University bans all beef from campus...........

[otolith]

Terminator X said:

Brads67 said:

Geffg said:

If we all stop eating beef what happens to all the cows? Will we need to have a cull every so often which is surely a waste or do we just not breed so many but we still need to for milk!
How does not eating cow help the planet? All this climate crap bores me stupid.
Doesn’t the world just have a natural cull every so often with ice age, dinosaurs etc!

They won't be bred for food. No cull required. The not eating meat will extend to dairy and hence dairy cattle.

The problem is methane children, which cows people put out by the tonne. Cattle Humans are a huge problem re gas emissions billions of the fkers gradually consuming all natural resources.

Fixed that for you.

I did recently look at the figures for the % of greenhouse emissions coming from meat and the population history of the UK, and conclude that everyone degrading their standard of living by quitting meat would have the same effect as if we had not increased our population since the late 80's.

[grumbledoak]

biggbn said:

...

Edit, I have no fear of running out of oil, sooner the better.

Is there not also a school of thought that says less livestock farming would help less arable farming and that is what livestock eat, or is that to simplistic?

We feed cereals to ruminants because of the subsidies: we grow more cereals than we can eat. It is actually bad for the animals, acidifying their rumen and screwing up their digestion, but nobody cares.

The CAFOs basically exist for the same reason - cereals are cheaper than dirt.

But put them in a brightly coloured cardboard box with some sugar and people will pay, pay, pay! So the industrial food producers have far more money than the cattlemen, for a vastly inferior food. And, as I have alluded, for an environmental disaster in the not so distant future. Google "60 harvests".

[alfaman]

otolith said:

From a linked story - how fking patronising can you get?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2019/01/17/o...

Indeed - however I would not be against not serving octopus ... but purely from an ecological / marine life welfare perspective (also do not support eating shark or ray ..)

[smack]

And in the canteen, they probably will replace beef in their burgers, with Jackfruit, imported from Thailand...

[otolith]

alfaman said:

otolith said:

From a linked story - how fking patronising can you get?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2019/01/17/o...

Indeed - however I would not be against not serving octopus ... but purely from an ecological / marine life welfare perspective (also do not support eating shark or ray ..)

Octopus is potentially highly sustainable, given their lifecycle. There is inadequate fisheries data for them, though, which leads some to suggest it should be avoided. There are potential welfare concerns.

Likewise, on the fishery data, with rays and some sharks. Thornback ray seem pretty abundant, but when you buy a skinned wing it's anybody's guess which species you're getting. Lesser spotted dogfish are amber on the MCS list, which probably comes as a surprise to anyone trying to catch anything else from the beach. Personally, I put most things back, but would not feel bad about taking a thorny now and then.

[SamR380]

smack said:

And in the canteen, they probably will replace beef in their burgers, with Jackfruit, imported from Thailand...

Possibly, do you think that would be worse for the environment?

[Leithen]

A University to avoid IMHO.

The smallest amount of research would show that meat production in the UK is a non-issue.

[grumbledoak]

Leithen said:

A University to avoid IMHO.

The smallest amount of research would show that meat production in the UK is a non-issue.

Methane emissions from cattle are a non issue anyway - they have a short life in the atmosphere, under a decade IIRC. We have been farming them far longer than that. And, of course, before we farmed the cattle there were huge numbers of big animals roaming wild that we hunted.

And the soil that cattle graze on is a carbon sink.

As I said, not much truth going on here, just anything they can think of to damage their competition in the food market. It's big though, it won't stop with climate based bollards. There is already a push on the "health" front with Eat Lancet "collaboration" (i.e. paid).

[biggbn]

otolith said:

I did recently look at the figures for the % of greenhouse emissions coming from meat and the population history of the UK, and conclude that everyone degrading their standard of living by quitting meat would have the same effect as if we had not increased our population since the late 80's.

How is not eating meat degrading ones standard of living?

[anonymous-user]

SamR380 said:

smack said:

And in the canteen, they probably will replace beef in their burgers, with Jackfruit, imported from Thailand...

Possibly, do you think that would be worse for the environment?

I don’t really know what jackfruit are but I agree with your point,

We always hear this argument on PH, that if some thing is considered to bad for the environment and then an alternative is found, the alternatives are completely dismissed due to their own influence on the environment, even if it is much less.

It’s the same with celebrities flying to a climate meeting or that Norwegian girl going by boat to America. Everyone’s going on about whether her boat is made of lentils or whether celebrities are flying private jets. Sure what they’re doing is also bad but the net gain may be good for the environment if they raise money or spread awareness or if fruit from Thailand carried by air is less bad than meat overall etc.

Obviously if celebrities are lecturing others about their lifestyle whilst doing the same then that’s hypocritical and wrong but just because they’re flying or taking a private jet, they still might be doing more good than harm. Assuming you agree with the science etc.

[SamR380]

El stovey said:

Assuming you agree with the science etc.

That's asking a bit much isn't it?

[catso]

glazbagun said:

Beef production requires a lot of water compared to almost any other meat

Are we running out then?

[Agammemnon]

Higgs boson said:

From her travel archive ...

Florence is a truly beautiful city. Famous for it’s history, its not just the stunning architecture that reminds us of it’s historical importance as the birth place of the Renaissance.


One (several) for the apostrophes thread.

I suspect that the students will be too busy virtue signalling to notice.

[otolith]

biggbn said:

otolith said:

I did recently look at the figures for the % of greenhouse emissions coming from meat and the population history of the UK, and conclude that everyone degrading their standard of living by quitting meat would have the same effect as if we had not increased our population since the late 80's.

How is not eating meat degrading ones standard of living?

The same way that giving up anything that gives you pleasure is - same as giving up music or film or flowers or driving or novels or any of the other stuff people love that isn't strictly necessary for life.

[Derek Smith]

The good thing about climate change is that there's evidence for any point of view. Scientists produce results, and they can be interpreted in any way anyone wants.

What's not to like?

The undisputed facts, at least amongst scientists of repute, is that the overall temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate.

The suggestion is that this change is probably bad for lots of people.

Most agree that the sea level will rise. There's a consensus that this will cause lots of problems, especially to those who live near the coast and/or are on low lying land.

Beyond that, there are arguments on every detail.

It is not evidence against loss of arctic ice that past prediction were wide of the mark.

It is not evidence against climate change that we haven't run out of oil. Yet.

How long methane stays in the atmosphere is not evidence against its long term effects if the number of sources increase.

From the point of view of someone who reads a scientific weekly and some monthlies, there's lots to worry about. However, those on here who are concerned about a world wide scientific conspiracy, I can put their minds at rest. No one has produced evidence to support this suggestion. It's a chocolate teapot theory. One thing is certain, and that's that if there was any evidence of such a conspiracy, it would be posted.

I don't care what this college does. If they want to take a stand, then they are quite within their rights to do so. In the past, many people have stood up for what they believed in and been ridiculed and threatened. I have no idea what all the fuss is about.

[fernando the frog]

Geffg said:

If we all stop eating beef what happens to all the cows? Will we need to have a cull every so often which is surely a waste or do we just not breed so many but we still need to for milk!
How does not eating cow help the planet? All this climate crap bores me stupid.
Doesn’t the world just have a natural cull every so often with ice age, dinosaurs etc!

are you a 10 year old? you sure speak and ask the same questions as one

[Agammemnon]

biggbn said:

How is not eating meat degrading ones standard of living?

Choosing not to is fine; being forced to restrict one's diet is a lowering of living standards.

[biggbn]

otolith said:

The same way that giving up anything that gives you pleasure is - same as giving up music or film or flowers or driving or novels or any of the other stuff people love that isn't strictly necessary for life.

My physical and mental health improved hugely when I gave up meat and dairy. Guess such a holistic statement is inacurate?

[Digga]

The dung from grazing animals is, I thought, important for biodiversity. As is their ability to 'maintain' environments suitable for certain other species.

[Zirconia]

I thought beef was one of your five a day?