AM
commerce commerce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,120
Feedback: (0)
Default Environmentalists would you go this far to ease global climate change?

O ya, that is great advice actually, now I have another good reason for eating better, not only is it more healthy for me it is more healthy for the environment. Starting today I will try to live by this simple rule. Four cups of milk and four servings of meat per week- starting right NOW!What the article is saying is if subsidies for meat and milk were limited or ended then consumers had to pay a cost on those items that were reflective of the ACTUAL cost then people would ration themselves.What the questioner is asking is if Environmentalists would be willing to self limit meat and milk consumption in order to aid conservation of the world's resources.And you have my oath, I will keep it. 4 and 4 per week.That's it nothing else-
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


| Business Forum | Toronto Chinese

All times are GMT +9. The time now is 03:02 AM.


All rights reserved. Copyright 2007 Made In China Talk