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

[midnight_rendezvous]

If, on top of greenhouse gas emissions, you take into account water consumption, occupied land mass, water pollution, waste, deforestation and dead zones, then why isn’t rice production getting a similar bad press?

It does get a bad press. https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...ing-india-nitrous-oxide-methane-a8531401.html http://www.fao.org/3/y3557e/y3557e11.htm

It is however, not perceived to be as bad for the environment as rice farming can be more sustainable ( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5/pdf ) and takes up less land mass, where as animal agriculture takes up around 70% of all agricultural land.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Really? That old meme again? I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it recently yet it doesn't answer the point at all. What if there are meat eaters out there who also take public transport or cycle, have solar panels and don't renew their tech every five minutes? It's pretty clear you've got an agenda but turning the whole world vegan is neither possible nor a panacea.

So your point is that if you are going to protest about climate change, you shouldn't have a phone?

I don't quite see it like that, or that you have to go vegan.

What we all have to do is learn how to moderate. You can have a mobile smart phone, but do you need to upgrade every year, 2 years, or even longer? I bought my 6S refurbished, it's still going, 4 years old. Apple, Samsung etc. create the demand for you to feel you need the latest model. So it's not necessarily a question of denying yourself the technology, it is whether you need to keep repeating the purchase?

Same with meat. It isn't that long ago that the 'Sunday Roast' was a get dressed up affair in families because that was the 1 time a week you could afford a nice joint of meet. Now we are consuming meat at an alarming rate with cheaper mass production. It's therefore not a question of going completely vegan, but perhaps a question of going back to what my grandparents would have had when they were kids.

So a single person could make their technology last longer, eat less meat in their diet, take their bike whenever they can, avoid flying if they can. They don't need to eliminate everything to be having a positive impact and still be legitimately protesting at the lack of action on climate.

 

[Mr Putdown]

It does get a bad press. https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...ing-india-nitrous-oxide-methane-a8531401.html http://www.fao.org/3/y3557e/y3557e11.htm

I was referring to the plethora of links you provided earlier, none of which appeared to refer to the impact of rice production.

It is however, not perceived to be as bad for the environment as rice farming can be more sustainable https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5/pdf

I’m not sure why you quoted this article, specifically did you read in the methodology where it states “We limited analyses to non-rice cereal crops”?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I was referring to the plethora of links you provided earlier, none of which appeared to refer to the impact of rice production.



I’m not sure why you quoted this article, specifically did you read in the methodology where it states “We limited analyses to non-rice cereal crops”?

Because I was talking about the impact of animal agriculture...

It doesn't change the fact that, whilst figures vary, studies suggest that rice farming contributes about 10% of emissions from the agriculture sector globally whereas livestock accounts for up to half of emissions in agriculture.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

re Extinction Rebellion .... Any sane person would agree with their cause but I cannot see that inconveniencing ordinary people who basically agree with them is the right way to achieve it.

Change in UK law will only come through Parliament, so that and their MPs is the object of a protest. Certainly lobby Parliament, get the MP on board by reasoned argument, protest to European Parliament .

Perhaps it's more fun to demonstrate and block streets ?

 

[Frankie]

Fair play to the bloke , his protest has no doubt already been seen by millions and he didn't even have to lob a brick at anything .

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

Change in UK law will only come through Parliament, so that and their MPs is the object of a protest. Certainly lobby Parliament, get the MP on board by reasoned argument, protest to European Parliament .

Perhaps it's more fun to demonstrate and block streets ?

There are plenty of examples of mass-protest movements leading to laws being changed.

Green organisations also do have lobbying arms, but they are always going to struggle against the lobbyists for the polluters as the polluters have more money.

 

[Bold Seagull]

re Extinction Rebellion .... Any sane person would agree with their cause but I cannot see that inconveniencing ordinary people who basically agree with them is the right way to achieve it.

Change in UK law will only come through Parliament, so that and their MPs is the object of a protest. Certainly lobby Parliament, get the MP on board by reasoned argument, protest to European Parliament .

Perhaps it's more fun to demonstrate and block streets ?

It's a bit naive to think that change will come about that way really when climate change has been a significant cause for concern for decades and action has been slow in coming. The money the huge coal, petrol, oil and farming conglomerates put into lobbying makes going into your local MP with a reasoned argument is a bit like tackling a forest fire with a garden sprinkler.

I was at university from 1992 and the issues were huge and immediate then, fast forward 27 years and we've got a few wind and solar farms popping up, and the odd electric car and a bit more insulation in buildings - its woefully slow and inadequate. That is 27+ years of reasoned campaigning, lobbying, scientific evidence and research that hasn't delivered the real changes needed globally. No wonder people feel it is now desperate and resorting to disruptive action.

 

[BadFish]

Friends of the Earth estimate Samsung's water footprint for smart phone production at 1,200 billion litres with Apple not far behind.

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/mind-your-step-report-76803.pdf

And yet how do you think Extinction Rebellion are organised?

I wonder if somesort of sustainable smart phone is viable. I would certainly buy one if they were available.

I looked at these last time I was in the market but i am not sure they work downunder

https://shop.fairphone.com/en/

 

[tricky]

I've got to disagree with that. I studied biology in 1994 and don't remember climate change being seen as immediate then. I would also suggest that the amount of change over 27 years has been big but it just hasn't been enough and other areas have also changed for the worse. There's two issues here really - 1) technology - which has come along leaps and bounds (electric cars etc) 2) societal change - which is slowly changing - but everyone knows that this is the hardest to change, and almost impossible over short time periods.

 

[beorhthelm]

I wonder if somesort of sustainable smart phone is viable. I would certainly buy one if they were available.

not really, the sub-components are all pretty much the same, require a long supply chain of materials and manufacturing processes. best bet is to simply not replace every couple of years.

 

[Goliath]

In the grand scheme of things,assuming these clowns got all they wanted,what difference in reality would it make?Exactly.Find new ways of getting the government to give you what you want without acting like terrorists and also pay some attention to the countries in the world causing the most damage.

 

[dingodan]

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.

 

[yxee]

Good point, although I'd be grateful if you could add what you propose should be done.

I mean we don't need a direct replacement for personal insults. Stopping that would itself improve the cause.

 

[BadFish]

not really, the sub-components are all pretty much the same, require a long supply chain of materials and manufacturing processes. best bet is to simply not replace every couple of years.

I Remember seeing one a few years ago with renewable/replaceable components. So when it was time to upgrade you didn't have to throw the whole things away.

I am sure that if there is a market for something more sustainable then eventually it will be filled.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Hastings gull]

It's a bit naive to think that change will come about that way really when climate change has been a significant cause for concern for decades and action has been slow in coming. The money the huge coal, petrol, oil and farming conglomerates put into lobbying makes going into your local MP with a reasoned argument is a bit like tackling a forest fire with a garden sprinkler.

I was at university from 1992 and the issues were huge and immediate then, fast forward 27 years and we've got a few wind and solar farms popping up, and the odd electric car and a bit more insulation in buildings - its woefully slow and inadequate. That is 27+ years of reasoned campaigning, lobbying, scientific evidence and research that hasn't delivered the real changes needed globally. No wonder people feel it is now desperate and resorting to disruptive action.[/QUOTE]

I see what you are saying totally and you are right. But standing the issue on its head, if reasoned argument has not produced the result you ( and I ) have hoped for all these years, then messing people about is never going to achieve the aims of the climate protestors.

 

[Mr Putdown]

Where have you got that data from?

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.

 

[beorhthelm]

I Remember seeing one a few years ago with renewable/replaceable components. So when it was time to upgrade you didn't have to throw the whole things away.

I am sure that if there is a market for something more sustainable then eventually it will be filled.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

thing you need to question is why there is "time to upgrade". electronics dont deteriorate, apart from batteries.

 

[Easy 10]

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 ?

 

[Bakero]

question, if global transport emissions are less than all agriculture, does that mean i dont have to worry about fuel economy or electric vehicles, if i just stop eating poultry amount of meat?

It's the red meat you've got to worry about.