An Taisce Green Schools

markodaly · 06-04-2019 07:02AM

Panch18 wrote: »

To give you a sample of where the MISTAKE is made in climate change science here is a direct quote:

“We don’t actually need to give up eating meat to stabilise global temperatures,” says Professor Myles Allen who led the study (meat production is a major source of methane). “We just need to stop increasing our collective meat consumption. But we do need to give up dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Every tonne of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a permanent increase in the methane emission rate. Climate policies could be designed to reflect this.”

Er, that is not a mistake at all. He and you just admitted that we, humans need to stop increasing our meat consumption.

As beef is the most inefficient way to create calories and has the highest environmental impact, that should be first on the chopping block.

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 07:14AM

markodaly wrote: »

A lovely story, but that is what it is, a story to tell people down the pub.

Yea, because the evidence states that they (the Soy drinking person) are in fact correct in their beliefs.

So maybe the world has not gone mad, it's just realising that we way we eat is not sustainable.

https://theconversation.com/soy-versus-dairy-whats-the-footprint-of-milk-8498

As has already been discussed the conversion of methane to “carbon” in the scientific analysis has been fundamentally wrong since this climate change “debate” began.

The reason that is is wrong is that methane is a flow whilst carbon is a sink, and it is simply wrong to convert it like so

Therefore crap analysis like this has no weight because it is based on an incorrect formula that is both wrong and out dated

Also it would seem that you have little or no interest in where the soya comes from and the environmental damage that is already being done by its production. Imagine the damage done if it’s production increased

markodaly · 06-04-2019 07:18AM

Panch18 wrote: »

Can you tell me what food production methods are sustainable for a population of 7.5 billion?

Well, I do know western meat-heavy diets is not one of them. Replacing beef with chicken and farmed fish, for example, would greatly help, as would reducing overall meat consumption.

Taking into consideration the huge environmental damage that soya and almonds are already doing to the planet with only a tiny proportion of the population consuming them regularly

You mentioned this before, but can I get some peer-reviewed studies on this?
I posted a link earlier about the difference between soy and dairy. Soy was clearly more efficient from an energy point of view.

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 07:21AM

markodaly wrote: »

Well, I do know western meat-heavy diets is not one of them. Replacing beef with chicken and farmed fish, for example, would greatly help, as would reducing overall meat consumption.
.

So just to confirm you are advocating people to start consuming factory farmed chicken and fish on a mass scale??

Wow

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 07:21AM

markodaly wrote: »

You mentioned this before, but can I get some peer-reviewed studies on this?
I posted a link earlier about the difference between soy and dairy. Soy was clearly more efficient from an energy point of view.

Where do you think Soya comes from?

markodaly · 06-04-2019 07:34AM

Panch18 wrote: »

As has already been discussed the conversion of methane to “carbon” in the scientific analysis has been fundamentally wrong since this climate change “debate” began.

The reason that is is wrong is that methane is a flow whilst carbon is a sink, and it is simply wrong to convert it like so

You are looking at the problem through a telescope. Beef also includes mass clearing of land and uses a massive amount of other energy sources to create that pound of steak that gets put on your plate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714

For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land is responsible for 12 times more greenhouse gas emissions than cows reared on natural pastures.

Irish beef is different you say? Not as clean as some make it out. Worst in Europe apparently.

http://www.antaisce.org/articles/bombshell-for-irish-beef

New data published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reveal that Ireland is the most carbon-intensive beef producer in Europe, and ranks as Europe’s third highest on emissions from its dairy sector.

As I said, beef is arguably the most inefficient way to create calories for us to eat.

Therefore crap analysis like this has no weight because it is based on an incorrect formula that is both wrong and out dated

That is a great rebuttal. I wish we could all just say ' that peer reviewed journal article is crap'. I guess that is why we have people running about the place believing in a flat earth.

Also it would seem that you have little or no interest in where the soya comes from and the environmental damage that is already being done by its production. Imagine the damage done if it’s production increased

Do share with us the details.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 07:36AM

Panch18 wrote: »

Where do you think Soya comes from?

Can you post a peer-reviewed article that will back up your older claim that 'soy is doing huge damage to the environment'.

Thanks.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 07:37AM

Panch18 wrote: »

So just to confirm you are advocating people to start consuming factory farmed chicken and fish on a mass scale??

Wow

No, I am not advocating that. Perhaps read what I write, not what you think I write.

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 07:50AM

markodaly wrote: »

You are looking at the problem through a telescope. Beef also includes mass clearing of land and uses a massive amount of other energy sources to create that pound of steak that gets put on your plate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714

Irish beef is different you say? Not as clean as some make it out. Worst in Europe apparently.

http://www.antaisce.org/articles/bombshell-for-irish-beef

As I said, beef is arguably the most inefficient way to create calories for us to eat.

That is a great rebuttal. I wish we could all just say ' that peer reviewed journal article is crap'. I guess that is why we have people running about the place believing in a flat earth.

Do share with us the details.

Well of course it’s obvious that if you fell rainforest then the carbon footprint of what’s produced on that land will be many times higher. That applies to beef, but also such vegan stables as soya, bananas and palm oil or anything grown on there

Regarding Beef not being clean, you can link to all the studies you want, or in this case an taisce commentary, but until the method of calculation of methane is changed to a correct method, from its current incorrect method, then all of these studies are just a waste of time

So let’s bring it back to basics 101. Do you agree that the method of calculating methane in conversion to “carbon” and the approach currently taken is correct or incorrect?

yosemitesam1 · 06-04-2019 07:53AM

markodaly wrote: »

Can you post a peer-reviewed article that will back up your older claim that 'soy is doing huge damage to the environment'.

Thanks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE99M0G120131023

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 07:53AM

markodaly wrote: »

No, I am not advocating that. Perhaps read what I write, not what you think I write.

Clearly you are pushing for factory farming chicken and fish farms

yosemitesam1 · 06-04-2019 08:11AM

Cows/cattle really aren't a problem at all, its the system of management relying heavily on fertilizer and low diversity.
Those two issues have to be acknowledged and improved upon so that agriculture can't be the easy target it is at present.

Comparing the footprint of various foods is a very easy way to come to the wrong conclusion. Beef/dairy is much more digestible than nuts. But unless you allow for those differences the end result is going to be that less digestible foods (plant origin) are going to be favoured.

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 08:22AM

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Cows/cattle really aren't a problem at all, its the system of management relying heavily on fertilizer and low diversity.
Those two issues have to be acknowledged and improved upon so that agriculture can't be the easy target it is at present.

Comparing the footprint of various foods is a very easy way to come to the wrong conclusion. Beef/dairy is much more digestible than nuts. But unless you allow for those differences the end result is going to be that less digestible foods (plant origin) are going to be favoured.

No doubt about that Yosemitesam.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 08:25AM

Panch18 wrote: »

Clearly you are pushing for factory farming chicken and fish farms

I am pushing for sustainable and efficient meat production and sources of protein.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 08:27AM

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE99M0G120131023

That doesn't counter the claim made.

The claim is that Soy is MORE damaging to the environment than beef and dairy.

Where is the peer-reviewed scientific research that supports this claim.
I have asked 4 times now, and none forthcoming.

Me think, the claim is fake news.

dmakc · 06-04-2019 08:32AM

markodaly wrote: »

That doesn't counter the claim made.

The claim is that Soy is MORE damaging to the environment than beef and dairy.

Where is the peer-reviewed scientific research that supports this claim.
I have asked 4 times now, and none forthcoming.

Me think, the claim is fake news.

Just FYI "Peer-reviewed scientific research" without any investigations into said peer biases are what has us here in the first place. Merits are clearly absent in this game unfortunately and it's unlikely you've read meat bashing research lately which didn't stem from an agenda.

yosemitesam1 · 06-04-2019 08:39AM

markodaly wrote: »

That doesn't counter the claim made.

The claim is that Soy is MORE damaging to the environment than beef and dairy.

Where is the peer-reviewed scientific research that supports this claim.
I have asked 4 times now, and none forthcoming.

Me think, the claim is fake news.

The Argentinian pampas was a natural grassland with very deep black soils (very high in stored carbon).
Historically since it was settled, grass (for cattle) was a major part of the crop rotation, poor crop management through lack of rotation and less (but mainly no time now) time spent as grassland has meant that the continuous flow of carbon into the soil through roots hasn't happened. This leads to reductions in soil carbon and soil quality over time.
Soybeans don't produce as big a root system or leave as heavy a residue behind as other crops, continuous cotton is probably the only rotation worse for the soil.

Unlikely that there would be a peer review discussing the problems caused by the intensification of soybean production.

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 08:46AM

markodaly wrote: »

That doesn't counter the claim made.

The claim is that Soy is MORE damaging to the environment than beef and dairy.

Where is the peer-reviewed scientific research that supports this claim.
I have asked 4 times now, and none forthcoming.

Me think, the claim is fake news.

Who said soya was more damaging now??

Starchasers · 06-04-2019 08:46AM

A fight back has to happen from some in the meat producing sector whether that’s from farmers or factories in that people have to look at what is on your plate, press and fridge at home. People are no longer in large reheating dinners for the following day, the large joint of meat cooked on a Sunday if thrown away that evening, people in large end up throwing away 40 to 50% of food bought whether it on unfinished plates of food with big portions, too much cooked in the first place and then thrown away or stuff emptied from the fridge because it’s out of date etc. That would for me be the place to start at before people go advising to “eat less meat” to save the world.

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 08:48AM

markodaly wrote: »

I am pushing for sustainable and efficient meat production and sources of protein.

You are pushing for factory farming of chicken and fish, no too ways around it

You know that factory farmed chicken and factory farmed fish have negative environmental Impacts as well don’t you??

markodaly · 06-04-2019 08:48AM

Panch18 wrote: »

Well of course it’s obvious that if you fell rainforest then the carbon footprint of what’s produced on that land will be many times higher. That applies to beef, but also such vegan stables as soya, bananas and palm oil or anything grown on there

How about just using some of the land used for beef and dairy for other more sustainable and efficient means?

Regarding Beef not being clean, you can link to all the studies you want, or in this case an taisce commentary, but until the method of calculation of methane is changed to a correct method, from its current incorrect method, then all of these studies are just a waste of time

'I do not like the facts, so I will choose to ignore them'

Classic case of denialism on display here.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 08:51AM

Panch18 wrote: »

You are pushing for factory farming of chicken and fish, no too ways around it

Perhaps I should stop posting so you can debate with yourself. Its easy to win an argument that way I guess.

You know that factory farmed chicken and factory farmed fish have negative environmental Impacts as well don’t you??

Yes, but the question is the level of impact.
Electric cars have a negative environmental impact, does that mean we should still buy diesel cars?

That is your argument laid bare.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 08:56AM

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The Argentinian pampas was a natural grassland with very deep black soils (very high in stored carbon).
Historically since it was settled, grass (for cattle) was a major part of the crop rotation, poor crop management through lack of rotation and less (but mainly no time now) time spent as grassland has meant that the continuous flow of carbon into the soil through roots hasn't happened. This leads to reductions in soil carbon and soil quality over time.
Soybeans don't produce as big a root system or leave as heavy a residue behind as other crops, continuous cotton is probably the only rotation worse for the soil.

So its not Soybean production that is the issue, its poor management and inadequate crop rotation.

Yet, we blame Soy bean.

What was the land like before cattle farming there? Maybe it should have been left alone and not cleared.

emaherx · 06-04-2019 08:58AM

markodaly wrote: »

Perhaps I should stop posting so you can debate with yourself. Its easy to win an argument that way I guess.

Yes, but the question is the level of impact.
Electric cars have a negative environmental impact, does that mean we should still buy diesel cars?

That is your argument laid bare.

Possibly, less child/ slave labour used to mine minerals to produce Diesel cars

markodaly · 06-04-2019 09:04AM

emaherx wrote: »

Possibly, less child/ slave labour used to mine minerals to produce Diesel cars

Perhaps, so the solution to this is

a) keep buying ICE/Diesel cars
b) reduce the dependency of Cobalt in Lithium batteries
c) source cobalt ethically

Similar logic is displayed here.

Soy may have some problems, so we
a) stick our heads in the sand and continue on as before (clearly unsustainable)
b) fix the issues with Soy going forward

emaherx · 06-04-2019 09:08AM

markodaly wrote: »

Perhaps, so the solution to this is

a) keep buying ICE/Diesel cars
b) reduce the dependency of Cobalt in Lithium batteries
c) source cobalt ethically

Similar logic is displayed here.

Soy may have some problems, so we
a) stick our heads in the sand and continue on as before (clearly unsustainable)
b) fix the issues with Soy going forward

Same logic can and needs be applied to meat production too as well as every other industry.

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 09:16AM

markodaly wrote: »

That doesn't counter the claim made.

The claim is that Soy is MORE damaging to the environment than beef and dairy.

Where is the peer-reviewed scientific research that supports this claim.
I have asked 4 times now, and none forthcoming.

Me think, the claim is fake news.

Again I ask you, who made the claim soy is more damaging?

Buford T. Justice XIX · 06-04-2019 09:31AM

markodaly wrote: »

That doesn't counter the claim made.

The claim is that Soy is MORE damaging to the environment than beef and dairy.

Where is the peer-reviewed scientific research that supports this claim.
I have asked 4 times now, and none forthcoming.

Me think, the claim is fake news.

It's a very easy claim to prove, tbh. Every time soil is tilled, the resultant exposed soil and its carbon containing humus is exposed to oxygen which degrades to organic matter into its constituent parts.

This gives a production boost to the following crop but with a caveat, every time it's done, the resultant boost is lessened. Over time, as the soil organic matter (SOM) decreases, the yields from the crop will be reduced. More and more inorganic fertilisers will have to be added to try to maintain yields but it simply will not be possible.

It's old news at this stage but I'll fire up a link again. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-facing-agricultural-crisis-as-scientists-warn-there-are-only-100-harvests-left-in-our-farm-9806353.html

Conversely, grass is the only method available to return SOM back to normal levels. The grass roots and leaves dying and regrowing and the dung from grazing animals provide to food resources that allow soil microbiota to function, grow and proliferate.

The temperate zones of the world where the majority of surplus foods are grown are a mix of grasslands and forests that were converted to arable production with the invention of the plough so the inherent fertility being used for those crops grown on it are directly a result of previous managed grasslands and forests storing carbon in the soils.

You can ignore it for a long time if you wish but, since the buffering capacity of the worlds oceans is now at an end, the only remaining low tech and efficient way to reduce the record levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to store it in soils. Grasslands and forests are the only way it's going to happen unless the western world decides to massively reduce their hunger for cheap power from fossil fuels.

TL;DR? Tilling land releases stored carbon in large quantities to supply nutrients to crops grown there and continually releases carbon back into the atmosphere. Grasslands do the exact opposite.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 09:47AM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

TL;DR? Tilling land releases stored carbon in large quantities to supply nutrients to crops grown there and continually releases carbon back into the atmosphere. Grasslands do the exact opposite.

I can accept that, but that is down more so to managing crop rotation and managing land as a whole.
And in fairness, again, it is looking at the overall problem through a telescope, one misses the wider picture.

Again, I will repeat that beef and dairy farmer (but especially beef) is a wholly inefficient way to produce protein, not to mention calories. Just because it has a positive impact regarding the retention of carbon in the soil, does not gloss over this fact.

It's like saying, a glass of red is good for the heart, so one drinks a bottle of wine a day. The argument about beef vs soy (or other plant-based alternatives) is like that.

Just because there are some net positives about beef, does not gloss over the fact that too much production and consumption is bad.
Just because there are some net negatives about Soy (or plant-based alternatives) does not negative the positives about its use and consumption.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 09:52AM

emaherx wrote: »

Same logic can and needs be applied to meat production too as well as every other industry.

Yeap. I agree. Veganism or any other ism can suffer from that.

We should be looking at better ways to do things and that checkbox list was an attempt to do that. I think people are way overreacting about it and to be honest, says more about them, than anything else.

Remember the kurfule when the Taoiseach said, he was going to reduce his intake of meat? You would swear he passed a law against the eating of steak!

TLDR:
There is too much fundamentalism in these debates.

An Taisce Green Schools

Comments