trophyshy 6434 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6891362.ece Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming. In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.” Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas. Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases. Times Archive, 1851: The Vegetarian Society Men ate meat because their forefathers ate it - it was a custom, but custom was every day schooled by progress and experience * Letter: Vegetarianism, 1879 * Vegetarianism at the Health Exhibition, 1884 Related Links * Obama must be at Copenhagen, says Stern * Meat is good for you, if you cook it right * Obama 'still undecided' about Copenhagen Multimedia * Graphic: where's the beef? * Office of Climate Change * UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.” Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change. He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal. He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added. Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes. UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy. Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry. Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.” On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation. Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.” The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century. That last bit fairly alarming given the resources already applied to this industry. If my calculations are right, this should coincide nicely with the collapse of sea fishing. Diets will change through limited availability and escalating costs (Soylent Green here we come) but would you give up eating meat to help do your bit now, would you stop eating fish to help preserve what is left? Or is it just too tasty for those fleeting seconds on your tongue to eschew? Will anyone take responsibility for their own presence on our finite earth? Should they? Or should we (as in society) just discuss the economy and that fat bung-eye racist bloke? Edited October 27, 2009 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4224 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 dear lord stern fuck off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9006 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 So they want us to eat lentils, to combat methane production... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I staunchly believe it's the governments job to save the environment. Not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) I staunchly believe it's the governments job to save the environment. Not mine. Even if their actions restrict the choices that you can make? Edited October 27, 2009 by ChezGiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I staunchly believe it's the governments job to save the environment. Not mine. Even if their actions restrict the choices that you can make? I can restrict my own choices while nobody else does and there'll be no effect, or the government can restrict everyones choices and there will be an effect. If there was no law against it, I'd choose to not pay for anything and walk around bollock naked masturbating into the faces of attractive women on the metro. The government restricts my choices for the common good every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I staunchly believe it's the governments job to save the environment. Not mine. Even if their actions restrict the choices that you can make? I can restrict my own choices while nobody else does and there'll be no effect, or the government can restrict everyones choices and there will be an effect. If there was no law against it, I'd choose to not pay for anything and walk around bollock naked masturbating into the faces of attractive women on the metro. The government restricts my choices for the common good every day. Odd example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Did I say that out loud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 dear lord stern fuck off Can you do better than that ffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 I staunchly believe it's the governments job to save the environment. Not mine. It's a fair point but would you vote a government in if they were proposing insanely radical new policy in an effort to do so. I think there will be some strong new policies following Copenhagen and the election, not strong enough but things are certainly going to get different. Anyone here know much about the CRCEES? Carbon economy now imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 People eat fish despite the fact many species are at ridiculously low levels so I don't see there being much chance of people giving up meat of their own volition when it's so abundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3981 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I'm sure they couldn't kill all the food animals in the 20-40 years I have left so I'm not too worried. Going forward I'd expect either off-planet colonization or climate control via science to be reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 CT what about the total loss of habitats and species and ecosystems? Worth anything? That attitude is deeply depressing. Scientists and do-gooders, you are basically coralling yourself and most others into a selfish-who-gives-a-fuck-attitude. Which perfectly emphasizes HF's point. Strong and punitive governement it is then. you lot cannot be trusted to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I actually do care like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3981 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 CT what about the total loss of habitats and species and ecosystems? Worth anything? That attitude is deeply depressing. Scientists and do-gooders, you are basically coralling yourself and most others into a selfish-who-gives-a-fuck-attitude. Which perfectly emphasizes HF's point. Strong and punitive governement it is then. you lot cannot be trusted to help. It's one of these things that will only work with a one world order - I know its defeatist but anything that doesn't involve China, India and the US is completely pointless when it comes to global change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I staunchly believe it's the governments job to save the environment. Not mine. It's a fair point but would you vote a government in if they were proposing insanely radical new policy in an effort to do so. I think there will be some strong new policies following Copenhagen and the election, not strong enough but things are certainly going to get different. Anyone here know much about the CRCEES? Carbon economy now imminent. I voted Green last time so you you can't get more insanely radical than that. I wonder if i'm the only green voter that refuses to use his recycle bin Top Obama administration officials are looking to make their case at a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday for aggressive action to combat climate change, even as Republicans show no sign of softening their dislike of a Democratic bill that would dramatically cut heat-trapping pollution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 I actually do care like. Are you a do-gooder or a scientist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 CT what about the total loss of habitats and species and ecosystems? Worth anything? That attitude is deeply depressing. Scientists and do-gooders, you are basically coralling yourself and most others into a selfish-who-gives-a-fuck-attitude. Which perfectly emphasizes HF's point. Strong and punitive governement it is then. you lot cannot be trusted to help. It's one of these things that will only work with a one world order - I know its defeatist but anything that doesn't involve China, India and the US is completely pointless when it comes to global change. you are spot on there, that was a shocking realisation when I had it. The only hope we have is to hand massive swathing power to a global agnecy for change. Terrifying really. China are pretty good on this agenda, the Indians are a bigger concern. yanks now seem to be getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) I actually do care like. Are you a do-gooder or a scientist? Proper Sandalista me like. Edited October 27, 2009 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I actually do care like. Are you a do-gooder or a scientist? Thought it came across a bit Luke Skywalker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) The human race is a disease on the verge of killing it's host. Fop had it right when he advocated systematic population reduction. Of course people tend not to vote for parties running on a platform of widespread genocide. Catch 22. Edited October 27, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4224 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) dear lord stern fuck off Can you do better than that ffs? what would you like? im quite tired of talking about my stance on global warming with half informed do gooders who take everything the WWF etc say as absolute fact (not saying you are one by the way) so I've sort of given up and answer with the much shorter response I've given above Edited October 27, 2009 by Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I hate the selfish prick stance but then again it's human beings to a tee, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4224 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I hate the selfish prick stance but then again it's human beings to a tee, isn't it? was that aimed at me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 The selfish gene, so selfish it extinguished itself at the peak of its glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now