Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

[matticus]

Dangerous precedent. I think I will go and find the nearest abortion clinic and set it on fire - after all I will be literally saving lives.

The point being whether an action is criminal should not depend on a particular 'cause ' being the motivation.

I cannot comment on the German system, but there are many previous precedents here in the UK.
(but do remember it was a JURY that decided this.)

Are you planning a protest in the UK or somewhere else?

 

[newfhouse]

I cannot comment on the German system, but there are many previous precedents here in the UK.
(but do remember it was a JURY that decided this.)

We can’t have juries considering all the evidence and deciding to acquit according to their convictions, can we?

 

[Ian H]

...with as addition extra that the cow only is slaughtered when all the meat has been sold.

Ready for slaughter

 

[albion]

Dangerous precedent. I think I will go and find the nearest abortion clinic and set it on fire - after all I will be literally saving lives.

The point being whether an action is criminal should not depend on a particular 'cause ' being the motivation.

A jury trial is often a likeability test anyway.

However this does show how extremely out of step our politicians are.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Well I didn't suggest banning meat, I was responding to dutchb**ches question. I suspect that when we had a more sustainable farming industry (maybe 200 years ago?) meat was more of a luxury - if you look at subsistence farmers, they don't tend to slaughter animals as a matter of course, because they are too valuable to them. I suspect that like the motor car, it will be a very tough ask to wean them off cheap meat. Perhaps we will end up eating protein made by bacteria, or feeding it to livestock

Just for the record i didn't claim to wanting ban meat either, i was challenging the proposition that banning all meat would be better for the climate. As @mudsticks explained, it wouldn't.
The question what and if our farming industry would have looked like if we started sustainable farming and refrained from Factory farming is interesting. but i think also impossible to tell without a whole lot of speculation. it would have required us to use worlds resources much more balanced that's for sure.

 

[the snail]

...
Saying it takes less land to grow X amount of say a protein crop such as soya than to pasture raise a lamb to generate a similar amount of protein - so therefore we should 'ban meat' completely discounts the fact that there are many environments where you can raise one or the other, but not both.

...

That's not really the question though, the point is that it is very inefficient converting vegetable protein into animal protein, you could feed more humans on the vegetable protein than you could by feeding it to livestock and feeding the livestock to humans. So it's very strange for dutchguy to suggest that we couldn't convert to a plant-based diet sustainably.

 

[mudsticks]

That's not really the question though, the point is that it is very inefficient converting vegetable protein into animal protein, you could feed more humans on the vegetable protein than you could by feeding it to livestock and feeding the livestock to humans. So it's very strange for dutchguy to suggest that we couldn't convert to a plant-based diet sustainably.

I was talking about land where it is not possible to grow vegetable protein, which is quite a lot of farmland in this country.

Places where it is only possible to grow decent grass, and at a pinch cereal crops.
Both situations where animals can be grazed, finished or topped off with a small amount of grain and then be a source of good quality concentrated protein via meat and milk.

That comprises quite a few latitudes, climactic, and soil conditions,
Many upland and northerly latitudes in the UK for example.

And in many places overseas too, where for other reasons arable monocropping is inadvisable.

We can't grow soya beans at scale in this country for instance.

We can grow field beans and peas as a source of human protein (complete at least when combined with grains)
These do particularly well when rotated with grazing breaks.

'Continuous arable' - that is growing only plant crops with no grazing ley breaks is very bad for soils it depletes, them and is inherently unsustainable.
Healthy soil life is adapted to grazing herbivores, herbivores drive the nutrient cycle, via dunging, and even via their saliva, when grazing.

We are losing topsoil at an alarming rate by over mechanised farming, and by killing soil life with chemical inputs.

Combining livestock back into mixed farming systems where they can be part of the nutrient recycling, and waste management systems can boost overall productivity, and build soil, whilst reducing inputs, and regenerating ecosystems and biodiversity.

It's being done already on quite a few farms .

We also can't grow nuts in large enough quantities - at least not until we sort out the squirrel, rabbit and deer populations - there's a good argument for eating more of those critters.

We could definitely grow a lot more vegetables and fruit in this country.

But there's a different set of issues stopping us doing that - with which I've bored everyone rigid already.

Dutchguy has some 'strange' ideas about many things (imo) but in terms of him understanding farming and food production systems, and the problems / solutions therein I believe he's a bit more clued up than most on here.

 

[mudsticks]

Dangerous precedent. I think I will go and find the nearest abortion clinic and set it on fire - after all I will be literally saving lives.

The point being whether an action is criminal should not depend on a particular 'cause ' being the motivation.

If you're so keen to encourage more women to choose to have kids then you'd do well to get on board more thoroughly with tackling the climate crisis.

Many young women are deliberately choosing not to have kids because of the very real danger presented by global heating.

They also argue, quite reasonably I think, that having fewer or no children is helping to alleviate the problems of so many humans putting pressure on already stretched resources.

Some others are choosing to have one or two kids as an act of 'hopefulness' for the future - but they'll be limiting* the number they have.

*That's roughly the approach I took.
Any more than two would have felt profligate / greedy - in addition to impacting my life, my existing family, my business etc.

Meanwhile forced birthers can get the fark out of my or any other woman's choice about our reproductive health choices.

Do feel free however to campaign for better sex ed, and full and free access to contraception, alongside global equity for women's rights.

Everyone will be better off then, and we might even get to hand on a less imperilled planet to future generations.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

If you're so keen to encourage more women to choose to have kids then you'd do well to get on board more thoroughly with tackling the climate crisis.

I agree with everything you've said. But you're playing the man not the ball

Smashing bank windows - against the law.
Burning down abortion clinics - against the law.

Maybe we need our resident legal expert to give us insight on the role of the jury. (Probably not).

 

[Ian H]

I agree with everything you've said. But you're playing the man not the ball

Smashing bank windows - against the law.
Burning down abortion clinics - against the law.

Maybe we need our resident legal expert to give us insight on the role of the jury. (Probably not).

The jury decides whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. Pretty much absolute power. Clive Ponting is the earliest case I can remember where the decision was shall, we say, controversial. There have been others.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The jury decides whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.

Not the point Ian, as I'm sure you realise.

 

[Ian H]

Not the point Ian, as I'm sure you realise.

Dunno, I've barely skimmed the recent responses.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Dunno, I've barely skimmed the recent responses

Oh come on Ian. Disingenuous nonsense.

 

[matticus]

Smashing bank windows - against the law.
Burning down abortion clinics - against the law.

Maybe we need our resident legal expert to give us insight on the role of the jury. (Probably not).

Ok, here's some insight - the above is ridiculously simplistic. For example, firemen can legally break bank windows under the right circumstances.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Ok, here's some insight - the above is ridiculously simplistic. For example, firemen can legally break bank windows under the right circumstances.

Thanks for your input