Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mary Robinson wants us all to become vegan

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    gozunda wrote: »
    She's a media geisha with a mouth like the Mersey tunnel

    Transport and Fossil fuels are the two biggest global contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

    You (not a vegan) going to give up your car / use of fossil fuels first No?

    I don't drive a car. I take the bus and it's partly because of the environmental concerns. I try to be as energy efficient as possible. I'm not going to personally make a difference but I can't not do the right thing. It'd be hippo-critical if I didn't.

    I do have to add a caveat. I live near public transport. A lot, like my family who live in the west, don't. If I was to buy a car I'd go electric and I'd treat it as a car for life. A lot of people don't have that option. I'm not judging people who drive. I do think it's irresponsible at this stage to drive bigger than you need. I'm in the US right now for work. The number of huge cars here is ridiculous.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/animal-agriculture-choking-earth-making-sick-climate-food-environmental-impact-james-cameron-suzy-amis-cameron
    Animal agriculture is choking the Earth, and the longer we turn a blind eye, the more we limit our ability to nourish ourselves, protect waterways and habitats, and pursue other uses of our precious natural resources. Raising livestock for meat, eggs and milk generates 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the second highest source of emissions and greater than all transportation combined. It also uses about 70% of agricultural land, and is one of the leading causes of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution.

    On top of this, eating too much meat and dairy is making us sick, greatly increasing our risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, several major cancers (including breast, liver and prostate) and obesity. Diets optimal for human health vary, according to David Katz, of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, “but all of them are made up mostly of whole, wholesome plant foods”.

    The fact is though that eventually we won't have a choice. We will be switching from a diet that's heavy in meat to one with far less. As climate change and population growth impacts our lives we will be switching. Part of it will be cost and part will be just necessity.


  • Options
    #33
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    gozunda wrote: »
    Still preaching lol? In Ireland significant amounts of agricultural land have been planted with forestry in the past couple of decades. I mainly grow my own thanks or buy local. How's your vegan lifestyle and all that cheap nasty imported food grown with few if any environmental and ethical standards with its massive food miles doing? Though funny last time in AH you claimed not to be a vegan .... ;)

    To be fair it's bad forests. They're all pine with no undergrowth and have useless biodiversity.


  • Options
    #34
    Brae100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 322 ✭✭Brae100


    I have no problem with constructive criticism, but the use of crappy, derogatory terms like "Noddy" just makes me very suspicous. Anyone who uses those sort of derogatory terms usually has an underlying political agenda.


  • Options
    #35
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    gozunda wrote: »
    2kmv2z.jpg

    Do you believe that Gorilla actually said that??

    Come on. It's a jpg.

    He could have been saying something entirely different there for all you know.


  • Options
    #36
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    mikeym wrote: »
    Ill just eat the grass out the front garden so?

    More taxes on the poor will sort out the environment.

    Poor people don't pay tax in Oireland


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    Good old Noddy Robinson wants everyone in the country to become a vegan for the sake of "climate justice".

    I wonder will she stop traveling around on private jets to cut down her carbon footprint ? somehow I don't think so.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/robinson-again-calls-for-move-to-vegan-37441801.html


    When she was speaking to Sean O Rourke a couple of weeks ago to plug her new book and the UNIPCC's latest report she admitted she herself is not a vegan.


    She did say she is toying with the idea though.



    The interview got a bit fuzzy each time O Rourke headed towards "climate science", it's obviously not her thing, with Robinson deftly managing to steer it back to the climate justice circus each time.


    Vegan is so old hat now anyway.

    Saving the planet now requires us to eat trendy insects.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/15/edible-insect-save-planet-global-warming-tasty-trendy


  • Options
    #38
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    when vegan food tastes as good as non vegan food, I will become vegan


  • Options
    #39
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,409 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    dense wrote: »
    When she was speaking to Sean O Rourke a couple of weeks ago to plug her new book and the UNIPCC's latest report she admitted she herself is not a vegan.


    She did say she is toying with the idea though.



    The interview got a bit fuzzy each time O Rourke headed towards "climate science", it's obviously not her thing, with Robinson deftly managing to steer it back to the climate justice circus each time.


    Vegan is so old hat now anyway.

    Saving the planet now requires us to eat trendy insects.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/15/edible-insect-save-planet-global-warming-tasty-trendy


    Would vegans eat bugs to save the planet?


  • Options
    #40
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    Anyone wanting me to become vegan can lick the back end of my ballbag, and anyone wanting me to do it for bloody climate change can go and play in traffic afterwards.


  • Options
    #41
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Grayson wrote: »
    I'm not a vegan but she's right. Saying that we should eat less meat products is simply what loads of climate scientists have said. The world is changing and we're going to change with it. It's not the first time this has happened either. Human diets have always changed because of economic reasons, they'll change again because of other reasons. We certainly don't have the same diets we did 100 years ago.

    Animal farming is a huge contribute to greenhouse gasses. In addition we're getting to the point where we need to get more food globally. You will see a shift to non meet products in a lot of countries.

    Globally our diets will change because they have to.

    We need to get more food globally? Surely that’s a carbon producer. Did you mean locally?

    Ireland is different from other countries that may have to import lots of food, in theory we don’t except what is not grown here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    Poor people don't pay tax in Oireland

    They pay consumption taxes which is what carbon taxes are.

    If the world was serious about this the first thing we’d do is ban private jets. Then we’d all have a non transferable carbon quota for flights etc. If you don’t have a car you can fly more.


  • Options
    #43
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,703 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Good old Pee Flynn just may have had a point all those years ago.


  • Options
    #44
    Eathrin
    Registered Users Posts: 8,076 ✭✭✭Eathrin


    gozunda wrote: »
    Still preaching lol? In Ireland significant amounts of agricultural land have been planted with forestry in the past couple of decades. I mainly grow my own thanks or buy local. How's your vegan lifestyle and all that cheap nasty imported food grown with few if any environmental and ethical standards with its massive food miles doing? Though funny last time in AH you claimed not to be a vegan .... ;)

    If you're claiming vegans to be preachy, you probably don't have a good enough argument to back yourself with, but good try.

    What nasty food are you talking about? I buy the exact same stuff as everyone else at the supermarket minus the animal products and with more beans, lentils, nuts etc than before. Again, you're trying to discredit veganism by attaching negative words to things that are quite ordinary.

    I wasn't a vegan last time around, glad you noticed. That's exactly the point. People change and you should too. Social progress was never made without it.


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Nice misrepresentation there OP. She did not say she wants us all to become vegan. At least not in what you quoted - she may have elsewhere of course. She made a general call to recycle more and consume less - in general eat less meat and _maybe_ become vegetarian or vegan. She made a very clear distinction between where she was saying "have to" and "must" - and where she was saying "maybe". Absolutely nothing wrong with any of that.

    And while I may not agree with all of it - I am certainly not about to become either vegetarian or vegan myself as I have yet to hear any arguments from those people as to why I should not eat meat even when I have asked them for some - it is good people are not only saying it but refusing to "withdraw their comments" in this new modern culture of getting people to back pedal or apologise for everything and anything they say.

    For me I am as conscientious as the market will allow about what I eat - how much of it - and how. And I vote with my feet and my wallet in my attempts to support meat production that focuses on the welfare of the environment and the animals as best they can. And I farm hunt and kill my own where possible too.

    I will be an early adopter of the products of people like Memphis Meats when they finally take off with a workable affordable product.

    But while arguments for the benefit of animals and the environment abound - arguments for why we specifically should not eat meat or consume animal products appear next to non-existent in my experience. So I will not be stopping any time soon. Quite the opposite - I will throw an _extra_ steak on the grill for myself tonight in her honour as I always do for every person I see talk or post on the subject of not eating meat who go on to fail to offer any reason why I should not. I will happily have a double portion of lamb cutlets on Thursday too if anyone else wants to follow suit below :)


  • Options
    #46
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Do you believe that Gorilla actually said that??
    Come on. It's a jpg. He could have been saying something entirely different there for all you know.

    So you dont believe him cos he's a gorilla is it? Thats a bit speciest. It was a great talk tbh. He pulled no punches. You should've been there.

    2knl35.jpg


  • Options
    #47
    animaal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 815 ✭✭✭animaal


    She has a bit of a point, but only partly. She's purposely ignoring the real cause of the problem - and she's not alone in that.

    The problem isn't meat-eating. Lions do it all the time, and they cause no problem. So why are humans different? Scale. There are far more humans than lions. If the human population was one tenth of its current size, there would be no problem.

    The current rate of population growth cannot be sustained forever. The earth has a fixed size and "forever" is a long time. The idea of people going vegan to save the world is only going to slow things down by a few years at best. Of course, the better the standard of living, the more resources consumed. But this does not change the fact that a fixed world can not support an infinite number of people. Surely the aim is for all humans to have a good standard of living.

    There are two ways to solve this. Either find new places for us to inhabit, or control the population by stopping/reversing the growth over time. The former requires space travel, and isn't going to be realistic in our time - if ever. The latter places more responsibility on the populations where growth is fastest: people other than "the West". This seems to be a non-runner.

    Why do intelligent people ignore this? Is it because the real problem isn't John and Norah living in the suburbs with two children and a dog, but rather the parts of the world where population is growing at far higher rates?


  • Options
    #48
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    We need to get more food globally? Surely that’s a carbon producer. Did you mean locally?
    Ireland is different from other countries that may have to import lots of food, in theory we don’t except what is not grown here.

    Funny thing is - there is no food shortage globally. That's bit of propaganda is often pushed by various veganistas who insist that cattlefood should not be fed to cattle but be fed to people in the third world! How nice of them!

    https://www.worldhunger.org/letter-food-shortage-world-questions/


  • Options
    #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    What she would probably do well with is focusing on the laws behind food labelling so that people who do want to source their food environmentally are not conned and tricked. The Marys of this world can preach at us all they like to try to consider the environment - but if in doing so we are being conned and might even be doing _worse_ for the environment then why the hell should we bother?

    One story that stands out was told by a boardsie in Germany who was buying "North Sea Prawns" because they were caught in the German sea and sold locally. All very environmental you would think. Reduced mileage and carbon foot print right?

    Wrong*. Turns out however that while the prawns are indeed caught locally - they are put into refrigeration vans and driven to Morocco where they are shelled and processed by the cheap labor there. They are then driven back to Germany to be packaged. Thus conforming with the laws that they have to follow to claim to be "local" produce.

    Upon discovering that said boardsie just lost faith in the whole concept of trying to buy locally to benefit the local environment and economy. He just buys whatever the hell he wants now - sure why bother when your lamb meat from New Zealand is half the price of the local stuff.

    I can understand how he feels and sometimes I feel like saying "Feck it" myself. But so far I still source my meat and other products as conscientiously as I can. Though I wonder how conned I am like he was half the time.

    * Though I read there is a new company who provide an alternative now to the drive to the Morocco version.


  • Options
    #50
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    kneemos wrote: »
    Would vegans eat bugs to save the planet?


    It'll depend on whether their social media influencers will.


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    We do need to cut back on how much meat we eat and stop exporting our Western diet to a few billion other people. Simplest way for that to happen is for subsidies to be cut massively on meat production. If we had to pay anything like the true price for meat I doubt many would even have it every day.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    animaal wrote: »

    There are two ways to solve this. Either find new places for us to inhabit, or control the population by stopping/reversing the growth over time. The former requires space travel, and isn't going to be realistic in our time - if ever. The latter places more responsibility on the populations where growth is fastest: people other than "the West". This seems to be a non-runner.

    Why do intelligent people ignore this? Is it because the real problem isn't John and Norah living in the suburbs with two children and a dog, but rather the parts of the world where population is growing at far higher rates?


    If intelligent people addressed that point they'd be excoriated just like Casey was last week.


    Discussing having too many mouths to feed is a non runner whether its local or globally, "where population growth is fastest".



    If it's our ethnic gang's right to have as many offspring as they like, and I've never heard anyone say it isn't, I can't see the usual pack of NGO activists advocating that their African counterparts give up that right in exchange for solar panels and batteries, but, you never know.


  • Options
    #53
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    We do need to cut back on how much meat we eat and stop exporting our Western diet to a few billion other people. Simplest way for that to happen is for subsidies to be cut massively on meat production. If we had to pay anything like the true price for meat I doubt many would even have it every day.

    A lot of this kind of rhetoric sounds American based. Unless you mean the CAP.

    Also just googled methane and while potent as a greenhouse gas it is lasts a mere 12 years in the atmosphere.


  • Options
    #54
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What she would probably do well with is focusing on the laws behind food labelling so that people who do want to source their food environmentally are not conned and tricked. The Marys of this world can preach at us all they like to try to consider the environment - but if in doing so we are being conned and might even be doing _worse_ for the environment then why the hell should we bother? .

    There's an awful lot of room for improvement and clarity there indeed.

    Nonsense like the difference between 'smoked Irish salmon' and 'Irish smoked salmon' should really be addressed. Problem is that however they change the legislation there are people who's job it is to try to get around them in order to mislead the consumer.

    There are some initiatives to label these things a bit better but from what I understand they are all voluntary and imho they should really be mandatory.

    It's too bad they can't just have the legislation say 'don't be a dick and don't take the piss'.


  • Options
    #55
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    A lot of this kind of rhetoric sounds American based. Unless you mean the CAP.

    Also just googled methane and while potent as a greenhouse gas it is lasts a mere 12 years in the atmosphere.

    And whilst all the some keep going on about 'beef' they manage to ignore or hide some very large and smelly elephants hanging around ...

    Rice production is known has been found to be a major producer of methane and it looks like its worse than previously estimated

    http://zeenews.india.com/science/rice-farming-twice-as-bad-for-climate-as-thought-study-2140198.html

    As for subsidies the facts are that funnily enough transport and many other sectors are also heavily subsidised. Doubt if many would be driving on nice roads either without them. But hey let's ignore that ...


  • Options
    #56
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    animaal wrote: »
    The latter places more responsibility on the populations where growth is fastest: people other than "the West". This seems to be a non-runner.

    Why do intelligent people ignore this? Is it because the real problem isn't John and Norah living in the suburbs with two children and a dog, but rather the parts of the world where population is growing at far higher rates?

    While you're not entirely wrong it's a little more complicated like that.

    A family of 8 living a very simple subsistence life somewhere in Africa/Asia still consume and pollute and awful lot less than a family of 4 anywhere in the west, regardless of how hard said family of 4 is trying to reduce, reuse and recycle.

    So yes, population growth is an issue, but it's by no means the only issue and addressing population growth in isolation isn't going to do much good in the long term. Unless you want to go really rather extreme with it.


  • Options
    #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wexie wrote: »
    There are some initiatives to label these things a bit better but from what I understand they are all voluntary and imho they should really be mandatory.

    I am quite ignorant I admit as to the role of a third party private enterprise in that regard.

    For example the "Energy Star Logo" sticker in the US does appear to have had quite an impact on energy efficient appliances from what little I know. Is there similar in the food industry? And if not is there a potential for one? All stuff I am blissfully ignorant about but I am sure wiser minds on the subject than I might know more.
    wexie wrote: »
    addressing population growth in isolation isn't going to do much good in the long term. Unless you want to go really rather extreme with it.

    All hail Thanos!


  • Options
    #58
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I am quite ignorant I admit as to the role of a third party private enterprise in that regard.

    For example the "Energy Star Logo" sticker in the US does appear to have had quite an impact on energy efficient appliances from what little I know. Is there similar in the food industry? And if not is there a potential for one? All stuff I am blissfully ignorant about but I am sure wiser minds on the subject than I might know more.

    I was just thinking of the likes of Bord Bia and whatever it was I half heard an add for on the radio this morning (something about local foods).

    And when it comes to labeling I think there is a lot of room for improvement. It shouldn't be allowed to show ingredients listed in grams and then have the actual amount of content of the same product listed in ml.... Or the nutritional information on a chocolate bar in % per 20 grams when the chocolate bar weighs 78 grams, yes it's a good indicator but it's not clear or helpful and, while I'll happily admit being a cynic, I think it's deliberately misleading.


  • Options
    #59
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Eathrin wrote: »
    If you're claiming vegans to be preachy, you probably don't have a good enough argument to back yourself with, but good try.What nasty food are you talking about? I buy the exact same stuff as everyone else at the supermarket minus the animal products and with more beans, lentils, nuts etc than before. Again, you're trying to discredit veganism by attaching negative words to things that are quite ordinary.I wasn't a vegan last time around, glad you noticed. That's exactly the point. People change and you should too. Social progress was never made without it.

    Hey eathrin - no not only myself others got there before me about your preachyness ... ;)
    whisky_galore wrote: »
    I can eat whatever the fcuk I want.Enough with the insufferable preachyness, no wonder ye are so hated.

    And yet you still preach! Hmmmm those great vegan staples such as almonds soya avocado quinoa lentils etc etc being mass produced with huge environmental impacts increasingly imported to cater for trendy vegan lifestyles :rolleyes: How much of that food is produced locally or ethically or with proper environmental standards? And you want more people to adopt this type of diet - really?

    Thankfully most people get that veganism is nothing but a con, which assumes economic security, ready access to cheap imported  foodstuffs and the leisure to construct an 'identity'. At the end of the day it's more about how vegans see themselves as better than everyone else and and  nothing about animals or even  other humans. As for jumping on the fad bandwagon. No thanks.


  • Options
    #60
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    gozunda wrote: »
    Thankfully most people get that veganism is nothing but a con, which assumes economic security, ready access to cheap imported  foodstuffs and the leisure to construct an 'identity'. At the end of the day it's more about how vegans see themselves as better than everyone else and and  nothing about animals or even  other humans. As for jumping on the fad bandwagon. No thanks.
    They do make some very tasty meals, in fairness to them. Nothing wrong with having a few plant-based dinners every now and again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    They do make some very tasty meals, in fairness to them. Nothing wrong with having a few plant-based dinners every now and again.

    The hare knishnas stuff is quite tasty to be fair ...


Advertisement