Greta Thunberg's Groupie

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, action said:

For instance, we use it to adress gay people. Around these parts, when people come out of the closest, they say they fancy the "chocolate pot" rather than the "plum jam", if you know what I mean. 

I like that   I'm gonna use that in English now! 

[action]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

 I'm gonna use that in English now! 

you're going to come out of the closet? 

[Len Cnut]

32 minutes ago, action said:

you're going to come out of the closet? 

Nah, I'm just gonna poke my nob out

[soon]

6 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

What the fuck, I gotta eat fuckin’ Quorn burgers now to save the envoirnment?  Fuck that.  Excuse my ignorance but how does veganism help the envoirnment? 

The new meatless burgers have the part of the cow blood that makes meat taste like meat and makes them juicy! Its a molecule called Heme. Mmmmmmm, Heme 

A vegan diet can be helpful to the environment - basically we have to produce feed for livestock, so if we just eat the feed instead its a smaller and more sustainable process with a much less of a carbon foot print. Also large beasts like cattle pollute with their farts and shit.

However, this is a capitalist restructuring - this veggie burger thing, its not an authentic effort to save the planet for us. The lentils and beans will be mono cropped in huge patches of land and then shipped large distances to the consumer. The mono cropping calls for more pesticides because the bugs that like specific plants hibernate in the winter right where the plants were, and then the plants they like are planted there once again. This is in the pests favour. Mono cropping also depletes the soil - whereas a variety of rotated crops takes-up different nutrients from the soil, in varying volumes, which is better for the soil. So there is more fertilizer required with mono cropping. In extreme scenarios its possible that land is left barren after long term mono cropping.

And this is key - Do you know who works the farms and brings in the harvest? Seasonal foreign workers who travel from all around the world on air planes to farm our beans . It completely cancels out any potential gains 

To me the issue is the industrial scale and frame work of it all - meat or veggie - that is a danger to the ecosystem. We need system change.

Back to cattle. They are usually kept indoors for mass production and fed grains. "This is all wrong" and grazing cattle on grass pastures is better for everyone - including the Earth. The grass is just there so we dont need to produce grains to feed the cattle. And the grass is never uprooted and the poop fertilizes the grass lands. Grass lands dont need to be watered for the most part - they arent heavy drinkers and the permanent roots allow the water to be absorbed deep in to the soil (with loose soil the water just sits on top and evaporates). When plants are up rooted the carbon trapped in the soil is released into the ozone. See, plants breath in Co2 and trap it in the soil. So that release happens every harvest with beans and never with cattle grazing. We want to sequester as much carbon under the soil as possible!! I would argue that small scale, organic, bio dynamic cattle farming that supplies local processing by butchers (or just meat to consumer) is a competitive practice, ecologically speaking, compared to mass produced, non organic, mono cropping of beans.

Crickets eat left over veggie scraps. They can be farmed or home grown easily. They are dried and ground into a powder that incorporates into existing recipes fairly easily. I think this will be more beneficial for the ecosystem then industrial veggie farming. Meal worms too! Pass the Heme, please 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by soon

[Jordan Rose]

Mentally ill child being used as human shield. Total fraud. Bullshit man-made warming bogus agenda. 

[Len Cnut]

@soonI'll be honest with you I dunno what the fuck a carbon footprint is  

[soon]

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

@soonI'll be honest with you I dunno what the fuck a carbon footprint is  

Ha, well, I dont want to risk carbon-splaining.  So you just let me know If I can help with some definitions!

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, soon said:

Ha, well, I dont want to risk carbon-splaining.  So you just let me know If I can help with some definitions!

Googled it:

Quote

the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the activities of a particular individual, organization, or community.

Now, I don't really remember much of science from school but carbon dioxide is the shit we breath out innit?  Oxygen in, carbon dioxide out? 

[soon]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Googled it:

Now, I don't really remember much of science from school but carbon dioxide is the shit we breath out innit?  Oxygen in, carbon dioxide out? 

You got it. And plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out fresh air!  

The plants sequester excess carbon dioxide in the soil beneath them. Humans can also carbon sequester, and its useful in agriculture. We can take dead trees and instead of allowing them to off gas there carbon dioxide by rot or burning, we can bury them under gardens to help with nutrients and water retention!

Burning fossil fuels produces most of the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But cow farts are no joke either!

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, soon said:

You got it. And plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out fresh air!  

The plants sequester excess carbon dioxide in the soil beneath them. Humans can also carbon sequester, and its useful in agriculture. We can take dead trees and instead of allowing them to off gas there carbon dioxide by rot or burning, we can bury them under gardens to help with nutrients and water retention!

Burning fossil fuels produces most of the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But cow farts are no joke either!

So, excuse my stupidity again, where’s the problem?  The bigger your carbon footprint the more the plants get to eat right?  I feel like thats not right   

[soon]

16 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So, excuse my stupidity again, where’s the problem?  The bigger your carbon footprint the more the plants get to eat right?  I feel like thats not right   

 If only things were in balance to that degree! You are absolutely correct and we should strive to get to that balance!!

We fly planes and we clear cut forests. And in the amazon, for instance, sometimes the forests are burned down to make room for farming - so less tress plus they were burned, producing carbon dioxide.

Our carbon foot print is often calculated like this online calculator: https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

Its a great start but doesnt get into the nitty gritty necessarily imho. Like in my earlier rant - when plants are harvested (or trees) the carbon they'd sequestered is released. Its a double whammy.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by soon

[action]

27 minutes ago, soon said:

You got it. And plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out fresh air!  

 

humans on the other hand, breath in fresh air, and fart out CO2

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, soon said:

The new meatless burgers have the part of the cow blood that makes meat taste like meat and makes them juicy! Its a molecule called Heme. Mmmmmmm, Heme 

A vegan diet can be helpful to the environment - basically we have to produce feed for livestock, so if we just eat the feed instead its a smaller and more sustainable process with a much less of a carbon foot print. Also large beasts like cattle pollute with their farts and shit.

However, this is a capitalist restructuring - this veggie burger thing, its not an authentic effort to save the planet for us. The lentils and beans will be mono cropped in huge patches of land and then shipped large distances to the consumer. The mono cropping calls for more pesticides because the bugs that like specific plants hibernate in the winter right where the plants were, and then the plants they like are planted there once again. This is in the pests favour. Mono cropping also depletes the soil - whereas a variety of rotated crops takes-up different nutrients from the soil, in varying volumes, which is better for the soil. So there is more fertilizer required with mono cropping. In extreme scenarios its possible that land is left barren after long term mono cropping.

And this is key - Do you know who works the farms and brings in the harvest? Seasonal foreign workers who travel from all around the world on air planes to farm our beans . It completely cancels out any potential gains 

To me the issue is the industrial scale and frame work of it all - meat or veggie - that is a danger to the ecosystem. We need system change.

Back to cattle. They are usually kept indoors for mass production and fed grains. "This is all wrong" and grazing cattle on grass pastures is better for everyone - including the Earth. The grass is just there so we dont need to produce grains to feed the cattle. And the grass is never uprooted and the poop fertilizes the grass lands. Grass lands dont need to be watered for the most part - they arent heavy drinkers and the permanent roots allow the water to be absorbed deep in to the soil (with loose soil the water just sits on top and evaporates). When plants are up rooted the carbon trapped in the soil is released into the ozone. See, plants breath in Co2 and trap it in the soil. So that release happens every harvest with beans and never with cattle grazing. We want to sequester as much carbon under the soil as possible!! I would argue that small scale, organic, bio dynamic cattle farming that supplies local processing by butchers (or just meat to consumer) is a competitive practice, ecologically speaking, compared to mass produced, non organic, mono cropping of beans.

Crickets eat left over veggie scraps. They can be farmed or home grown easily. They are dried and ground into a powder that incorporates into existing recipes fairly easily. I think this will be more beneficial for the ecosystem then industrial veggie farming. Meal worms too! Pass the Heme, please 

Interesting.

Just a few things. As far as I know there is only one company adding heme to their vegetarian burgers, and the reason is they have patented that invention. As for heme itself, it helps make the food taste more like meat but also look like meat (with running, red juices). So it makes vegetarian food more palatable to meat lovers  And fun fact: That company using genetically modified organisms to both produce the heme and the soy proteins.

I don't think carbon trapped in the soil "escapes" when plants are up-rooted, or it happens more slowly than I think people will get the impression of from your post. The carbon in the plants themselves are of course released back into the carbon cycle, but carbon trapped in the soil (in less degradable plant matter like starch and so on) doesn't suddenly turn into CO₂ gas just because plants are harvested. What happens in that with no new carbon being added to the soil (because the plants are gone), microorganisms will turn to the trapped carbon and degrade it, releasing CO₂. So barren land will slowly lose its trapped carbon. But yeah.

What makes me wonder is, how scalable is such "small scale, organic, bio dynamic cattle farming" and your type of agriculture? Our way of producing crops and meats have been developed to provide as cheap food as cost-efficiently as possible for humanity, all 7 billion of us (or whatever it is now). And it comes on the costs of environmental sustainability, absolutely. And that is terrible, I agree. But your method (and I know this is not something you have come up with ;)) seems extremely more labor-intensive and yet will yield less crops in the end, wouldn't it? It is probably nice as a hobby for people who can afford the time and money, or for smaller settlements with access to nature that will allow for this, but what about someone living in poverty in Mumbai or north of the arctic? 

Edited October 16, 2019 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

42 minutes ago, soon said:

You got it. And plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out fresh air!  

Not to nitpick, but well, they breathe out oxygen, like Len says, not air. And strictly speaking this process is not respiration (breathing), which is to breathe in O₂ to burn sugars and thereby release CO₂, but part of the process of photosynthesis where sun provides the energy fors plan to fixate inorganic CO₂ into organic molecules likes sugars. And fun fact, plants do both respiration and photosynthesis, meaning that they both take up and release CO₂.

Sorry for being anal about this, but my plant physiology study just kicked in 

[SoulMonster]

40 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So, excuse my stupidity again, where’s the problem?  The bigger your carbon footprint the more the plants get to eat right?  I feel like thats not right   

Unfortunately there aren't enough plants to sequester all the CO₂ we release (especially since we chop them down), hence the CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere where it traps warmth radiating form earth, just like a greenhouse.

But of course you are right, more CO₂ in the atmosphere will be good for plants, to a certain degree, and likely cause plants to grow quicker, which would benefit agriculture. 

[soon]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Not to nitpick, but well, they breathe out oxygen, like Len says, not air. And strictly speaking this process is not respiration (breathing), which is to breathe in O₂ to burn sugars and thereby release CO₂, but part of the process of photosynthesis where sun provides the energy fors plan to fixate inorganic CO₂ into organic molecules likes sugars. And fun fact, plants do both respiration and photosynthesis, meaning that they both take up and release CO₂.

Sorry for being anal about this, but my plant physiology study just kicked in 

No one expects anything other than nit picking from you  

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Interesting.

Just a few things. As far as I know there is only one company adding heme to their vegetarian burgers, and the reason is they have patented that invention. As for heme itself, it helps make the food taste more like meat but also look like meat (with running, red juices). So it makes vegetarian food more palatable to meat lovers  And fun fact: That company using genetically modified organisms to both produce the heme and the soy proteins.

I don't think carbon trapped in the soil "escapes" when plants are up-rooted, or it happens more slowly than I think people will get the impression of from your post. The carbon in the plants themselves are of course released back into the carbon cycle, but carbon trapped in the soil (in less degradable plant matter like starch and so on) doesn't suddenly turn into CO₂ gas just because plants are harvested. What happens in that with no new carbon being added to the soil (because the plants are gone), microorganisms will turn to the trapped carbon and degrade it, releasing CO₂. So barren land will slowly lose its trapped carbon. But yeah.

What makes me wonder is, how scalable is such "small scale, organic, bio dynamic cattle farming" and your type of agriculture? Our way of producing crops and meats have been developed to provide as cheap food as cost-efficiently as possible for humanity, all 7 billion of us (or whatever it is now). And it comes on the costs of environmental sustainability, absolutely. And that is terrible, I agree. But your method (and I know this is not something you have come up with ;)) seems extremely more labor-intensive and yet will yield less crops in the end, wouldn't it? It is probably nice as a hobby for people who can afford the time and money, or for smaller settlements with access to nature that will allow for this, but what about someone living in poverty in Mumbai or north of the arctic? 

I couldn't wait for a reply so I started to google this myself 

https://ensia.com/features/sustainable-intensification/

[soon]

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Just a few things. As far as I know there is only one company adding heme to their vegetarian burgers, and the reason is they have patented that invention. As for heme itself, it helps make the food taste more like meat but also look like meat (with running, red juices). So it makes vegetarian food more palatable to meat lovers  And fun fact: That company using genetically modified organisms to both produce the heme and the soy proteins.

Im no Heme burger fan, as my post attests too. Impossible Burger holds the patent, yes.

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think carbon trapped in the soil "escapes" when plants are up-rooted, or it happens more slowly than I think people will get the impression of from your post. The carbon in the plants themselves are of course released back into the carbon cycle, but carbon trapped in the soil (in less degradable plant matter like starch and so on) doesn't suddenly turn into CO₂ gas just because plants are harvested. What happens in that with no new carbon being added to the soil (because the plants are gone), microorganisms will turn to the trapped carbon and degrade it, releasing CO₂. So barren land will slowly lose its trapped carbon. But yeah.

If anything me sticking to the example of agriculture and logging was down playing it. Because there are other extractive industries plus clearing space for housing and infrastucrure. Also we need to remain aware of the natural situations that release trapped carbon like river banks eroding and trees falling out and natural disasters. So, in net it is certainly a carbon foot print budget line. Thank you for further unpacking the process!

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

What makes me wonder is, how scalable is such "small scale, organic, bio dynamic cattle farming" and your type of agriculture? Our way of producing crops and meats have been developed to provide as cheap food as cost-efficiently as possible for humanity, all 7 billion of us (or whatever it is now). And it comes on the costs of environmental sustainability, absolutely. And that is terrible, I agree. But your method (and I know this is not something you have come up with ;)) seems extremely more labor-intensive and yet will yield less crops in the end, wouldn't it? It is probably nice as a hobby for people who can afford the time and money, or for smaller settlements with access to nature that will allow for this, but what about someone living in poverty in Mumbai or north of the arctic?

Of course I didnt make up this model... posting assumptions is what climate deniers do!!  It can be very intensive, such as with CSA boxes.

* It doesnt have to be cattle farming. Other animal are easier, in fact.

Not only can we small scale farm in the country side on existing farm lands. We can have urban farms too! Having farms in city limits isnt an issue with the proper approach. Its just making choices.

Either way, small scale farming is often less labour intensive, but thats not necessarily good in the eventuality that manufacturing and tech bleed workers. 

These are the macro changes that we've both advocated our govs to take the lead on. Tax incentives for developers to include farm land as part of other urban builds. Or better yet stipulations (this is already a practice here where developers have to make parks of all types and pay to maintain natural spaces in exchange for the lisence to build).

We have a large scale farm right in the middle of Ottawa. This is about 15 minutes bike from Parliament hill.  https://www5.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/offices-and-locations/central-experimental-farm/?id=1170701489551

In Ottawa we aim to produce 50% of our food within our region by 2050  We have another farm in the city limits that trains people in small scale farming with aims that they launch a agro business at the end https://justfood.ca/just-food-farm/ 

And within about 50k we have the food bank farm where we grow local food for the poor and struggling  And the volunteers learn to grow in the process!!

 

Of course the conventional farms in the countryside can be transitioned from industrial to small(er) scale. Incentives, grade school preps, trade school grants, 3 years guaranteed income for new farmers, etc And grants for industrial farmers to make the switch. And figuring out the whole seasonal workers thing.

Chopping the huge industrial farms in 2, 3 or 4 also accommodates a booming population 

This Ottawa Region bio dynamic farm, in the country side, is a pretty large scale operation (if you only watch one vid, make it this one!):

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by soon

[soon]

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I couldn't wait for a reply so I started to google this myself 

https://ensia.com/features/sustainable-intensification/

Nice . I think these guidelines would make for an excellent Global Standard. And where we can do better, we should.

I'd push back against 'organic being low yield' though.

They mention the importance of carbon sequestering (by not disturbing soil) twice  

I like their focus on 'abundance.' I think we can take that as a philosophy too. An abundance of ideas and experiments. An abundance of newly created jobs. Community in abundance. So long as we dont get confused with the separate philosospy of "mass production."

Edited October 16, 2019 by soon

[DieselDaisy]

Man has been eating meat since the beginning of time. It is all utter nonsense. 

[soon]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Man has been eating meat since the beginning of time. It is all utter nonsense. 

You think that eating meat is nonsense? But man has been doing it "since the beginning of time" !! 

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, soon said:

You think that eating meat is nonsense? But man has been doing it "since the beginning of time" !! 

Man has been eating meat since the beginning of time. It (environmental veganism) is all utter nonsense 

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Man has been eating meat since the beginning of time. It is all utter nonsense. 

Man been stupid since we were evolved, too. And I suppose your post means you think we should continue to be stupid.

I am not an advocate of vegetarianism or veganism. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with either, but from an environmental perspective I don't think we need to go that far. Reducing meat consumption and a systemic shift of agriculture/food production (as @soon has been pointing out) will hopefully and likely be sufficient. 

[DeadSlash]

On 4/24/2019 at 6:50 AM, DieselDaisy said:

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

14 more countries are worse offenders than Britain! But by all means pick on Britain. Every other cunt is. 

I wonder if there is a newer breakdown?  It was my understanding that India was about to, or had already, passed the US.  

[action]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Man been stupid since we were evolved, too.

newsflash. we still are

being stupid is a characteristic. just like you can't change the color of your eyes, you can't one day decide "from now on, I won't be stupid anymore".

I also think, our collective stupidness vastly increases over time. Or are you telling me that you are watching television / the news, you see the wars, the scandals, the crying, scaremongering and conclude "wow, we as mankind surely are an intelligent species"?

How then, do you think it's remotely possible that mankind will change their way of life over something abstract such as carbon emissions?

Edited October 17, 2019 by action