Environment crisis



Harry Angstrom said:
It would be a great start
Click to expand...
I know you're vegan (I think you've mentioned it 😉), but it isn't essential for people to stop eating meat. We could however drastically reduce our meat consumption which would help massively.

New build houses should all be virtually carbon neutral in design which is a lot cheaper to do than retrofitting heating systems and putting solar panels on at a later date, because of economies of scale.

Basically we have to start thinking about home much things will cost 'not to do' instead of thinking about the immediate costs.
 
pillars of hercules said:
I know you're vegan (I think you've mentioned it 😉), but it isn't essential for people to stop eating meat. We could however drastically reduce our meat consumption which would help massively.

New build houses should all be virtually carbon neutral in design which is a lot cheaper to do than retrofitting heating systems and putting solar panels on at a later date, because of economies of scale.

Basically we have to start thinking about home much things will cost 'not to do' instead of thinking about the immediate costs.
Click to expand...
Sorry but meat eating isn’t sustainable. For me the apocalypse has already happened and we have turned the world into an arid desert devoid of most fauna that existed less than 100 years ago.
I know it is sensational rhetoric but it is my conclusion to what has been done in our name and for our pleasure.
 
Harry Angstrom said:
Sorry but meat eating isn’t sustainable. For me the apocalypse has already happened and we have turned the world into an arid desert devoid of most fauna that existed less than 100 years ago.
I know it is sensational rhetoric but it is my conclusion to what has been done in our name and for our pleasure.
Click to expand...
Have we not been eating meat sustainably for thousands of years?
 
babyimreadytoblow said:
We already have the technology to fix it anyway just the will isn't there.
Click to expand...

There’s too much profit to be made with the current global economies and markets. There is a shift to demonise certain commodities (car fuel from non-renewable sources being one example) and until there’s more money to be made from carbon neutral processes and products, the global PR machine will promote products which make money over more sustainable options.
 
Hair Flick said:
Yes of course, but we didn’t have agenda driven loons making serious documentaries ending with “-spiracy” with no agenda whatsoever, honest guv, feeding us a load of biased “facts” for the majority of them.
Click to expand...
So we can eat meat sustainably without causing environmental devastation then.

It ain't what we do its the way that we do it :D
 
Hep said:
That's clearly not true. A more environmental way, by the definition of the words in that sentence means more sustainable for the environment.
Click to expand...
The Government told us to buy diesel cars because they're more environmentally friendly, now they tell us to get rid of diesel cars to be more environmentally friendly.
So it's clearly true, environmentally friendly is very rarely about being good for the general environment.
 
pillars of hercules said:
Unfortunately countries like India, China and Indonesia will have to decide whether the want steak, or move millions of people inland.
Click to expand...
Unless the largest ever secularisation of a state occurs, I don’t think the Hindu majority of India will start a mass consumption of cow meat anytime soon ;) Indonesia will unfortunately get what’s coming to it. They have barely any real inhabitable space to move people inland, there’s still too much rainforest inland that they’re determined to destroy for palm oil plantations.

We really need to change how we use the land, there has to be a reduction in intensified agriculture to try and allow some biodiversity to recover and flourish. In the West there needs to be a redesign in urban planning, particularly around areas where many live on a flood plain. The floods that happened here in Germany have been utterly devastating, I was on holiday in Bavaria last week when they hit and you can see how this could have been reduced if the planners of the past knew what we know now. Channelisation of rivers is so expensive, particularly to maintain, the river will always find a way to alter its course over time. When it breaks these artificial channels apart, the result is extra damage and costs to fix the mess. There is talk here about rethinking how we rebuild the destroyed houses. Of course, this is going to upset those that just want an exact replica built on the same spot, but we have to be smart. We need to reopen flood plains and allow the natural process to occur, particularly since evidence shows that it’s becoming more frequent in these areas (the record flood levels for the Saalach river in Bavaria have been broken in 2003, 2012 and 2021).

Apologies for the long post, I’m writing my master thesis about a similar topic so I’m kind of in the zone :lol:
 
Tuono said:
The Government told us to buy diesel cars because they're more environmentally friendly, now they tell us to get rid of diesel cars to be more environmentally friendly.
So it's clearly true, environmentally friendly is very rarely about being good for the general environment.
Click to expand...
At the time Diesel was better than lead-based petrol, it was a step forward. Now we're taking more steps forward.
 
Hep said:
At the time Diesel was better than lead-based petrol, it was a step forward. Now we're taking more steps forward.
Click to expand...
Yes, this also overlooks the fact that the car manufacturers were fiddling the numbers in order to hide the fact that diesel was awful so that they could sell more cars.
 
Hep said:
At the time Diesel was better than lead-based petrol, it was a step forward. Now we're taking more steps forward.
Click to expand...
Sorry but lead in petrol was banned in 1999, the dash for diesel was started by Gordon Brown in 2001 because generally diesel engines got more mpg so lower CO2 levels. It was well known by the Labour government that diesels produced more pollutants but reducing CO2 levels was the priority. Nothing to do with lead in petrol.
 
Tuono said:
Sorry but lead in petrol was banned in 1999, the dash for diesel was started by Gordon Brown in 2001 because generally diesel engines got more mpg so lower CO2 levels. It was well known by the Labour government that diesels produced more pollutants but reducing CO2 levels was the priority. Nothing to do with lead in petrol.
Click to expand...
Diesel was pushed long before that, it started in the 1970's. By 1983, 1 in 10 cars were diesel.

Yes, there was a big push in the 1990's but again, that was to take steps forward.
 
Tax breaks for diesels began in 2001. Lead in petrol was illegal from 1999. Lead in petrol had nothing to do with the dash for diesel, it was to lower CO2 levels.
 

Back
Top