Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "What the news won't tell you about climate change | Hannah Ritchie, PhD" video.
-
22
-
Well there's a couple of issues, she uses worldwide figures of 24%, the people who use cows to pull ploughs, use them for transport, dried dung for fuel will have to have alternatives. In USA all animals are 5%, cows are 65% of that at 3.25%.
It is very hard to replace all that we get which isn't just food, it's activated carbon to filter water, gelatine to hold toilet paper together, fats that go into devices like the one you are using, medicines, asphalt, there's leather, wool, fish bladders to fine wines, rendered meat for pet food, collagen, the list goes on. It all needs a grown source to replace what is mostly fed on grass, on land we don't put any sprays etc onto.
The way it is worked out is what is edible that goes to market, it ignores all the waste of crops and puts all the emissions onto just the edible, that goes for sale, considering we get much more than food from animals and there is so much crop waste, this in incredibly deceptive to the general public. The issue here is she is comparing protein of say tofu as a standalone product, ignoring that animals take all the waste, we put the waste through them and then blame them for it. Soy is great example, 82% of the human usable part of soy is taken by humans, all animals take 7% of whole bean and 1% of the oil but they take 99% of the waste, then people will say they take 87% of soy, yes they do but by weight of the total grown product, of which we can't eat. She's very misleading and whether intentionally or unintentionally, very wrong, not sure which. If oranges, grapes, any crop that doesn't make it to market then it's not calculated but all the sprays, fertilisers, irrigation still happen, just not calculated. This is of course an unfair comparison.
Saying getting higher yields means using synthetic fertilisers which is where the nitrous oxide comes into play, the gas that is emitted is 300 times worse than co2 and methane is only 26.
She is using her own source as in our world in data, so she is biased in this way and is funded by bill gates the largest private landholder in USA, and considering we give more of out waste to animals from crops than food we grow for them, plant based directly subsidises caged animal rearing the most.
20
-
12
-
Let's also not discount our input, in a tank of diesel is the equivalent amount of electrical energy that I use in an Australian summer with the air conditioner going 24-7 for 3 months. We are the ones driving to have a holiday, to go for a Sunday drive etc, anybody who says the govts of this world have a replacement for that is misled, by them and videos like this that keep the myth Net Zero is just electricity..
There is not going to be a replacement for that amount of energy, we will all lose that ability soon and we don't admit now how much oil is in our lives. Our dreams, hopes and aspirations around lifestyle all depend on it. There is no replacement for something that we aren't paying the external cost of now, none. Govts are more incentivised to keep things as they are, replacing electricity in not Net Zero, if we replaced all electricity produced now it would only be 20% of what is needed as 80% of energy is from oil, which as I say is running out.
No govt wants this to be true and none have a replacement, so they keep the lies going and the confusion, by design. The Business of Govt is Business, they do not care about you or the future just business.
10
-
@mobilityproject3485 No-one is fighting, they might think they are but people have been told for 30 years we need to half our consumption, how many do you know have done this?
Unity with who, trust in who and their is no rebuild, like an obese person being told they can eat their way out of the dilemma we need de-growth, yet how many people really want less?
Food shelter and medical care could be given to all, and we could all stop working, stop driving and 60-80% of emission would stop within an election term, this of course ruins the financial system as we know it, is anybody ready for that change, that chastity, that temperance, that you know of?
10
-
9
-
Well, that's a problem then because she's not admitting to the truth of the matter, 20 percent of our energy is electricity, we could reach 100% renewables for current electricity and we would have solved 20% of the problem. She also believes the hype of putting all the emissions of say a cow onto the edible part, which is incredibly deceptive. She is funded by bill gates who owns more farmland than any other private individual and we feed more crop waste to animals than what we grow for them, meaning the more people who believe the myth of plant based as I have been, are subsidising caged animal rearing the most. Cows are mostly grass fed and the one third of one crop, corn, isn't going to replace things like gelatine that holds together toilet paper, fats that go into asphalt, pet food etc. We get much more than food from animals and pushing all the emissions onto the edible part and then comparing a kg of meat against a kg of grapes in an unfair comparison, any crop food that takes a season to grow should have less emissions than something more dense nutritionally.
Degrowth is the only option and no govt is going that way, how many would vote for a person who said they wanted less jobs.
9
-
6
-
@BM1982.V2 Your opinion that grass is disingenuous is in my opinion incorrect and you seem to be missing the point of it, that we get something in return for doing nothing basically.
As most grass is from non arable land meaning it can't be farmed you can see the difference in inputs that are needed. Sayings 86% of their diet is from stuff we can't eat and then having to grow something on land that isn't possible is of course the wrong way to look at things, environmentally.
As far as soy, 6% whole bean goes to humans,7% to all animals, cows the least amount as it goes towards other animals more, half the worlds fish is raised fish, actually figures aren't taking into account wild caught fish but that's another story, 87% is processed into oil of which animals take 1% so we are back to the 82% is used for humans. Palm or Soy oil is in everything these days.
The rest of your figures then become meaningless, the point though is it's not just diet, half the animal is used for more than food, saying we can grow what needs replacing when we don't put a lot of inputs in now means we would have to put in sprays of all sorts, fertiliser, irrigation and where I am half the land is grazing land, that doesn't get sprayed, get's irrigated from weather and gets naturally fertilised, if looking at it as energy returned, we get a massive amount back.
We grow far more tonnage of crops for humans, all this waste could be composted but it then would still emit to the atmosphere, we currently pass it through animals and blame them, unfairly I think.
Saying disingenuous, doesn't make it so just because you remove 86% of their diet that isn't edible to us, that's not the point, the point is they can digest it.
5
-
One main issue is people don't understand money, or the debt system we live under. Money is created when loans are taken out and then that money does not exist anymore when paid back, the profit exists but the loan amount doesn't so money doesn't build up and taxes don't pay for anything, they are a siphon to what is coming in. Unless there are more people taking out loans then no new money is being created by the general population only through govt borrowing, and that is where the problem comes from, when the people at the top are the ones employing or creating money we all are pushed into a system of needing this money to exist and no govt wants a reduction in consumption to the levels needed for real change because that would devalue the currency. It's a difficult place for them to be, have no chance of responding appropriately. The govt needs us all to need money otherwise they don't exist and it is all about control of our lives and energy. Govts take at least half our life's efforts and we are kept in the dark as much as possible so we continue plodding along with the same system.
There needs to be system change and that is the last thing "they" want. De-growth is happening though, a 400% population growth in the last 80 years and 40 in the next is going to mean growth as we have known it is over, so the question is, what next because unless we lower our consumption ourselves, they will never promote it.
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BM1982.V2 You maybe don't understand the word you are using.
I'm in Australia, half the land is used for grazing, we as I have said don't do anything to it, it is classed as non arable because nothing else can be farmed there, without irrigation, fertiliser, able to be ploughed, I am from NZ where we have a lot of hills, the point is the land that is classed as non arable means it can only be used for grazing. Saying something is disingenuous doesn't make it so. The amount of land does not matter as it won't be coming back to the cropping side, could something be farmed with a lost of cost inputs? Sure, but that doesn't make it arable andnot all land that animals are on is non arable, dairy for example, but the point with that is no crop will give what we get from them for the same amount of land, so a net loss. Saying 2.5 or more land used is an incorrect way of looking at it.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mobilityproject3485 Have a look around any room and see how much is oil based, every bit of plastic, asphalt, paint, medicines, synthetic rubber, carpet, clothes, are oil based. Without oil the mining doesn't get done, food doesn't get farmed/ delivered and life will forever change. Careers, holidays, clothes, what we eat, I think half the nitrogen in the world is from synthetic fertilisers made from gas/oil so yeah our lives definitely revolve around this product.
1
-
@mobilityproject3485 Every bit of plastic, asphalt, paint, medicines, synthetic rubber, carpet, clothes, are oil based. Without oil the mining doesn't get done, food doesn't get farmed/ delivered and life will forever change. Careers, holidays, clothes, what we eat, I think half the nitrogen in the world is from synthetic fertilisers made from gas/oil.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1