Attenborough scaremongering?

Slattsy wrote: »

Regardless, he was great in Jurassic Park.

Ah here, I know he's old but referring to him as being a dinosaur is a bit excessive!

Slattsy wrote: »

Regardless, he was great in Jurassic Park.

One of the best documentries I’ve seen. Much better than the blue planet one.

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Your dog has a bigger carbon footprint than your car.

Actually AFAIK a big dog is equivalent to a SUV or some such.

I keep seeing the almost hypocritical attitude of a lot of environmentalists.

Thinking of one in particular I know.

They have couple of big dogs, want to replace their old car with modern electric one that will take a lot of resources to manufacture, want to cut back livestock farming in Ireland since they contribute to carbon footprint, but quite happily eats quinoa grown in South America and soya grown God knows where, usually with much less environmental controls than used in Irish agriculture.

BTW we are one of the best environmentally friendly producers of livestock for meat and dairy because we use a large amount of grass rather than feedlots and maize used in other countries.

kneemos wrote: »

Sea level is down to a number of factors.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html


It has rise by five to eight inches since 1900. Must be small islands if five inches can overcome them.

That can happen. It increases storm surges by quite a lot. Also the increase in powerful storms means that there's islands which have just been washed away. So yes, islands are disappearing.

Remember there's a lot of places which are only barely above sea level. The only reason the coastline of florida exists in its current form is because they keep replacing beaches that have been washed away.

jmayo wrote: »

Actually AFAIK a big dog is equivalent to a SUV or some such.

I keep seeing the almost hypocritical attitude of a lot of environmentalists.

Thinking of one in particular I know.

They have couple of big dogs, want to replace their old car with modern electric one that will take a lot of resources to manufacture, want to cut back livestock farming in Ireland since they contribute to carbon footprint, but quite happily eats quinoa grown in South America and soya grown God knows where, usually with much less environmental controls than used in Irish agriculture.

BTW we are one of the best environmentally friendly producers of livestock for meat and dairy because we use a large amount of grass rather than feedlots and maize used in other countries.

Your point is that because you know an environmentalist who owns a dog....what? They shouldn't bother trying to be environmentally friendly? they should shoot the dog?

BTW, you can actually lower the carbon footprint of the pet by giving it a vegan diet. there are vegan dog foods out there which are balanced, nutritious and dogs like them. (They exist for cats too but most cats won't eat them. Apparently cats are a lot fussier).

Also BTW, even with grass it's environmentally bad producing beef. They use a huge amount of land. Eventually we will transition to a diet with less meat. It may even be lab grown meat. Climate change will cause that. Just as other changes in our culture and world have changed diets in the past. However you suggest to someone that they should consider eating less meat and they go full blown red faced gammon.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The real problem isn’t using a lot of land. It’s the methane.

It's not just that. The fact is that rearing cattle is a very inefficient use of the land. If that land was used to grow veggies then it would be able to feed more people.

Edit to add: and I mean when the land can be used. take for example sheep farming. A lot of that occurs on land that's not able to be used for tillage or any type of cereal. Now it might be argued that we could lower carbon emissions by not rearing them at all, but I just mean that the land isn't good for any other type of food production.

Noa Mysterious Space-age wrote: »

Got a reply from David. He found it quite amusing and took most of the posts in good spirit. He says there is no scaremongering: even he was surprised at the rate of change in the earth's climate and the accelerated affects on the life of the planet. As long as his efforts spark some conversation on the matter, he's going to keep at it as long as his health allows.

What did he say about the fake Polar Bear footage?

Real Jazz Book wrote: »

It's kind of hard not to engage in the current society, that doesn't mean you don't want things to change. Fast fashion is pushed upon us for example. I would gladly show up in a potato sack to work every day if everyone else did. Same goes with everything, phones becoming obsolete etc. The Government encourages us to buy new cars instead of using old ones that are perfectly fine. Everything needs to change.

As for livestock and meat. Remember it was sunny for 3 days last summer and farmers were moaning all day long on the news not letting us enjoy the good weather because they didn't have enough grass to feed their 7 millions cows, and the tax payer had to pay for maize etc to be imported. I don't even eat beef or dairy. They get special treatment here because farmers seem to think it's their god given right to raise cows and are given grants and subsidies to do so.
Do you think we should keep expanding the herd of 7 million? It's totally unsustainable and it's not like we're using this beef and dairy to feed our population, most of it is exported.

Farmers were not complaining after three fooking sunny days you .......
The usual hyperbola from someone that probably wouldn't know a bull from a cow.

Why do I believe you work for a foreign multinational, one that probably sited here because they got grants and kickbacks of some sort.
Or else probably a publicly funded role.

Maybe if you were willing to pay top bucks for your food then farmers might not need subsidies to survive or perhaps you would like your food from industrial scale farming as in the US where the animals are reared on a diet of drugs to keep them from getting sick when in close proximity to each other.

Oh no you don't eat beef or dairy, shure that's ok you can eat soya and quinoa that is grown in an "environmentally friendly" fashion the other side of the world. :rolleyes:

And sunshine when all those foreign companies up sticks, when they either disappear as an entity like Gateway, Wang or up sticks to somewhere cheaper like Dell, Seagate, etc one of the few indigenous entities we have offering massive employment is our agri industry.
And we do it damn well.

I don't eat beef either, but I support one of our only indigenous industries that offers employment and a way of life to thousands.

Grayson wrote: »

Your point is that because you know an environmentalist who owns a dog....what? They shouldn't bother trying to be environmentally friendly? they should shoot the dog?

Nah the neighbouring farmer takes care of that.

Grayson wrote: »

BTW, you can actually lower the carbon footprint of the pet by giving it a vegan diet. there are vegan dog foods out there which are balanced, nutritious and dogs like them. (They exist for cats too but most cats won't eat them. Apparently cats are a lot fussier).

Those animals should not be on vegan diets.

Grayson wrote: »

Also BTW, even with grass it's environmentally bad producing beef. They use a huge amount of land. Eventually we will transition to a diet with less meat. It may even be lab grown meat. Climate change will cause that. Just as other changes in our culture and world have changed diets in the past. However you suggest to someone that they should consider eating less meat and they go full blown red faced gammon.

Granted we should be eating less meat, but grass fed beef/lamb and dairy is better than the alternatives.

Grayson wrote: »

It's not just that. The fact is that rearing cattle is a very inefficient use of the land. If that land was used to grow veggies then it would be able to feed more people.

Edit to add: and I mean when the land can be used. take for example sheep farming. A lot of that occurs on land that's not able to be used for tillage or any type of cereal. Now it might be argued that we could lower carbon emissions by not rearing them at all, but I just mean that the land isn't good for any other type of food production.

A lot of our land is not good enough for crops, pure and simple.
Also our weather can be decidedly uncooperative.

We are good at growing grass.
And what is grass good for?
The rearing of ruminants.