@luvgonzo I've fixed it for you bruv, can I see if this meets with your approval, cheers buddy I think you are such a lovely chap, I've bolded the bit that shows you made a very small and tiny oversight, but a very respectable and easy one to make, as I believe it's the most common form of farming in the Brazilian amazon basin right now, and also the most very slightly destructive, and they're doing it to grow the crop you are right to think will save our great planet. If you read the wonderful science behind it, rather than your brilliant and excellent vegan thinking, we can have a discussion over a nice cup of tea, where Í don't think you're a holier-than-thou perfume spelling poo poo hole.
not really, he's removing all the cows but then not replacing that massive whole in food production with anything, because if he does his argument falls on it's arse.
I thought so but it was just some minimalistic electronica I had left playing. I was a bit disappointed.
Meat grown in vats. Like cloned beef or something. It's the future I'm telling you. Then those Brazilians can starve from poverty, the good ol' fashioned way.
We're speaking on the Newcastle board mate, he's giving me a lot of banter so, I suspect you've all annoyed him.
You aren't seeing the argument, any kind of sustainability eats into the profits. If everyone gives up eating meat and turns to eating soya, why wold the farmers suddenly change the farming methods? They'll still continue to grow the soya in exactly the same way, so nothing will have changed, other than cows becoming extrinct due to being considered a pest as they'll eat the crops.
what kind of efficiency? The human body was designed/evolved to process proteins from meat far better than it does plant matter, does that make it into the 'efficiency' equation, or is it, for some reason, excluded?
You’re spectacularly missing the point though. The entire premise about cutting down meat consumption is about reducing the amount of carbon producing beasts.
What the flying **** are you on about? Anything to say about the point you've missed all along? That producing meat costs more in CO2 emissions than a vegetarian alternative? This 'slash and burn' technique you're getting so wound up about is missing the point. The deforestation is happening to clear land, how they do it is irrelevant. They are clearing land for cattle and feed for the cattle. If everyone was on a vegetarian diet you would only need a fraction of the land currently used to produce food for the world's population. The end of your little rant was quite funny. You're wrong as **** and just lashing out
That's putting a small plaster on an amputation, aviation is far worse, but as most vegans are middle-classes I guess them not having a holiday is out of the question.
No it really isn’t. Reducing meat consumption will be as important as reducing carbon from transport and aviation, it’s part of the holistic approach required, if we’re ever going to become truly carbon neutral. Denying it’s a significant factor is merely denial of reality.
They are clearing the land to grow soya, if we stop eating meat they will still grow the ****ing soya to feed us, and they will still be clearing the rain forest to do it because it's far more profitable than looking after the land. Whether they use the soya to feed us or to the cows makes no difference to what will happen to the rainforest, it's free nutrient rich land they can just rinse for everything it's got and move on to the next patch of forest As to the rest of what you say, you're just regurgitating the standard BS, you haven't bothered to check if it's right, because you're too far up your holier-than-thou I'm-saving-the-world vegan arse. All industrial farming is destructive, the places where your salad grows is just as ****ed, but shhhh, don't mention that because, beef.
I'm denying that going vegan will save the planet, because industrial farming methods are destructive. The Amazon is ****ed because no one owns it, so the farmers can just take it, wreck it, and move on. That's where the problem is, when you make it more profitable to sustain the land than to destroy it, that's when you actually make the difference. As to the emissions, they include the transportation, which you're still going to do, and the emission figures were for the full life cycle of the cow that produced the beef, which it didn't have because it was made into beef rather having a full life-cycle. You'd reduce it a bit, but nowhere near the amount people think, around 2-3% of all human CO2 emissions.
