SNP on Climate Change

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 

Is there? They must get good holidays then/make enough money for multiple trips.

 

The meat argument is different because it is much more realistic to ask people to cut down on their meat consumption rather than reduce the amount of times they fly.

The problem of the focus on meat is that it deflects from the real cause of climate change - the burning of fossil fuels for energy and transportation.

 

 

Only about 15 to 18 percent of carbon emissions come from livestock. And that number includes all livestock on the planet as well as the entire process of raising, slaughtering, transporting and eating meat — including the carbon you yourself make while eating and digesting it. From the farm to your toilet, essentially. Notably, only a portion of that process involves actual animals. The rest of it is transportation and processes that also produce carbon when growing and consuming vegetables, wheat and practically everything else we eat.

 

A leading climate change scientist, Michael E Mann, has said: “The overwhelming source of fossil fuels, 65 to 70 percent, is the burning of fossil fuels for energy and transport. To the extent that we can influence the main slice of the pie, to me that’s much more important,”

 

“In fact, the buying of the hybrid car is about recognizing that [climate change is] about transportation."

 

 

UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization says that livestock emissions could be cut by 30 percent simply by implementing new sustainable efforts. The fault for emissions from meat does not lie in the laps of people who consume it. The blame lies with the industry that refuses to change and the governments that refuse to force them to change.

 

[cyderspaceman]

Quote

India  braces for Tropical Cyclone Fani

[philyerboots]

[GordonS]

On 29/04/2019 at 07:28, MixuFixit said:

SNP talk the talk but they don't put money into it, in fact they've pretty drastically cut the budgets of every involved agency. Remember when they did that 'what's important to you?' postcard to every house and there was a hoohah that the environment wasn't a tickable option compared to health/education/jobs etc.

I know that is because they are diverting money from devolved areas to mitigate the impacts of reserved area policy, I just wish they'd actually say that.

In 2009 the SNP introduced the Climate Change Act (passed unanimously), which set a target to reduce GHG emissions by 42% by 2020 compared with the 1990 baseline. It was the toughest target in the world at the time, and uniquely, even today, it included international aviation and shipping. It set annual targets and required regular reporting by Ministers.

In a period of austerity, the target was met with 6 years to spare.

People are welcome to say that they should do more, that they need to be more ambitious about the future. That's fine, I'd agree. But to suggest they're not sincere is obviously wrong.

On 30/04/2019 at 19:24, ForzaDundee said:

Economics is the only thing to worry about in this debate. I think you maybe don't know what economics is if you can't see this. The only reason to worry about climate change is from an economic point-of-view, specifically if changing climate lowers the resource carrying capacity of the earth.

Overall we need to realise that our life and way of life on earth is the product of fossil fuel. The use of fossil fuels has drastically changed human experience for the better, we live in the best time ever to be a human because of the advancements that fossil fuels have afforded us. There is a very strong moral case for not impeding this progress as things are improving. There is a great book called "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" which explains this in pretty layman terms. 

The problem isn't economic. It's the morality of us enjoying a luxurious lifestyle that's going to be paid for by the world's poorest, and possibly for centuries. It's that we're destroying the systems on which complex human life depends. At RCP4.5 (a fairly moderate scenario) and above, species cannot move fast enough to escape the rate of change in climate. We're looking at the widespread extinction of hundreds of thousands of species of plants and animals in the lifetimes of people around today. Unless pretty drastic action is taken, and very soon, the land currently home to over 2 billion people will probably become effectively uninhabitable due to crop failures, marine life collapse, water shortages and more extreme and frequent heatwaves.

There's a strong moral case for not impeding the economic growth and human development of poorer countries, to allow them to catch up with our lifestyles; to do that, us rich countries need to cut our emissions even more.

[SandyCromarty]

On 4/30/2019 at 23:13, jamamafegan said:

 

Is there? They must get good holidays then/make enough money for multiple trips.

The meat argument is different because it is much more realistic to ask people to cut down on their meat consumption rather than reduce the amount of times they fly.

 

Two to three overseas holidays a year on budget flights are the norm among the young these days and they are the most vocal re climate change.

From the meat point of view there is large emissions from cows through belching and farting, the alternative being that we as humans revert to vegetarianism which is a fair argument given that there are some tasty plant meals around.

However there is always a downside isn't there.

We humans pass gas 14 - 15 times a day on average, 7% of this is methane, if we do revert to total veggies, which will happen, then the high fibre diets will obviously mean a massive increase in methane and carbon emissions by us to our atmosphere.

What then?

Arse corks?