Climate Change......

Status
Not open for further replies.

R181

Grumpy old man
Almost slipped my mind, what I have left of it, that the use of the term Echo Terrorist is about as self serving and disingenuous as the term Oil Sands is. I doubt those using it have had first hand experience with a real terrorist organisation and their methods. They are a far cry from the vast majority of environmental groups and their methods.

Bob
 

TobyC

Patriot
Either you're a terrorist or you're not, it's like being pregnant, you can't be just a little knocked up.
 

R181

Grumpy old man
Either you're a terrorist or you're not, it's like being pregnant, you can't be just a little knocked up.
Certainly, you can't be just a little knocked. The condition of being pregnant is very narrowly defined. The term terrorist has been so loosely defined as to cover people and organisations that in normal times would not even be looked at in that way. I mean really, Greta Thunberg, the Sierra Club and many other environmental activists and groups labelled as terrorists? That is like thinking about becoming pregnant qualifies as being pregnant.

It is the extremists of any movement that fit the definition of being terrorists and not all people in that movement who use peaceful means to promote that movement.

Bob
 

TobyC

Patriot
It's when you start hurting people and breaking things in a planned and organized fashion, or at least that's when I apply the label.
 

R181

Grumpy old man
It's when you start hurting people and breaking things in a planned and organized fashion, or at least that's when I apply the label.
Now that is a much narrower definition of eco terrorism that fits the norm of what terrorism is and I'd go along with that. In common use eco terrorism has been used to cover in a blanket fashion most all environmentalists and environmental organisations.

To add to the confusion there is always the old saying that "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" but that is another can of worms.

Bob
 

les24preludes

Forum GOD!
I mean if you take the definition:
"It's when you start hurting people and breaking things in a planned and organized fashion, or at least that's when I apply the label."
Then most governments especially the big one have been and in many cases are guilty of that.
Thanks for pointing that out - it's true on so many levels from police brutality against individuals and crowds through political assassinations to ethnic cleansing. It's still all going on everywhere.

I think it's worth pointing out the central concern of "eco warriors" or however you define them is that human life matters. If climate change is not addressed then "law and order" will be irrelevant, since there won't be much human life to order, and civilisations will have broken down long before that happens.
 

les24preludes

Forum GOD!
I've been looking at the impact of meat and other dietary foods. It's pretty stark. Stop eating beef. For a start because cattle breeding releases methane which is 84 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. And then it is responsible for 91% or the deforestation of the Amazon. That's a global crime which is going unpunished by sanctions. But just look at the data. If you eliminate beef production it will have huge benefits. And then arguably lamb and mutton. Eat chicken or pork (if your religion allows it) instead if you have to. It's not difficult.

Which countries are most guilty of promoting beef production? Data in billions of pounds weight consumed for 2018
USA - 25.7 billion
China - 16.9 billion
Brazil - 16.5 billion
India - 5.3 billion
Argentina - 5.3 billion
Russia - 4.2 billion
Mexico - 3.9 billion
Turkey - 3.6 billion

Foods-beef.png
 
Last edited:

sɐǝɹpu∀

riverrun
I've been looking at the impact of meat and other dietary foods. It's pretty stark. Stop eating beef. For a start because cattle breeding is responsible for 91% or the deforestation of the Amazon. That's a global crime which is going unpunished by sanctions. But just look at the data. If you eliminate beef production it will have huge benefits. And then arguably lamb and mutton. Eat chicken or pork (if your religion allows it) instead if you have to. It's not difficult.

View attachment 81301
The graphics have one clear message: Drink more wine!
 

Grarea

Forum Plod
I only read recently that the majority of the methane is released from the front end and not the back end of cattle.
 

les24preludes

Forum GOD!
I only read recently that the majority of the methane is released from the front end and not the back end of cattle.
Cows burp as well as fart. Good point.

I was appalled by this video.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7854HbH9Ro


- 3/4 of agricultural land is used just to feed livestock
- If you factor in everything, livestock produces more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector
- In India, a centre of livestock breeding, livestock uses up half of the available water. Grain feed is very water intensive.
- One quarter pound hamburger requires 660 gallons of water. That's the same as showering for 2 months (frightening fact).
- In the USA 5% of water is for domestic use versus 55% for animal agriculture
- Economising on domestic water usage is ridiculously ineffective compared with eating beef.
- Over 50% of the grain traded around the world is used for animal feeds or biofuels

The message is clear - stop eating beef. Get drunk on good wine instead!
 

Steve

Boomer Member
You Millennials and Generation Z types do realize that the $9,000,000,000,000 price tag for AOC's Green New Deal is going to come out of your pockets, don't you? The economic genius that is AOC shrugs off the cost by saying the Government will pay for it, as if the Treasury can just turn on the printing presses and out comes free money. Such idiots. :roflmao:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top