[Politics] Extinction Rebellion protester grounds plane at London City...

[beorhthelm]

I'm still scratching my head over how a pillock sitting on top of a plane can delay its departure for over an hour. What exactly were the police/security staff doing, just standing there looking at him ?

carrying out risk assessment and maybe some awareness training too.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I’m pretty sure you got your data from the vegan campaign website www.cowspiracy.com.

No wonder it didn’t mention the methane emissions from rice growing in any of the articles you listed.

Some of the information was there from, yes. The information is still sourced from reputable scientific journals and studies though

I don't quite understand why you're obsessed with the fact that I didn't include information about rice when discussing ANIMAL agriculture. Even if I did, all scientific evidence still suggests that animal agriculture is still more harmful to the environment than rice farming. That isn't to say that rice farming isn't bad for the environment (I have already posted link to articles suggesting as much) but it isn't as bad for the environment as animal agriculture.

A quick go on BBC's climate change food calculator shows that, if you ate rice, once a day, every day for a year, your consumption of rice would contribute 121kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions. That's the equivalent of driving a regular petrol car 310 miles (499km).

If you ate beef, once a day, every day for a year, your consumption of beef would contribute 2,820kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions. That's the equivalent of driving a regular petrol car 7,196 miles (11,581km). And that's just beef. If we added chicken and pork to that it'd be even higher.

 

[Mr Putdown]

Some of the information was there from, yes. The information still comes from reputable scientific journals and studies though

I don't quite understand why you're obsessed with the fact that I didn't include information about rice when discussing ANIMAL agriculture. Even if I did, all scientific evidence suggests that animal agriculture is still more harmful to the environment than rice farming. That isn't to say that rice farming isn't bad (I have already posted link to articles suggesting as much) but it isn't as bad as animal agriculture.

A quick go on BBC's climate change food calculator shows that, if you ate rice, once a day, every day for a year, your consumption of rice would contribute 121kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions. That's the equivalent of driving a regular petrol car 310 miles (499km).

If you ate beef, once a day, every day for a year, your consumption of beef would contribute 2,820kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions. That's the equivalent of driving a regular petrol car 7,196 miles (11,581km).

Firstly I actually found some of those papers you kindly provided links to actually informative and interesting and have been working my way through them. I’m not obsessed regarding rice production, whereas you do seem obsessed with animal agriculture. Personally I’d be happier if people took a holistic approach to sorting out agricultural issues rather than approaching it from a vegan or meat eating perspective.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Firstly I actually found some of those papers you kindly provided links to actually informative and interesting and have been working my way through them. I’m not obsessed regarding rice production, whereas you do seem obsessed with animal agriculture. Personally I’d be happier if people took a holistic approach to sorting out agricultural issues rather than approaching it from a vegan or meat eating perspective.

Then why do you keep raising the issue and you seem upset that I didn’t speak about the relationship between rice farming and methane when explicitly discussing animal agriculture? Animal agriculture is a massive contributor to the environmental breakdown (as I have previously cited) with issues ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to deforestation. The science shows that reducing your meat intake is a far more effective way of reducing your overall impact on the environment, more so than reducing the amount of rice you eat and pretty much everything else. I’m not suggesting people go vegan and it’ll suddenly offsets a round the world trip via airplane. I am merely putting forward the scientifically validated suggestion that reducing meat is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, thing an individual can do to reduce their impact on the environment.

 

[beorhthelm]

A quick go on BBC's climate change food calculator shows that, if you ate rice, once a day, every day for a year, your consumption of rice would contribute 121kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions. That's the equivalent of driving a regular petrol car 310 miles (499km).

If you ate beef, once a day, every day for a year, your consumption of beef would contribute 2,820kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions. That's the equivalent of driving a regular petrol car 7,196 miles (11,581km). And that's just beef. If we added chicken and pork to that it'd be even higher.

firstly, you dont add chicken and pork, its either or, not have beef and chicken and pork. secondly, interesting digging in to how these comparisons are made, the rice is for 3tbsp which sounds rather small. because it is small, about 1/3 of a portion when you look that. still far less than beef of course, shame there is so much manipulation and deception in the numbers.

 

[Easy 10]

carrying out risk assessment and maybe some awareness training too.

Probably depressingly close to the truth. Falling over themselves not to abuse his "human rights".

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

firstly, you dont add chicken and pork, its either or, not have beef and chicken and pork. secondly, interesting digging in to how these comparisons are made, the rice is for 3tbsp which sounds rather small. because it is small, about 1/3 of a portion when you look that. still far less than beef of course, shame there is so much manipulation and deception in the numbers.

I meant that it was just the consumption of beef and it didn’t take into account pork and chicken. You are right, the serving of rice is particularly small. But I’m sure some would say the beef portion is small too as it is equitable to one fast food hamburger patty.

 

[Diablo]

I meant that it was just the consumption of beef and it didn’t take into account pork and chicken. You are right, the serving of rice is particularly small. But I’m sure some would say the beef portion is small too as it is equitable to one fast food hamburger patty.

Each to his own I say. You presumably don`t like beef. I find a rare succulent steak very much to my liking . I`m partial to vegetables too but only as part of a meal.

I`m more concerned about the wars/famine/disease etc around the world than my carbon footprint.

 

[Mr Putdown]

Then why do you keep raising the issue and you seem upset that I didn’t speak about the relationship between rice farming and methane when explicitly discussing animal agriculture? Animal agriculture is a massive contributor to the environmental breakdown (as I have previously cited) with issues ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to deforestation. The science shows that reducing your meat intake is a far more effective way of reducing your overall impact on the environment, more so than reducing the amount of rice you eat and pretty much everything else. I’m not suggesting people go vegan and it’ll suddenly offsets a round the world trip via airplane. I am merely putting forward the scientifically validated suggestion that reducing meat is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, thing an individual can do to reduce their impact on the environment.

We should obviously eat less meat, that’s a given. It does piss me off when people use this fact to drive a different agenda. People like you, I guess.

 

[Lower West Stander]

I meant that it was just the consumption of beef and it didn’t take into account pork and chicken. You are right, the serving of rice is particularly small. But I’m sure some would say the beef portion is small too as it is equitable to one fast food hamburger patty.

There's a McDonalds, Five Guys and Shake Shack within 5 minutes walk of my office.

Sounds like the modern day equivalent of a smog ridden Victorian London......

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

We should obviously eat less meat, that’s a given. It does piss me off when people use this fact to drive a different agenda. People like you, I guess.

And what agenda do you think I’m driving exactly?

 

[Bakero]

firstly, you dont add chicken and pork, its either or, not have beef and chicken and pork. secondly, interesting digging in to how these comparisons are made, the rice is for 3tbsp which sounds rather small. because it is small, about 1/3 of a portion when you look that. still far less than beef of course, shame there is so much manipulation and deception in the numbers.

3 tablespoons of uncooked rice is a small? If you're eating 9 tbsps you should probably cut down. Or am I overestimating the size of a tablespoon of rice

 

[highflyer]

The point I am making the ones who shout loudest on things like this are the worst.
They fly on a regular basis.

Flying is the one thing you should be knocking on the head if you are to be taken seriously.

The original poster is a classic example of this.

Can't speak for the OP, but I have definitely cut down my flying a lot in the last 10 years. I still do fly occasionally. I love it. And wish it was something we more easily 'decarbonize' but (depite vague talk of algae biofuels and such like from the industry) it isn't going to happen any time soon. A 17% improvement in efficiency I am afraid isn't enough, when all the projections (and business plans from airines) are for 20% + increase in flights (haven't checked that recently...maybe I am wrong and they are planning to contract, but I doubt it)

It's no use just expecting individuals to stop voluntarily though. It won't happen, beyond a few hard core types. Not least because of the whole free rider problem - why should I miss out when others are not? But also because ALL the evidence is that 'nudging' won't get us anywhere near what is needed. And any calls to cut back are weighed against a very lucrative aviation industry marketing flying like crazy - and they wouldn't be spending that money if it didn't work.

So we need some form of intervention in the market. But that's hard because you really don't want to just make flying into a luxury for rich people.

So far my personal policy front runner is this, from the (excellent) MP Alex Sobel: https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...issions-carbon-tax-labour-party-a9092731.html

Once you take into account that 70% of fights are taken by 15% of (the richest) people then it is easier to contemplate change (unless you are one of the 15% I guess).

 

[The Clamp]

I'm still scratching my head over how a pillock sitting on top of a plane can delay its departure for over an hour. What exactly were the police/security staff doing, just standing there looking at him ?

Baggage handlers were probably taking bets on who could knock him off by throwing luggage at him.
If you’re interested, Bob knocked him off balance with a big Sports Direct hold-all and Dave finished him off with a cracking body blow from a Samsonite hard-shell.

 

[Two Professors]

Don't suppose the protesters are about today?Flying home for the weekend,I expect.

 

[abc]

As someone who knows an awful lot of pilots, I can tell you with great confidence, they all drive electric cars.

Your source is from 2010. Update your sources, please. You're also, continuously and quite clearly avoiding all the other points.

And as someone who knows an awful lot of farmers, I can tell you with a great deal of confidence, they are doing far more to try and contribute to addressing climate change than most vegans

 

[abc]

The climate is changing. But should it be static? Are we sure?

There were ice ages and warm periods on this planet long before humans, why?

What temperature should the planet be? Would that be for the planet? or for us?

We have to do what we can, within reason (i.e. without killing millions through starvation or decimated living standards), to reduce the harm we may be causing to ecosystems. Correct.

We must stop changes in the planets climate, we are certain to be causing them, and if we don't do it we are all going to die. False.

The truth is inconvenient, complicated, and confusing. But it's better to work with the truth than to work with a convenient, simple, and easy to package and understand political and ideological message based on a lie.

Don't try and be reasonable, this is a polarised debate remember.

Truth is that the best thing for the planet is the extinction of mankind. Anything else is a compromise. So EVERYONE, whatever their stance or political viewpoint, is prepared to compromise the planet for their own benefit

 

[highflyer]

Don't suppose the protesters are about today?Flying home for the weekend,I expect.

Nope they are still there.

FFS DON'T THEY HAVE JOBS TO GO TO

 

[Easy 10]

With the massive drain on police resources this whole malarky is causing, it would be a terrible shame if some of these activists arrived home to discover they'd been burgled.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Nope they are still there.

FFS DON'T THEY HAVE JOBS TO GO TO

View attachment 116073

Obviously not. Middle class suburbia out in force. Costas empty everywhere.