Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)

[conman]

India also has 1.3 billion people.  The entire EU+UK population is nowhere near that.  This is a population and wealth issue as much as it is an emissions issue....

Snip.

That's a brilliant post.

But the fact that the vast majority of the population around the world have significantly lower living standards or are far less industrialized and commercialized will mean that developing countries need economic growth, and that's going to have an impact on emissions.  They have to do it more sustainably, but will it be enough?  Who knows.

Developed countries need economic growth too, as inflation demands it. Using CPI as a measure, developing countries and business's must grow between 2% & 3% per year. But rediculous money printing that's happening in these times is causing the true inflation to be much higher. Again, the system demands more growth as money is rapidly losing value.

Economically the entire world is constantly swimming against the tide trying to keep up. It's a vicious circle. So until governments stop printing money, emissions simply won't decrease enough. Also, the dollar devaluations have a much greater effect on the developing world than americans, so that's a double whammy.

[ChrisOH]

India also has 1.3 billion people.  The entire EU+UK population is nowhere near that.  This is a population and wealth issue as much as it is an emissions issue.

On a per capita basis, India is way down the list.  So are Brazil (213 million people), China (1.4 billion people), Bangladesh (165 million people), Pakistan (221 million people), Indonesia (273 million people), and Nigeria (206 million people).

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

If you want to look at GDP per capita and living standards, all those countries are going to be low.  Bangladesh produces 0.47 tons per capita of CO2 emissions (US produces 15.5, UK 5.6).  Bangladesh has a GDP per capita 1/10 the US and 1/8 the UK.  India is going to be similar.  Costa Rica, an example of a eco-conscious, eco-tourism driven country mentioned above, produces way more Co2 per capita basis than a country like Bangladesh (Costa Rica has 5 million people; Bangladesh, in an area 3x Costa Rica, has more than 30x the population).  Costa Rica's GDP per capita is also 4x Bangladesh's.

The problem is, the majority of the most-populated countries around the world are not developed.  Many of them have far lower living standards and are far less industrialized.  Their rapid growth in emissions is expected.  China's CO2 emissions trajectory has been skyward (and will probably continue to be so despite a massive amount of investment in renewables and public transit), but that's also coincided with hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of poverty.

The fact is, when the developed countries of the world industrialized and alleviated much of its own population from poverty and increased living standards, it never had to make the tradeoff of environmental impact vs. economic growth.  Now, the same developed countries are telling others, countries that are far poorer, what to do in this case.

The globe is connected anyway.  Canada and Australia have ridiculously high CO2 output per capita because a huge chunk of their economic activity is energy-related, which often ends up in places like China.  But a large chunk of the industrial activity in China also ends up back in the hands western consumers (and isn't calculated as such) as well as other Southeast Asian countries (China moving to a more service-based economy and Chinese companies building factories in Vietnam).

So who needs to cut their emissions?  It's a global issue that everyone would need to work together in, but you can see why developing countries don't like lectures.  They see developed countries' citizens driving cars everywhere, traveling multiple times a year, flying internationally, eating a lot of steak, and generally living great lives.  Yet, it's also on the developing countries' shoulders to slow their rise to reach these standards?  The answer is actually yes, but it's a fairness issue.  How does India reach the living standards of the UK without increasing emissions?  Or are you saying they can't?  "For the sake of the planet."  But that didn't stop the UK or the US in the 50s or 80s or the 1800s.  Didn't see Reagan and Thatcher say, "hang on, let's pump the brakes on capitalism for more sustainable practices."  But now that non-developed countries are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, it's all unsustainable.  (I mean, it's true, but you can see why they'd be annoyed).

It's difficult because of the system we have around the globe.  If we cut back on consumption, it only angers the masses.  Not only would they be restricted in what they can consume, they'd also suffer economic consequences, both in employment as well as retirement savings/etc.  Sacrifices have to be made.  Imagine telling someone that's 55-years old in America right now, that growth and consumption needs to slow down.  That they can't partake in activities that are bad for the planet (like taking a cruise).  Or that the slowdown in economic activity will reduce their hard-earned retirement savings by a significant amount.  But hey, we're reducing CO2 emissions and even if you live in a tiny apartment with no car and no travel, you're still better off than people in poor developing countries.  We're in this together, right?  Good luck selling that message.

At the same time, that won't help developing countries either.  It's hard to develop if economic activity slows down globally.  Places like China and India will stagnate in growth and that's bad from a poverty/living standards perspective.  People talk about Africa's young population, resources, and development with hope.  But that's harder to achieve if we just cut back economic activity.

The thing is, if developing countries can grow but use more environmental-friendly means (you can't use the technologies today that 1870 Britain used), that's the best humanity might be able to hope for.  There aren't major climate-deniers in governments of China or India as far as I know, and both countries invest heavily in green energy.  China's got something like 99% of all EV buses in the world and a huge chunk of the rail/subway development in the 21st century has been in China.  The cost of getting a regular car in a major city can be prohibitive anyhow.  India can take the same path, as can Bangladesh and others.  Nigeria's been dependent on oil, but maybe it can also shift (it wants to be tech hub).  At the same time, every set of factories that spring up today should be more efficient than those in the past.

But the fact that the vast majority of the population around the world have significantly lower living standards or are far less industrialized and commercialized will mean that developing countries need economic growth, and that's going to have an impact on emissions.  They have to do it more sustainably, but will it be enough?  Who knows.

But lectures from developed countries are not going to fix it.  The fact that Australian and American voters routinely vote in politicians that deny the impact of climate change will also not be lost on developing countries.  Nor the fact that many developed countries (even green groups) have anti-nuclear factions. 

Put it this way, if you're the leader of one of these developing countries, how do you grow your economy?  After all, while you may be judged on green policies, you'll also be judged on how you improve people's lives.  If a fossil fuel plant is the cheapest more reliable way to power a major city/county/state and is the best way to attract businesses and industry in the short term, would you honestly say "no thanks, I'll wait for renewables to be more viable."

Technology will be a major focus, but that still needs to be balanced with development.  Unless developed countries are willing to share the wealth.  I mean, average people in developed countries paying significantly more taxes to help poor countries set up sustainable energy grids for free would be nice.  Let's see how that polls.

Urgh, this is one the best posts I've ever read on this website which makes it as resoundingly depressing.

And this folks, is why there is no advanced civilisations in the stars.

[Garrus]

Fantastic post.

[Snail]

Just chiming in to agree with the others, great post.

[Red Raw]

The video is very enlightening and well worth a watch.

Hans is great. He not only had a brilliant mind, he was and (thanks to YouTube/TED etc.) remains a brilliant educator and human being. He has the enviable skill of being able to synthesise complicated and many faceted problems through data and distill the salient information into a form that can be understood by anyone and, just as importantly, used to design meaninful policy interventions. Through the WHO he also worked on things like ebola outbreaks, using the available data to tackle the spread of the disease in real time.

The Gapminder foundation he set up (https://www.gapminder.org) is now run by his son Ola, who continues the work to educate the rest of us about the developing world. The animated bubble charts he developed and often uses to tell his stories are made freely available and can be downloaded and used offline to visualise other datasets (https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$chart-type=bubbles&url=v1).

[RainbowFlick]

Hence what I said above, ultimately it's a monetary problem moreso than a political problem. Though politicians either must play a big part or get out of the way (in an ideal world).

it's a system problem, which is a result of politics and the way we've setup our economy and resulting priorities.

[conman]

it's a system problem, which is a result of politics and the way we've setup our economy and resulting priorities.

Yea, i agree. But it's not just how the economy is set up, it's the money itself and the excessive printing of it and meddling with it which is broken.

My point is focusing on reducing emissions only or taking carbon out of the atmosphere is not enough. It's not near enough.

[Nobby Reserve]

it's a system problem, which is a result of politics and the way we've setup our economy and resulting priorities.

It is.

Developing countries are going to continue to require more and more energy to continue to develop.

Developed countries have picked much of the low-hanging fruit in terms of relatively painless emissions reductions.

The only solutions that have any hope of actually reversing the shitstorm would require unprecedented, massive investment in cross-border projects to bring energy availability to all within  specific regions of the globe by utilising the renewables potential in individual countries - whether that be solar, wind, tidal, hydro, nuclear - and supplying as a public service rather than a milch-cow for corporations and already wealthy investors.

But that will never happen due to parochial self-interest and, more pertinently, the established orthodoxy that has evolved since the 80's that public projects under public ownership providing a public service at a subsidised or cost price should be replaced by profit-making ventures by private corporations. There are immensely rich people and powerful corporations who leverage their wealth and power into having a lot of control over government policy in pretty much all countries of the world. The 'corporate-capitalist' orthodoxy is here to stay because these people and corporations insist that it stays.

 
What I think is that countries will carry on publicly paying some lip-service to addressing the underlying causes, but mostly follow a policy of mitigation of the effects.

As the more catastrophic impacts begin to hit, countries will turn on each other, with the accompanying rise of nationalism, enmity towards migrants, and ramping up of military capability by the wealthier countries.
 

Humans as an entire species don't have the ability to universally act in a globally cooperative and altruistic way. Many, maybe even most, do. But as long as there's a powerful minority seeking to act in their own [financial] self-interest & greed, cooperation won't happen.

[TSC]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58130893

Hottest ever recorded temp in Europe today in Sicily

[24/7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58130893

Hottest ever recorded temp in Europe today in Sicily

Did you notice the name of the anticyclone causing the heatwave?

Lucifer.

Yes, way!

Either prophetic or a sick sense of humour

[thejbs]

Did you notice the name of the anticyclone causing the heatwave?

Lucifer.

Yes, way!

Either prophetic or a sick sense of humour

I think it’s just a reactionary nickname created in the press, rather than an official designation.

And kinda unfair on the devil too, considering it was god that always did the destructive weather stuff.

[24/7]

I think it’s just a reactionary nickname created in the press, rather than an official designation.

And kinda unfair on the devil too, considering it was god that always did the destructive weather stuff.

[jillcwhomever]

This report is really scary.

http://a.msn.com/01/en-gb/AANkRXX?ocid=st

[TSC]

https://news.sky.com/story/greta-thunberg-says-claims-that-uk-is-a-climate-leader-are-a-lie-as-unicef-report-finds-1-billion-children-at-high-risk-from-climate-impacts-12385672

[BarryCrocker]

Rain falls at Greenland ice summit for first time on record

Rain fell at the highest point on the Greenland ice sheet last week for the first time on record, scientists said.

It is another worrying sign of warming for the ice sheet already melting at an increasing rate.

"That's not a healthy sign for an ice sheet," said Indran iDas, a glaciologist with Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

"Water on ice is bad … It makes the ice sheet more prone to surface melt."

Not only is water warmer than the usual snow, it is also darker, so it absorbs more sunlight rather than reflecting it away.

That meltwater is streaming into the ocean, causing sea levels to rise.

Already, melting from Greenland's ice sheet, the world's second-largest after Antarctica's, has caused around 25% of global sea level rise seen over the last few decades.

Scientists estimate that share is expected to grow, as global temperatures increase.

The rain fell for several hours at the ice sheet's 3,216-metre summit on 14 August, where temperatures remained above freezing for around nine hours, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

Temperatures at the ice cap almost never lift above freezing, but have now done so three times in less than a decade.

In total, 7 billion tonnes of rain fell across Greenland over three days, from 14-16 August, which is the largest amount since records began in 1950.

The rain and high temperatures triggered extensive melting across the island, which suffered a surface ice mass loss on 15 August that was seven times above the average for mid-August.

The record-breaking rain is the latest in a string of warning signs about how climate change is affecting Greenland's ice sheet.

Greenland experienced a massive melting event in late July, when enough ice melted in a single day to cover the US state of Florida in 5cm of water.

That melting event and last week's rain were both caused by air circulation patterns which meant warm, moist air temporarily covered the island.

"This alarming rain at the summit of Greenland is not an isolated event," said Twila Moon, deputy lead scientist with the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Along with rising floods, fires, and other extremes, it is one of many "alarm bells" signalling the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, she said.

"We really have to stay laser-focused on adapting, as well as reducing the potential for those to become truly devastating."

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2021/0820/1242038-greenland-ice-sheet/

[Nobby Reserve]

Rain falls at Greenland ice summit for first time on record

Rain fell at the highest point on the Greenland ice sheet last week for the first time on record, scientists said.

It is another worrying sign of warming for the ice sheet already melting at an increasing rate.

"That's not a healthy sign for an ice sheet," said Indran iDas, a glaciologist with Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

"Water on ice is bad … It makes the ice sheet more prone to surface melt."

Not only is water warmer than the usual snow, it is also darker, so it absorbs more sunlight rather than reflecting it away.

That meltwater is streaming into the ocean, causing sea levels to rise.

Already, melting from Greenland's ice sheet, the world's second-largest after Antarctica's, has caused around 25% of global sea level rise seen over the last few decades.

Scientists estimate that share is expected to grow, as global temperatures increase.

The rain fell for several hours at the ice sheet's 3,216-metre summit on 14 August, where temperatures remained above freezing for around nine hours, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

Temperatures at the ice cap almost never lift above freezing, but have now done so three times in less than a decade.

In total, 7 billion tonnes of rain fell across Greenland over three days, from 14-16 August, which is the largest amount since records began in 1950.

The rain and high temperatures triggered extensive melting across the island, which suffered a surface ice mass loss on 15 August that was seven times above the average for mid-August.

The record-breaking rain is the latest in a string of warning signs about how climate change is affecting Greenland's ice sheet.

Greenland experienced a massive melting event in late July, when enough ice melted in a single day to cover the US state of Florida in 5cm of water.

That melting event and last week's rain were both caused by air circulation patterns which meant warm, moist air temporarily covered the island.

"This alarming rain at the summit of Greenland is not an isolated event," said Twila Moon, deputy lead scientist with the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Along with rising floods, fires, and other extremes, it is one of many "alarm bells" signalling the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, she said.

"We really have to stay laser-focused on adapting, as well as reducing the potential for those to become truly devastating."

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2021/0820/1242038-greenland-ice-sheet/

Increased freshwater run-off into the Arctic North Atlantic reduces thermohaline circulation, which is one of the main drivers of the global conveyor of oceanic currents.

It's this that helps drive the Gulf Stream - that current of mild water that flows ENE'wards across the Atlantic that brushes the west of the UK and into western Scandinavia, warming the waters and lifting average winter temperatures by anything from 2-4c in the north of the UK.

The signs that the flow is weakening have been increasingly apparent for 2/3 decades.

[thejbs]

The flooding in New York illustrates perfectly how ill equipped they are to deal with the effects of climate change. Literal rivers flowing through Brooklyn streets.

[Red-Soldier]

The flooding in New York illustrates perfectly how ill equipped they are to deal with the effects of climate change. Literal rivers flowing through Brooklyn streets.

Everyone is talking about net zero, but there are no words on adaptation and resilience.

Most major cities are woefully ill-prepared!  Nobody wants to spend the money now - it's all about short term savings over long-term costs.

New York and London (like most cities) are not in good places.

[TSC]

One month before hosting the UN climate change (COP 26) conference the host plays its ace.  Sneaked out (leaked via email to Sky) under the radar of the NI uplift:

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-ministers-bowed-to-pressure-to-drop-key-climate-commitments-for-uk-trade-deal-with-australia-12401988

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

One month before hosting the UN climate change (COP 26) conference the host plays its ace.  Sneaked out (leaked via email to Sky) under the radar of the NI uplift:

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-ministers-bowed-to-pressure-to-drop-key-climate-commitments-for-uk-trade-deal-with-australia-12401988

Of course.

This sort of nonsense has been going on for decades, and is a large part of the reason we're fucked

[Nobby Reserve]

One month before hosting the UN climate change (COP 26) conference the host plays its ace.  Sneaked out (leaked via email to Sky) under the radar of the NI uplift:

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-ministers-bowed-to-pressure-to-drop-key-climate-commitments-for-uk-trade-deal-with-australia-12401988

"Taking back control"

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/09/earths-tipping-points-closer-current-climate-plans-wont-work-global-heating?fbclid=IwAR1NLr160EX1ynE03eud6_l-Y9SueH6o5y2LQ3IQXhhIk9gbucRwDgQmXJE

[Mister Flip Flop]

The world is led by Biden, Merkel, Boris, Xi etc... You'd want to be a complete tit to think we can stop the coming climate disaster.

[Mister Flip Flop]

Everyone is talking about net zero, but there are no words on adaptation and resilience.

Most major cities are woefully ill-prepared!  Nobody wants to spend the money now - it's all about short term savings over long-term costs.

New York and London (like most cities) are not in good places.

Going to be a hell of a lot of people on the move over the next 20-30 years from major cities like NY. As you say they and many others are in real trouble now.

[Nobby Reserve]

Going to be a hell of a lot of people on the move over the next 20-30 years from major cities like NY. As you say they and many others are in real trouble now.

Human migrations caused by a climate change-instigated 'water crisis' would make migration from coastal cities look like a park stroll.

Changing weather patterns and over-use of existing water resources are going to bring drought to hundreds of millions. This isn't just going to affect undeveloped and rural areas. Cities have been built in essentially desert areas where a change to rainfall makes those cities unviable (yet still you'll see governments using very energy-intensive methods to try to avoid the inevitable)

Drought, famine and mass human migration will see a big reduction in agricultural output, and thus in the global trade of staple foodstuffs, especially grains. The UK doesn't have food security, having to import a large chunk of our food - and with more and more agricultural land being lost to housing and a rising population, the situation will only get more precarious.

[Garrus]

The global production of food is responsible for a third of all planet-heating gases emitted by human activity, with the use of animals for meat causing twice the pollution of producing plant-based foods, a major new study has found.

The entire system of food production, such as the use of farming machinery, spraying of fertilizer and transportation of products, causes 17.3bn metric tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, according to the research. This enormous release of gases that fuel the climate crisis is more than double the entire emissions of the US and represents 35% of all global emissions, researchers said.

“The emissions are at the higher end of what we expected, it was a little bit of a surprise,” said Atul Jain, a climate scientist at the University of Illinois and co-author of the paper, published in Nature Food. “This study shows the entire cycle of the food production system, and policymakers may want to use the results to think about how to control greenhouse gas emissions.”

The raising and culling of animals for food is far worse for the climate than growing and processing fruits and vegetables for people to eat, the research found, confirming previous findings on the outsized impact that meat production, particularly beef, has on the environment.

The use of cows, pigs and other animals for food, as well as livestock feed, is responsible for 57% of all food production emissions, the research found, with 29% coming from the cultivation of plant-based foods. The rest comes from other uses of land, such as for cotton or rubber. Beef alone accounts for a quarter of emissions produced by raising and growing food.

Grazing animals require a lot of land, which is often cleared through the felling of forests, as well as vast tracts of additional land to grow their feed. The paper calculates that the majority of all the world’s cropland is used to feed livestock, rather than people. Livestock also produce large quantities of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

“All of these things combined means that the emissions are very high,” said Xiaoming Xu, another University of Illinois researcher and the lead author of the paper. “To produce more meat you need to feed the animals more, which then generates more emissions. You need more biomass to feed animals in order to get the same amount of calories. It isn’t very efficient.”

The difference in emissions between meat and plant production is stark – to produce 1kg of wheat, 2.5kg of greenhouse gases are emitted. A single kilo of beef, meanwhile, creates 70kg of emissions. The researchers said that societies should be aware of this significant discrepancy when addressing the climate crisis.

“I’m a strict vegetarian and part of the motivation for this study was to find out my own carbon footprint, but it’s not our intention to force people to change their diets,” said Jain. “A lot of this comes down to personal choice. You can’t just impose your views on others. But if people are concerned about climate change, they should seriously consider changing their dietary habits.”

The researchers built a database that provided a consistent emissions profile of 171 crops and 16 animal products, drawing data from more than 200 countries. They found that South America is the region with the largest share of animal-based food emissions, followed by south and south-east Asia and then China. Food-related emissions have grown rapidly in China and India as increasing wealth and cultural changes have led more younger people in these countries to adopt meat-based diets.

The paper’s calculations of the climate impact of meat is higher than previous estimates – the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization has said about 14% of all emissions come from meat and diary production. The climate crisis is also itself a cause of hunger, with a recent study finding that a third of global food production will be at risk by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at their current rate.

Scientists have consistently stressed that if dangerous global heating is to be avoided, a major rethink of eating habits and farming practices is required. Meat production has now expanded to the point that there are now approximately three chickens for every human on the planet.

Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist at Columbia University who was not involved in the research said the paper is a “damn good study” that should be given “due attention” at the upcoming UN climate talks in Scotland.

“A fundamental unknown in global agriculture is its impact on greenhouse gas emissions,” Ziska said. “While previous estimates have been made, this effort represents a gold standard that will serve as an essential reference in the years to come.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Still baffles me why people in the developed nations still insist on eating meat now that we no longer need to.

I guess it's an addiction

[TSC]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-is-making-a-mockery-of-the-uk-e2-80-99s-presidency-of-cop26/ar-AAOm6LU

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-to-support-more-north-sea-drilling-despite-climate-pledge-bpczs388g

[Garrus]

Still baffles me why people in the developed nations still insist on eating meat now that we no longer need to.

I guess it's an addiction

You only have to see some of the posts in the "Vegans in Sport" thread a few weeks ago on here to see that attitudes are going to take a long time to change.

[Red-Soldier]

You only have to see some of the posts in the "Vegans in Sport" thread a few weeks ago on here to see that attitudes are going to take a long time to change.

Exactly.  Some real luddites around (in terms of thinking, not technology), including one or two mods.

[Red-Soldier]

Still baffles me why people in the developed nations still insist on eating meat now that we no longer need to.

I guess it's an addiction

Developed nations tend to consume greater amounts of meat than developing nations.

[BarryCrocker]

Still baffles me why people in the developed nations still insist on eating meat now that we no longer need to.

I guess it's an addiction

On the other side of the ledger. Next time someone has a dozen almonds think of the 144 litres of waters used to produce them.

[24/7]

On the other side of the ledger. Next time someone has a dozen almonds think of the 144 litres of waters used to produce them.

Oh I'll get back to you on that one after a quick conversation with one of the Directors of the Estonian Vegan Society....

[24/7]

Exactly.  Some real luddites around (in terms of thinking, not technology), including one or two mods.

  now there's a comment that needs qualification.

[Red-Soldier]

On the other side of the ledger. Next time someone has a dozen almonds think of the 144 litres of waters used to produce them.

Some plant foods do consume a fair amount of water.  However, for clarity:

The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy

    "The consumption of animal products contributes to more than one-quarter of the water footprint of humanity. The water needed to produce feed is the major factor behind the water footprint of animal products. Reviewing feed composition and the origin of feed ingredients is essential to find ways to reduce the water footprint of meat and dairy.

    The water footprint of any animal product is larger than the water footprint of a wisely chosen crop product with equivalent nutritional value.

    In industrialized countries, moving toward a vegetarian diet can reduce the food-related water footprint of people by 36%.

    Reducing the water footprint of meat and dairy requires an international approach and product transparency along the full supply chain of animal products."

"The global water footprint of animal production amounts to 2,422 billion m3/year (87% green, 6% blue, 7% gray). One-third of this total is related to beef cattle, and another 19% is related to dairy cattle (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010). The largest fraction (98%) of the water footprint of animal products refers to the water footprint of the feed for the animals. Drinking water for the animals, service water, and feed mixing water account for 1.1, 0.8, and 0.03%, respectively"

https://academic.oup.com/af/article/2/2/3/4638610?login=true

[Red-Soldier]

  now there's a comment that needs qualification.

Have a read through the Vegans in Sport thread 

[24/7]

On the other side of the ledger. Next time someone has a dozen almonds think of the 144 litres of waters used to produce them.

https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths

Selected highlight:

"Some other comparisons (Sources: UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the USDA):

A quarter pound of almonds takes 75 gallons of water to produce, and Americans eat an average of 2 pounds of almonds per year. That's 600 gallons of water per year per person in almonds.

Comparatively, Americans eat an average of 72 pounds of red meat per year, which consumes 133,560 gallons of water per year per person.

Poultry takes “just” 61% as much water as red meat to produce an equivalent amount."

Sadly, Barry, what this serves to confirm is that 'whataboutism?' is an ineffective means of argument. A stand-alone stat is meaningless unless it's put into context by way of real-terms comparison.

[Alan_X]

Exactly.  Some real luddites around (in terms of thinking, not technology), including one or two mods.

If you're referring to me and my comments then please re-read what I said. veganism is not the answer to anything. It's a belief system not science-based.

Reduction in meat-eating is a good thing but a balanced food production system that makes the best use of all land is the optimum for food production. Some land, especially in less-developed countries, is of no use as agrarian land and raising animals provides meat protein and valuable dairy foods.

Vegetarianism is fine but veganism is a fad created in the nineteenth century by anti-science extremists who also believed in things like water therapy instead of medicine.

[24/7]

Vegetarianism is fine but veganism is a fad created in the nineteenth century by anti-science extremists who also believed in things like water therapy instead of medicine.

Definitely getting back to you on that one, Alan. Seems unfair to tarnish the entire vegan movement with a brush made two centuries ago. Remember, the KKK was first invented by the Democratic Party. Things change.

[Nobby Reserve]

Still baffles me why people in the developed nations still insist on eating meat now that we no longer need to.

Because it's delicious.

I can't imagine a main meal without meat.