RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
(02-13-2019 11:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: But he's right.
I said a long time ago that nobody is serious about climate change until they start talking about this. Either lower population or eat less meat. The problem for dems is that the people who would do this make up a relatively small portion of the population... and of course the biggest 'growth' in the area doesn't come from the US.
Can't switch to fish because there are issues there already
I'm not saying this is the right direction, I'm merely saying that this is what has to happen to address the real issue of man's contribution to climate change
Got some links on this? You could probably feed everybody in the country meat if you had well managed culls of open season pest animals like wild bore and deer in the (increasingly large number of) areas they're well overpopulated. Anything currently managed as "no bag limit no off season" is low hanging fruit. It's the point where it's legal to hunt goats from a helicopter with no bag limit on some islands. And in Texas it's legal to hunt bore from a helicopter with no bag limit. Ted Nugent with a helicopter mounted minigun has yet to put a dent in the wild bore population in Texas. You can also feed a lot of people off the high daily bag limit on some things as well, but that would require a more ...... varied pallet than the standard American. I don't think you'd even have to get that far.
I couldn't find a minigun but I did find this, that looks fun
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
(02-13-2019 11:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: But he's right.
I said a long time ago that nobody is serious about climate change until they start talking about this. Either lower population or eat less meat. The problem for dems is that the people who would do this make up a relatively small portion of the population... and of course the biggest 'growth' in the area doesn't come from the US.
Can't switch to fish because there are issues there already
I'm not saying this is the right direction, I'm merely saying that this is what has to happen to address the real issue of man's contribution to climate change
Got some links on this? You could probably feed everybody in the country meat if you had well managed culls of open season pest animals like wild bore and deer in the (increasingly large number of) areas they're well overpopulated. Anything currently managed as "no bag limit no off season" is low hanging fruit. It's the point where it's legal to hunt goats from a helicopter with no bag limit on some islands. And in Texas it's legal to hunt bore from a helicopter with no bag limit. Ted Nugent with a helicopter mounted minigun has yet to put a dent in the wild bore population in Texas. You can also feed a lot of people off the high daily bag limit on some things as well, but that would require a more ...... varied pallet than the standard American. I don't think you'd even have to get that far.
A link for what? That I agree (to a small extent) with the OP?
Flatulence from animals, most of which are raised (or live naturally) for food is a major source of greenhouse gasses that lead to their claims of global warming, as is/are things like deforestation for housing, agriculture etc etc etc. IMO, they go after fossil fuels because 'big oil' is a deep pocket and it's hard to defend in many circles... Harder to attack farmers and those who have 5 kids and need more housing etc.
For my position, the point is that unless someone who is 'big' on climate change is talking about reducing reliance on cattle (either by Booker's suggestion or yours or lowering the population or some others that I haven't yet thought of) then they're not serious about solving the problem.
I disagree on the problem with booker, but at least he's not just focusing on oil companies and carbon taxes
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
(02-13-2019 11:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: But he's right.
I said a long time ago that nobody is serious about climate change until they start talking about this. Either lower population or eat less meat. The problem for dems is that the people who would do this make up a relatively small portion of the population... and of course the biggest 'growth' in the area doesn't come from the US.
Can't switch to fish because there are issues there already
I'm not saying this is the right direction, I'm merely saying that this is what has to happen to address the real issue of man's contribution to climate change
Got some links on this? You could probably feed everybody in the country meat if you had well managed culls of open season pest animals like wild bore and deer in the (increasingly large number of) areas they're well overpopulated. Anything currently managed as "no bag limit no off season" is low hanging fruit. It's the point where it's legal to hunt goats from a helicopter with no bag limit on some islands. And in Texas it's legal to hunt bore from a helicopter with no bag limit. Ted Nugent with a helicopter mounted minigun has yet to put a dent in the wild bore population in Texas. You can also feed a lot of people off the high daily bag limit on some things as well, but that would require a more ...... varied pallet than the standard American. I don't think you'd even have to get that far.
I live about 12 miles from downtown Richmond, classic exburb/suburb. Wooded, good schools but an increasingly busy and what I consider overbuilt Burb. IOW's I'm in, now lock the doors (sadly it doesn't work that way)
But, to your point, even around here I can't run my typical evening errands, Grocery, PO, bank, ABC whatever without seeing dozens of White tails in numerous various places. Bucks grazing alone on the side of a residential road, groups of 4-12 or even more bedded down in the "open spaces" in neighborhoods etc. I can personally see, on any given evening/night, upwards of 50 of the critters just in the normal course of things.
There's a LOT of resources out there, I've thought about going in to bug farming...
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 06:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:
(02-13-2019 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
(02-13-2019 11:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: But he's right.
I said a long time ago that nobody is serious about climate change until they start talking about this. Either lower population or eat less meat. The problem for dems is that the people who would do this make up a relatively small portion of the population... and of course the biggest 'growth' in the area doesn't come from the US.
Can't switch to fish because there are issues there already
I'm not saying this is the right direction, I'm merely saying that this is what has to happen to address the real issue of man's contribution to climate change
Got some links on this? You could probably feed everybody in the country meat if you had well managed culls of open season pest animals like wild bore and deer in the (increasingly large number of) areas they're well overpopulated. Anything currently managed as "no bag limit no off season" is low hanging fruit. It's the point where it's legal to hunt goats from a helicopter with no bag limit on some islands. And in Texas it's legal to hunt bore from a helicopter with no bag limit. Ted Nugent with a helicopter mounted minigun has yet to put a dent in the wild bore population in Texas. You can also feed a lot of people off the high daily bag limit on some things as well, but that would require a more ...... varied pallet than the standard American. I don't think you'd even have to get that far.
A link for what? That I agree (to a small extent) with the OP?
Flatulence from animals, most of which are raised (or live naturally) for food is a major source of greenhouse gasses that lead to their claims of global warming, as is/are things like deforestation for housing, agriculture etc etc etc. IMO, they go after fossil fuels because 'big oil' is a deep pocket and it's hard to defend in many circles... Harder to attack farmers and those who have 5 kids and need more housing etc.
For my position, the point is that unless someone who is 'big' on climate change is talking about reducing reliance on cattle (either by Booker's suggestion or yours or lowering the population or some others that I haven't yet thought of) then they're not serious about solving the problem.
I disagree on the problem with booker, but at least he's not just focusing on oil companies and carbon taxes
To op and the link and thus Cory Booker's quote:
Quote:The tragic reality is this planet simply can't sustain billions of people consuming industrially produced animal agriculture because of environmental impact. It's just not possible, as China, as Africa move toward consuming meat the same way America does because we just don't have enough land. The number-one reason for rainforest destruction now is animal grazing land. We see greenhouse producing gases produced; the devastating impact is just not practical. The numbers just don't add up. We will destroy our planet unless we start figuring out a better way forward when it comes to our climate change and our environment.
I think that's a low resolution way to think about it, bucko.
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 06:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
(02-13-2019 06:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:
(02-13-2019 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
(02-13-2019 11:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: But he's right.
I said a long time ago that nobody is serious about climate change until they start talking about this. Either lower population or eat less meat. The problem for dems is that the people who would do this make up a relatively small portion of the population... and of course the biggest 'growth' in the area doesn't come from the US.
Can't switch to fish because there are issues there already
I'm not saying this is the right direction, I'm merely saying that this is what has to happen to address the real issue of man's contribution to climate change
Got some links on this? You could probably feed everybody in the country meat if you had well managed culls of open season pest animals like wild bore and deer in the (increasingly large number of) areas they're well overpopulated. Anything currently managed as "no bag limit no off season" is low hanging fruit. It's the point where it's legal to hunt goats from a helicopter with no bag limit on some islands. And in Texas it's legal to hunt bore from a helicopter with no bag limit. Ted Nugent with a helicopter mounted minigun has yet to put a dent in the wild bore population in Texas. You can also feed a lot of people off the high daily bag limit on some things as well, but that would require a more ...... varied pallet than the standard American. I don't think you'd even have to get that far.
A link for what? That I agree (to a small extent) with the OP?
Flatulence from animals, most of which are raised (or live naturally) for food is a major source of greenhouse gasses that lead to their claims of global warming, as is/are things like deforestation for housing, agriculture etc etc etc. IMO, they go after fossil fuels because 'big oil' is a deep pocket and it's hard to defend in many circles... Harder to attack farmers and those who have 5 kids and need more housing etc.
For my position, the point is that unless someone who is 'big' on climate change is talking about reducing reliance on cattle (either by Booker's suggestion or yours or lowering the population or some others that I haven't yet thought of) then they're not serious about solving the problem.
I disagree on the problem with booker, but at least he's not just focusing on oil companies and carbon taxes
To op and the link and thus Cory Booker's quote:
Quote:The tragic reality is this planet simply can't sustain billions of people consuming industrially produced animal agriculture because of environmental impact. It's just not possible, as China, as Africa move toward consuming meat the same way America does because we just don't have enough land. The number-one reason for rainforest destruction now is animal grazing land. We see greenhouse producing gases produced; the devastating impact is just not practical. The numbers just don't add up. We will destroy our planet unless we start figuring out a better way forward when it comes to our climate change and our environment.
I think that's a low resolution way to think about it, bucko.
you posted that in another thread....
I watched it in entirety....
it's worthy....
he continually drove through the logic w/o a quaff....
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 06:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote: I did the Atkins' diet when I was married.....I got divorced shortly thereafter....
I can only go so long w/0 meat....
Why would you go without meat on ATkins?
(02-13-2019 06:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
(02-13-2019 06:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: A link for what?
To op and the link and thus Cory Booker's quote:
Let me say it differently....
Booker is making this point... not me. Others on the left have made similar points about greenhouse gasses, but unlike Booker, they haven't been willing to talk about deforestation etc, which THEIR studies all show to be major contributors.
They present a report showing that oil is responsible for say 30% (varies by report and how they classify things) and that human activity (mostly ag and deforestation) is responsible for close to 70, and then they focus all their solutions on oil.
I'm not agreeing with their reports... I'm merely saying Booker apparently has.
And the fact that we have vast wildlife here is somewhat immaterial on a global basis. I agree with your premise that there are other solutions to the supposed problem, but you only hear about oil from most Dems.
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
Eating grass fed animals is the best thing we can do to counteract climate change. I agree that industrial agriculture is bad for the environment, e.g. stuffing cows full of corn on an overcrowded feed lot. There is a statistic out there that if we converted all the industrial agriculture land in the US grass pastureland we would capture all carbon emitted since the industrial revolution in a span of less than 10 years.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2019 08:00 PM by Jugnaut.)
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 07:59 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: Eating grass fed animals is the best thing we can do to counteract climate change. I agree that industrial agriculture is bad for the environment, e.g. stuffing cows full of corn on an overcrowded feed lot. There is a statistic out there that if we converted all the industrial agriculture land in the US grass pastureland we would capture all carbon emitted since the industrial revolution in a span of less than 10 years.
only if one believes carbon count is a 'crisis'.....
it's been > 100 yrs. of exponential climbing at this point....
I'm just not buying into my 'right guard aerosol' banning.....
pollution is what is critical to the flesh....we're doing a pretty dayum good job over the past ~50 yrs.....
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 07:59 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: Eating grass fed animals is the best thing we can do to counteract climate change. I agree that industrial agriculture is bad for the environment, e.g. stuffing cows full of corn on an overcrowded feed lot. There is a statistic out there that if we converted all the industrial agriculture land in the US grass pastureland we would capture all carbon emitted since the industrial revolution in a span of less than 10 years.
Ironically, you can make the argument that the clean air and water initiatives have accelerated global warming. Pollution from unregulated smoke stacks routinely acted as a “soot barrier” that would reflect energy from the sun away from the earths surface.
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 08:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:
(02-13-2019 07:59 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: Eating grass fed animals is the best thing we can do to counteract climate change. I agree that industrial agriculture is bad for the environment, e.g. stuffing cows full of corn on an overcrowded feed lot. There is a statistic out there that if we converted all the industrial agriculture land in the US grass pastureland we would capture all carbon emitted since the industrial revolution in a span of less than 10 years.
Ironically, you can make the argument that the clean air and water initiatives have accelerated global warming. Pollution from unregulated smoke stacks routinely acted as a “soot barrier” that would reflect energy from the sun away from the earths surface.
attaboy....
so why is the focus not on pollution reduction....
for some reason, we're leading the way as the rest are mired in another form of industrial revolution....
RE: Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat
(02-13-2019 07:59 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: Eating grass fed animals is the best thing we can do to counteract climate change. I agree that industrial agriculture is bad for the environment, e.g. stuffing cows full of corn on an overcrowded feed lot. There is a statistic out there that if we converted all the industrial agriculture land in the US grass pastureland we would capture all carbon emitted since the industrial revolution in a span of less than 10 years.
The problem is the fact that in doing so you are going to significantly reduce your production, likely enough to where you are probably pricing the poor and possibly the lower middle income folks completely out of the meat market.
You idea is like swapping all fossil fuels for solar.....great in theory but unrealistic in practice.