Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "Big Think" channel.

@Rohan4711 The issue is if you have a look around you how many of the products are from oil, this device, asphalt, half the nitrogen in peoples bodies, plastics, in fact electricity being 20% of our energy consumption, we could stay on coal and reduce 80% with a societal system change. Total installed solar and wind installed is currently 3.6% of total energy consumption and energy consumption increasing more than renewables are being put in then we need a lot more electricity and oil to be used to even catch up with new energy demand. We could have 100% renewables for electricity and that would still leave 80% of the problem so I disagree on what we need to fix first. We need and the only possible route is societal change.
1
@Rohan4711 Yes I am referring to the synthetic fertilisers used, made from gas turning air into fertilizer. It would of course be different for different people depending on their diet, plant based without animal input would be more, half the nitrogen might be a better wording but that was how I heard it so said it that way. 20 percent of our energy consumption is from electricity, we could half that if not needing to power industry as much, add ten percent ( if using USA total figure for ag ) for food/delivery, add five percent for medical/emergency, another 5 towards providing people shelter and by telling people that food, shelter and medical care would be provided for free and by staying home we could reduce total emissions seventy percent in an election term. It would be a step up for billions of people, add security for the rest and by staying home and doing less, increase wellbeing. Oil runs out in a few decades, everything around us is going to change because of it and we currently spend our lives paying dollars back with our lives that are created at a cost of 4 cents per hundred dollars to create. The system based on debt that isn't going to be paid back is going to collapse and we need to see a way post capitalism.
1
@onelemonadestand There's a huge difference between those two and Kennedy and it's irresponsible not to vote for him, the one chance Americans have to set things right and last I heard 13% of the country are deciding to take that chance
1
@onelemonadestand You have the chance to set history right, I suggest you look at what the civil war of the mid 60's meant and what the killing of MLK and JFK meant to the peace process of the world. I'm not saying he would be able to do anything that you might class as right but society as society is broken does need change.
1
@woefienaam794 It's the ability to be wrong that has to be held on both sides of this conversation. Everybody deserves a good life but it will be about will come to your family that you won't be able to avoid. I've been Vegan and there are some real methodology problems with the metrics, nevertheless the 30 years previous 2014 saw a 104 millimetre rise in sea level over 30 years, the next 36 from now will be 180 and the next 10 it will be roughly 100, the difference between 2060 and 2070 will be 130 ml, if your grandkids live roughly 60 years they will see a 800, almost 3 foot rise in their lifetimes, diet is not going to change this. No one is saying don't have heather or heaters and in my case meat too, just don't over consume like it will never run out.
1
@intentionallyharmless Disappointment is the difference between ideas and reality and you are going to be very disappointed that you can utilise, etc less harmful options. Everything has to have a grown replacement and the small amount of arable land that is used for animals now will not replace what we get. You want microbes to be placed in vats using energy, to replace what we get from the sun in plants and cows, with less emissions? Emissions from cattle in USA , have not increased warming since veganism became a term. Methane is gone in 80 years, so hard size being the same as it was 100 years ago means the warming amount has stayed the same, unlike carbon being entered into the atmosphere which builds up, methane is gone. Entering more crops into the system even for bio diesel, supported by stored carbon, that will hang around 10,000 years is not a better option. The amount of goods we get from cows, the 99% not just the 60% that is meat all needs a grown replacement of produce that either comes from non arable land or is subsidised by crops. Finding a cleaner replacement will not be eas.
1
@brseeger1 Could you resolve the fact if the herd size has not increased in size in 80 years then no further warming from has happened from cows as cows are carbon neutral and any replacement will have to be a grown replacement using and emitting stored carbon, therefore adding to the carbon budget? Unless crops are maintained by something that isn't fossil fuel dependant, which they are now, fertiliser, diesel, tractors etc, do you think the grown replacements for all things we get, will mean a lower carbon budget over cows, as I say that are carbon neutral? We use 99% of the animals, where we don't grow the majority of food for them, we give them more of our crop waste, so if we grow replacements, where will the crop waste go, compost it and it still emits to the atmosphere, so growing a replacement, considering it needs oil and gas to make fertilisers and those are 300 times worse than carbon as a greenhouse gas, what overall lowering of global warming do you see happening with growing a replacement?
1
@brseeger1 You are being respectful because you are assuming I am lying and you are not sorry about this because you then are able to remain right. I am talking to you of using stored carbon being added to the atmospheric system, there is no rampant misinformation to the logic of the situation. If you have a complete list of where the 99% of the animals go, like the fats that aren't included in emissions, because it's meat with the fat cut of compared kg to kg of crop food, that makes it to market, but like the fats that are in the plastic of this device, or the bone char that makes sugar white, all needs a grown replacement, if all the emissions have been put onto the meat, as they are, then any grown plant sources, using oil and huge amounts of gas for fertilisers, must mean an addition of carbon, this doesn't need sources, the logic of what is being said. When somebody says " good morning" do you say " I'll need to see a source on that? " Cattle are mostly grass fed around the world, have no more emissions than a wild animal and eat what we can't, that is a net benefit but the only addition of carbon is from the stored source, it is our driving, no doubt.
1
All this is good, as long as it is local, a normal 60 litre tank of diesel holds the equivalent energy of 2.6 months of electricity where I live. 20% of our total energy is electricity, add another 20% for emergency and those that grow our food, quit work and if we all stayed home/local, we could drop our emissions 60% overnight. @VidaNueva1
1
Don't mistake planned ignorance for dumb. @mabus4910
1
You are going to have an off grid home, burning wood or do you think you'll afford batteries for all heat and cooling? The issue with off grid, is they are usually far away from cities, using diesel again for all supplies. I don't drive and live in a city and can walk to the shops, a huge reduction in energy can be achieved living in the city and if you are going to drive more miles overall. As I say if you burn wood, you are going to emit far more energy than myself in air conditioning using coal as the power source. @indigowendigo8464
1
@ygts And yet, he is backing her, this is not a conspiracy, this is the truth, I have gone this path over a year ago to research what she was saying.
1
@BM1982.V2 PS 75% of the land that is used for framing, beef in reality, is what would not be able to be used by cropping because it is inarable. You are misinformed and are the one that is being disingenuous. I've been vegan before and have studied this for a long time. I can assure you everything I am saying is correct. I want you to realise one thing, the parts of the animal we don't eat also has uses, that would all need a grown replacement, saying the 75% of land we use that isn't really any different to having wild animals on won't be used and all the production would come back to the small bit of arable land and that you could replace everything with less inputs, is false. I understand it might be a lie you want to believe because of your bias but it isn't possible to get more, without doing more and the land is quite honestly not available.
1
@Jodamo 86% of what they eat, we can't, 14% of all animals diet is what we could possible eat. Using extra land that isn't irrigated1 now is not going to mean less energy into the system. Saying what they eat can be fed to humans is incorrect. Corn and Wheat are grasses, we do not need more of them. I never said they eat mostly waste, I said we feed more of our waste to animals than food we grow for them, this is meant as crop food, not grass from grasslands that quite honestly if they were ploughed would mean huge amounts of damage, the world does not need more wheat or corn. If talking corn in USA, all animals take one third of corn, that's just one crop, beef and dairy take half of this, 15% of corn replaced now would or left as corn would not replace all that we get.
1
@Jodamo Another way to look at it would be what we could eat, 14% is edible by us, 86% inedible, not saying how well because poor wheat/corn does need a market. If 14% is what we can and 17% is what we get in return then it is a net benefit. Then as I say you have to add the calories (energy) we get in inedible. For everything to be equal to now it would mean huge amounts of energy to go into the system, people have to stop thinking it is just diet.
1
@Jodamo Extra corn or wheat is not total calories. First off your sarcasm doesn't make you right, if I still frequented reddit we could have a debate on r/debate a v about that study and it's flaws, I have done before so have a look about that, I may have even used that as the title, : problems with... Let me explain soy, 92% of human edible soy is used by humans, 6% whole bean to humans and 7% to animals, 87% is processed into oil of which animals take ~1%, animals take 99% of the waste and by weight this is where the total is measured. People eat the oil which is in everything these days, or palm. People don't eat the cake, people like impossible have tried. I am talking to you as an ex v and am only telling your truths that of course you may not want to hear, but if wild animals were on non arable land you wouldn't blame them, saying that you can reproduce what we get now, cleaner or with less inputs, what am I supposed to trust you, bro? Prove that it can be done, prove that all the energy we get from feeding cows 15% of just one crop can replace ALL that we get and then we'll talk.
1
@Jodamo No, that is wrong, you can't get 86% and then add 18%, it does not work that way to get to 100% Another thing you must consider is how the metrics work, It is measured on edible food to market, it doesn't include the waste of crops not making it and it also puts all the emissions from the whole animal onto the edible part, so leather, bone, fats, ligaments etc as rendered meat for pet food, should then be carbon free which is of course impossible. I want you to consider that food companies are lying to the people who want to believe the most and if eating the daily recommended amount of meat it equals I think 12 cows over a 60 year span, as you say we have cows on non arable land or land that has been grasslands, if in USA for longer than white man has been there, saying you can produce something cleaner with synthetic fertilisers, poisons etc instead of something that is no different to a wild animal, give it a shot, prove that you can replace 60 years of total calories cleaner before you resort to sarcasm. The world doesn't have a calorie problem, last year the world consumed enough calories for everybody to gain weight, we have a distribution one, saying we need more wheat or corn is incorrect, in fact there is an American study that I also posted on reddit, where taking animals out of the system does indeed raise calories but it lowers nutrition and that raised the cropping emissions 2.6%, as we need to also replace the inedible calories it would be hard to see replacing all that we get for 2.4% is possible, as all animals are 5% of US's emissions, beef and dairy are 65% of that at 3.25%. I understand it can be difficult to hear a lifestyle choice you may have chosen is based on half truths but the reality is there for you, and in todays market, more crop waste means caged animals are supported more, now I only eat beef.
1
@Jodamo Also, crop food to market is compared kg against kg, why kg against kg is what you should ask yourself. A kg of grapes or any seasonal food should have less emissions than a kg of meat, one has far more nutrients than the other so why not compare nutritionally instead, wouldn't that be fairer? Why not total calories? A kg of meat with the fat cut off, with all the emissions etc put onto that kg is a very deceptive way of looking at the issue. They aren't telling the whole truth when putting it like this, sorry.
1
@Jodamo One final comment : 87% of soy is processed into oil with I think around a 37% return, the 4% of all animals diet that is soy, you are saying can be reprocessed to be human edible, which has not been done yet but you are saying that it can be done cleaner than having basically wild animals on the land. When articles come out about animals taking the majority of soy, this is again by weight, again, sorry but this is true but it is a deceptive metric to class it as weight of the total product, it is only a sales tactic.
1
@Jodamo If you think it is only about diet, then I ask you not use toilet paper as that is held together by gelatine, I ask you to not use plastic items as that has fats in it, I ask you to not drive on asphalt as that has the same, don't drink filtered water that has activated carbon in most filters, and reducing the amount of ag land, that is weather irrigated, self fertilised and unable to be used without a lot of extra inputs is not really the cleaner. I understand your hate but that doesn't make what I sau incorrect, nothing has changed since I was a v, again, sorry, but all this is true, you are being lied too. Cheers.
1
@Jodamo No-one is eating soy bean cake, as I say impossible is trying. Type in "how much soy is processed into oil" You talk of massive amounts, in USA it's around a third of corn and we grow far more tonnage for humans. Yes I said how much is used as whole bean, the reality is 92% of human edible soy ( your opinion on what can be but isn't doesn't count) is used for humans. The reduction in arable land will not replace all that we get, dairy for example, the amount of calories we get will never find a crop to replace that. As I say corn is mostly used in the US, here in AU it is wheat, both are grasses, having anything else grow IS going to need a lot more inputs, if poor grain doesn't meet protein levels then feed grade it becomes. There are no extra steps for cows eating grass and we get more than food, relegating everything to diet is talking about less than half of the problem. A cheap byproduct as you call them isn't going to have a better replacement because it needs a more expensive grown source, nor cleaner. We also shouldn't use overconsumption of meat as our metric, the basis should be the minimum daily requirements and because there is less nutrition in crop foods, this increases the amount of transport, tractors, fertilisers etc, to get the required amount of replacement nutrition volume of diet has to increase 25%, increasing emissions from fossil fuels. You can't get more energy out of a system than is already there, stored carbon being emitted is what is driving climate change and as I say all animals in the US are 5% of emissions, cattle 3.25%, how much change do you think will happen to replace what you call a byproduct? V and VG support caged animal rearing the most, crop waste is a cheap byproduct, why not mention this?
1
@Jodamo Before you come back with something else, I do want you to consider what I am saying actually works against meat eaters as both styles of v's subsidise meat production, telling people how both of these make meat cheaper would work against meat eating if less people remain crop based. It is in meat's interests for what you believe to continue and to be widespread. Unfortunately, it does make the world worse though your belief system. 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is 100k or 63 mile high, v's are roughly 3% of the population, the loss of the worlds insects are being lost because all insecticides fit into this tiny amount of air, a 3500% increase in numbers is not going to do well for the worlds bee's that your belief system depends on. We grow far more tonnage for humans, increasing this and removing animals that eat waste or grass is not going to make things better environmentally. add And I'm not saying we can't eat soy but then the oil, that is either soy or palm these days in foods, needs a replacement. People have been fooled into believing animal fat is bad so they used a grown replacement because of profit, not health and all seed oils have waste, this is not just soy.
1
@Jodamo You aren't talking hard data because if you looked you would find we grow far more crops for humans than animals. You don't have time to be wrong, I get it. You are the one resorting to insults and being rude, not me. You can search your own article and ask why is it per kg of edible meat only. I don't like being lied too, Good luck.
1
@dennishartmann6838 If in USA all animals are 5% of emissions, cows are 65% of that at 3,25%, in a tank of diesel is the same amount of energy as 3 months of my electrical energy, stopping driving would be the biggest thing people can do. Eating meat that is grown from crop waste or grass is not going to be what you say.
1
@ridiculousrusty You want a source that non arable land produce is cleaner than arable land produce? What information do you want a source of? As links can't be attached you have to check your own sources and research them yourself, I can't spoon feed people and I have been having this conversation enough times that people will not accept what is given. I'm using the same sources as them, just I'm reading the methods they used and using logic, hard to give a source of logic if people don't have it themselves. I'm the messenger and it honestly doesn't matter, I still get shot. Add The 5% of US's emissions from animals is on the govt website for example, something people might not have looked at but if their whole lifestyle choice is around something, don't you think they should check or read what they are given with a critical mind first before they do?
1
@BM1982.V2 Choosing to eat plant based does create more crop waste, currently plant based people support caged animal rearing the most as the waste does need to go somewhere, increasing the amount doesn't make it easier to dispose of. 185,000 TWH of energy is used yearly by humans, green energy as a total is around 6% and total yearly energy consumption increase, surpasses the green energy used. Biomass for example is 100% more than used in 1800. Governments can not replace all this energy with green energy cost wise or copper wise as we don't pay the external costs of fossil fuels and we need more copper than has been mined in the last 500 years, thinking govts can solve this problem is at our peril and it will be business as usaul until everybody gets it. We need degrowth and no govt wants that.
1
@xxwookey Ok, so roughly 10% difference over 80 years, thanks for that, I mean thanks for correcting me on a 0.12% difference per year. I went with 40 to cover all bases as Africa is supposed to be almost half the world by 2100. I have looked at those trends because that's what gave me the reason to write what i did. It doesn't really change the point of growth that I was making and what all house prices etc depend on or new money coming into the economy, did you have anything to say on that point?
1
@xxwookey So now you want to tell me I am wrong again, but in a different way now...ok. Money is debt, it only exists from debt. The govt needs you to need money otherwise they lose all their power. If all the debt was paid back there would be no money in the economy because that's how it works as we are a debt based economy. Going back to barter, how would they generate money? Or how would we give them a cut? Remembering that taxes don't pay for anything, they are a siphon to the money coming in. You calling something fair is subjective and nothing to do with the conversation. I don't disagree things need to have a collective to agree on what should be done, personally I feel govt should make sure their constituents have food, shelter and medical care, for all, and if they don't they are failing as a govt. How is that going? The business of govt is business and they do not care about you, thinking that if we went back to barter, or be self-sufficient what need would you have for money, therefore them? The govt does not want society to be self sufficient, they work for business interests because that means control of you and your life.
1
@xxwookey PS telling somebody something is nonsense, or that you think you are fair, or that you think your subjective opinion is a correction and therefore right, is a strange way of being wrong.
1
@xxwookey I would agree with you if we lived in rural 1800's but the business of govt being business they do not work for you, they want to keep business going as long as possible, no matter the damage to you or the environment, as one of the american presidents said, it is a decision between the environment or jobs. Their goal is jobs, while you might not agree with me you haven't proven how govt would still have power over you if money was removed from the system. As long as you understand oil is what your life revolves around and other people have died for it, provided by your govt, then you are a step towards understanding this post capitalism model that exists. As long as you understand all money is debt and that money is made out of thin air at a cost of 4 cent per hundred, that we pay back at full value and that they are now trapped and do not have any answers and will wring every bit of value they can out of you instead of making anything better for future generations and that when oil is gone everything will collapse and that they by choice, want an ignorant public then we understand them better. Thinking that govt is on your side is a fault of maybe youth.
1
@johngeier8692 A hothouse earth for at least 10,000 years after reaching equilibrium of 10-11 degrees c hotter where clouds won't form around the equator and the last time a mass extinction from volcanism happened it was 86% of all species that died, that took 700,000 years to occur and we are going to see the same in around 2000 years, and you think high energy costs are worse and this is "mainly beneficial"?
1
@judithmcdonald9001 Do you use oil stolen from other countries to go to the forest?
1
Hannah Ritchie is a liar liar pants on fire liar. She is here just for obfuscation and profit to continue.
1