Climate change and human responsibility

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Some of you are really overthinking this. People just put their empty bottle in the recycling bin and their sandwich wrapper in the waste bin at the park because they know it's better for the environment to do so rather than leave it on the ground.

That's an individual choice that happens made with logical, reason, and foresight.

Evil O/G schemes to make money, not turning taps off for conserving water, globalist propaganda, electric vehicles are a waste of time even though the majority of people living in cities . . .

Wow. I had no idea everyone has the inside scoop.

And people don't make sacrifices to do good?

Ask yourself why anyone would buy food with their own money for a hungry family at a shelter. Why anyone would donate a kidney or other organs to save others. Why anyone would rescue a person or an animal in distress at the potential cost of their own safety.

I say no. Humanity is better than that.

And yet people starve throughout the world, vaccinations go to Mink before third world countries and thousands of people could use kidneys. The individual examples prove the rule.

It’s essentially baked into to the hierarchy of needs.

[Ozy_Flame]

Human strife has existed since the beginning of our time. It continues today and will continue in the future.

And yet people continue to do the right thing for others, for society, for the economy, for the planet, because they care. Individuals make choices with noble and honest intentions, and many of those decisions aren't done for monetary gain.

Yes, the individual examples do prove the rule - that people actually do things for good and are capable of doing good things.

That's about where we can leave this.

And please sort your waste at the mall, there's enough signage posted that tells you what goes which bin.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Human strife has existed since the beginning of our time. It continues today and will continue in the future.

And yet people continue to do the right thing for others, for society, for the economy, for the planet, because they care. Individuals make choices with noble and honest intentions, and many of those decisions aren't done for monetary gain.

Yes, the individual examples do prove the rule - that people actually do things for good and are capable of doing good things.

That's about where we can leave this.

And please sort your waste at the mall, there's enough signage posted that tells you what goes which bin.

Sure, some people. Not most. The fact we have a climate crisis after 30 years of being told to fix it shows that not nearly enoguh people will do the right thing. Othewerwise we wouldn't be buying bigger and bigger vehicles and homes, and filling them with trash we keep for a few years and toss.

[Northendzone]

Looks like stuff is going to get blown up real soon - all for climate change.

https://www.cheknews.ca/david-suzuki...change-915197/

Wonder, if Dave is willing to sacrifice a couple of his homes for the cause

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by zamler

Livestock takes up 80% of farm land.

Source?

That number is about 5 times higher than I’d have expected.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sure, some people. Not most. The fact we have a climate crisis after 30 years of being told to fix it shows that not nearly enoguh people will do the right thing. Othewerwise we wouldn't be buying bigger and bigger vehicles and homes, and filling them with trash we keep for a few years and toss.

I have pretty much given up hope at this point. Consumerist/materialist/capitalist/globalist societies are just not environmentally sustainable. Things are going to have to get really bad in order to create the paradigm shift necessary to build a societal structure that is environmentally sustainable.

Produce and buy local. Stop expecting lots of cheap stuff from all over the world. Most people don't want to do that though.

[Mathgod]

People complain about China and their repressive regime, their global influence, their pollution, etc, but often miss the fact that the western world is largely to blame for creating this monster, from a century of importing cheap goods from China and building up their economy gradually over time...

Consumerism and greed is the scourge of this world...

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by zamler

Livestock accounts for about 20% of total calories, takes up 80% of farm land. Loss of natural areas cleared for livestock is the #1 factor in mass extinction.

That's just scratching the surface.

This all seems like a reach. Source for each fact??

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

This all seems like a reach. Source for each fact??

I’m not sure about the last stat but the 20%/80% of land use comes from a few different places best visualized by ourworldindata

https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

There is also a highly unequal distribution of land use between livestock and crops for human consumption. If we combine pastures used for grazing with land used to grow crops for animal feed, livestock accounts for 77% of global farming land. While livestock takes up most of the world’s agricultural land it only produces 18% of the world’s calories and 37% of total protein.3

The pastureland being used in the assessment muddies the stats a bit.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

The pastureland being used in the assessment muddies the stats a bit.

Yeah, 40M km^2 means that they must be including huge chunks of natural grasslands. Important crops used directly for animal feed like soybeans and maize in total only account for 3.2M km^2 of land.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m not sure about the last stat but the 20%/80% of land use comes from a few different places best visualized by ourworldindata

https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture



The pastureland being used in the assessment muddies the stats a bit.

Thank you for the info.

They are meaningless stats, since most of the pastureland is poor quality land, and lots of areas that have so many hills the land could not be used to grow crops. The area accounted for as pastureland is substantially higher because it takes more acres to feed an animal than high quality land would.

[The Fonz]

Pasture land is most often land that is unsuitable for grain crops. The cattle just graze on the native grasses growing on that light and/or hilly land - is that a bad thing?

[zamler]

There are many sources on this, stats vary they all are concerning

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/facts...ironment-64218
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/...eat-and-dairy/

[#-3]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Source?

That number is about 5 times higher than I’d have expected.

That's not far off, but there is a bit of funny accounting going on there. When you get agriculture by products not suitable for human consumption being fed to animals that's part of the land math, when you get grazing land not suitable for sowing that's part of the land math. So true 80% of farmed land goes directly or indirectly towards livestock production, but that does not mean you claim 5x the land for crop production.

Also with megafauna basically hunted to extinction, livestock probably have a role to play in a balanced nitrogen cycle on some level, some how.

[GGG]

The bigger problem is where does new land come from?

As the world develops demand for meat rises and new land for pastureland comes from forest which is where you get negative consequences for climate.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

The bigger problem is where does new land come from?

As the world develops demand for meat rises and new land for pastureland comes from forest which is where you get negative consequences for climate.

A lot of that will come from increased yields, especially in Africa as it develops and can afford modern cultivars, fertilizers and machinery.



Even Canada has seen continued yield improvements, seeded area for crops only gone up about 10% over the last 20 years but harvested production has gone from 54 million tonnes in 2001 to 98 million tonnes in 2020. This year is considered a poor harvest due to drought in the Prairies but it still will exceed 70 million tonnes of production, and would have been a great harvest in the 2000s.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by accord1999

A lot of that will come from increased yields, especially in Africa as it develops and can afford modern cultivars, fertilizers and machinery.



Even Canada has seen continued yield improvements, seeded area for crops only gone up about 10% over the last 20 years but harvested production has gone from 54 million tonnes in 2001 to 98 million tonnes in 2020. This year is considered a poor harvest due to drought in the Prairies but it still will exceed 70 million tonnes of production, and would have been a great harvest in the 2000s.

That doesn’t help you with meat production though where increased pastureland would be required.

[2Stonedbirds]

The vast majority of beef consumed doesn't graze on pasture though, so an increase in productivity of crops is a good thing.
Less acres of silage and feed grains needed to get the same amount of beef to market.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

The vast majority of beef consumed doesn't graze on pasture though, so an increase in productivity of crops is a good thing.
Less acres of silage and feed grains needed to get the same amount of beef to market.

Do you have a source for that statement and does it extrapolate globally for all
Meat.

The problem today is cutting down forest to provide pastureland for animals. Brazil’s rain forest deforestation is driven by converting forest to pastureland.

So the question is between now and say 2050 what is going to feed increased meat production? I’d bet on pastureland.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you have a source for that statement and does it extrapolate globally for all
Meat.

The problem today is cutting down forest to provide pastureland for animals. Brazil’s rain forest deforestation is driven by converting forest to pastureland.

So the question is between now and say 2050 what is going to feed increased meat production? I’d bet on pastureland.

"The most recent census of agriculture [3] reported an estimated 26,586 feedlots in the USA. Of these, approximately 61% have fewer than 100 cattle. Approximately 77% of cattle were produced in feedlots with capacity greater than 1,000 animals."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/

In the US, overall in NA the numbers are similar.
Only around 1% of cattle consumed is grown and finished on grass.

"Currently, 'grass-finished' beef accounts for less than 1% of the current US supply"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/aad401

While many people are pushing for, and prefer grass fed and finished beef, it takes longer to produce and requires much more land. Currently it makes up a very small part of the market, but increases in feed production as outlined by accord1999 reduces stress on the enviroment.

"Domestic demand for beef products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, export markets are increasingly recognized as being an important target for increasing demand for USA beef products. OECD/FAO estimates of 1.5% annual increases in demand for meat products through 2026"

I doubt increased demand will result in a significant increase on pasture pressure. Better feed production methods will meet those demands in feedlots as we simply cannot move production to pasture operations.

"In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply"

Grassfed/finished means more land, more time, larger herd. Which we already know but the market isn't going to want overpriced beef.

These numbers are from the US, but are right in line with numbers up here. We just don't pound the corn to cattle like the US, we typically finish differently.

Globally, hard to say.