Why are there so many vegans in car parks?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] World Vegan Day
- Thread starter 1066familyman
- Start date
Why are there so many vegans in car parks?
To avoid the parking meaters
How can you tell whether someone is vegan ?
Answer: Because they tell you... again, and again, and again
And again
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Answer: Because they tell you... again, and again, and again
And again
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
The irony of course being that, so far, the majority of people who have posted on this thread aren’t actually vegans. Funny old world innit
Cheeky Monkey
Well-known member
- Jul 17, 2003
- 23,868
How can you tell whether someone is anti-vegan?
Answer: Because they tell the same tired ancient joke again...and again..and again... and...
Even when it’s been told many times on the same thread
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,634
The flaw is that the carbon cycle was only balanced before we started manipulating it by increasing the output of CO2 and CH4, e.g. by increasing animal agriculture (and burning fossil fuels, etc). The cycle has become imbalanced as the rest of the cycle hasn't adjusted to take in the same amount of carbon - clearly, as the atmospheric carbon is increasing.
Why does animal agriculture lead to more atmospheric carbon?
- increased farm animal population, and simple chemistry tells you they release CO2 (and CH4 in the case of cows/sheep)
- more land needed to farm the animals. To make the space for the animals, the land is cleared down of trees etc, turning it from a carbon sink into a carbon source
- more land needed to grow food for the animals. This is usually forest cut down to grow crops (e.g. soya) that take in significantly less CO2
- all other processes in-between that release CO2 e.g. transport of animal food to farms
And I'm not sure where you got your information on CH4 vs CO2, but CO2 lasts much longer in the atmosphere than CH4. The problem with CH4 is that it's a much more potent greenhouse gas.
Overfishing is undoubtedly a problem but sensationalist docs like seaspiracy don't help. When there are serious issues to discuss, why would the makers choose to toss in a load of falsehoods?
Sorry, but why is it an 'irony'? No, I'm not a vegan, but I've listened to the arguments, and at home we've made a conscious decision to eat much, much more vegan (or at least veggie) food - and we were very much a 'roast beef on a Sunday' family. Like a lot of other posters I've seen a thread about vegans and given my views.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
the major imbalance in CO2 is from consumption of fossil fuels.
every Kg of CO2/CH4 emitted from livestock will have be consumed in the animals lifetime, ingested from foods that absorbed CO2.
more land use is a matter for overseas, we're not cutting down forests in Europe for rearing animals. same for land for feed, and we import very little soya prefering hay and locally grown low grade cereals.
post farm emissions, you got me there. food miles count for all food, not just meat.
CO2 lasts a very long time in the atmosphere, except that which is absorbed into plants. a bit of twisting, misspeaking there.
point is we accept, even promote carbon offsetting as a solution to carbon emissions, then when it comes to animal farming it doesnt count.
Last edited:
Glad you were careful, you could have become roadkill.
PS We had venison steaks on Saturday and pot roast pheasant on Sunday.
Lovely.
A touch of the ‘Desperate Dans, I reckon.
Correct, but agriculture still contributes to around 10% of greenhouse gas emissions - not insignificant https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters
But the problem is what happens to the CO2/CH4 after the animal consumes it. Some will go back into the cycle, but some will be emitted to the atmosphere. If there were fewer animals, the carbon would remain in the plants and would not be in the atmosphere, but the rate of consumption is higher than the rate of growth. Of course the overall carbon cycle is intact, but that includes carbon in the atmosphere - which is too high.
But this is a global problem and we import plenty of food (including meat) from outside of Europe. None of this is a "matter for overseas" - it needs co-ordinated action from all countries to tackle the global issues, not only looking at themselves. We could only take credit on this front if we stopped importing any food from countries that cut down forests to rear animals.
Yes, but the point is there are more emissions for meat. For plants: you grow the plants, harvest them, transport them to the wholesaler, then the shop, then the consumer. For meat: you have the same process already(and therefore emissions), but in addition the consumer (farmer) then grows the animals, they're transported to a butchers, then transported to a wholesaler or shop etc. Every step you add in to the process creates further inefficiencies and therefore increased emissions.
But again, the problem is that 100% of the CO2 emitted by agriculture is not absorbed into plants.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
agree that a strong climate based argument for reducing meat, rather than the blanket cut all meat.
Withdean11
Well-known member
They have a brain?
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
The joke is that vegans never shut up about being vegan yet, here we are, in the midst of a discussion about World Vegan Day where the majority of posts are from meat eaters making the same tired jokes, who can’t wait to tell you that they had a full English or a steak.
Anyway, more power to you for reducing your meat consumption
You can tell a vegan, but you can’t tell em anything…..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro