Climate Change Thread

[I like neeps]

That’s fucking mad, makes the presenter and TalkRadio look like idiots

They doubled down on it too

[sockwithaticket]

Christ, I only managed a minute of that before the smugness and complete absence of self-awareness became too much to bear.

Funny thing about words, is that their multiple meanings are often inextricably linked to their contextual usage. When someone's talking abou growing trees, saying you can grow concrete is moronic.

This is my first exposure to talkRADIO, is it basically the radio equivalent of GB news? That's how this whole episode makes them seem.

[I like neeps]

Christ, I only managed a minute of that before the smugness and complete absence of self-awareness became too much to bear.

Funny thing about words, is that their multiple meanings are often inextricably linked to their contextual usage. When someone's talking abou growing trees, saying you can grow concrete is moronic.

This is my first exposure to talkRADIO, is it basically the radio equivalent of GB news? That's how this whole episode makes them seem.

Yeah but more obviously extreme as it's Murdoch owned. It's the sister channel of talkSPORT.

[Biffer]

Cutting taxes on domestic aviation in the UK. Really good for the environment that.

[Line6 HXFX]

Gawd, the English are cunts.
Piggish, plump, knee deep in the blood of the poor, sick and unemployed, punching down cunts.

These are your guys England.

Not trying to make this nationalistic, and make you all rush to the defence of these creatures..but has any civilised society on the planet produced this amount of unashamed, right wing, gammon wank?

What the fuck is it with you lot?
How do you look at Jeremy Kyle and not recognise him for every bit of the cunt he is?

[inactionman]

Gawd, the English are cunts.
Piggish, plump, knee deep in the blood of the poor, sick and unemployed, punchibg down cunts.

These are your guys England.

Not making this nationalistic, but has any civilised society on the planet produced this amount of unashamed wank?

Settle down.

As for your concluding question, it's almost like Trump never existed.

[Line6 HXFX]

I mean, at least our massively gammon, hateful, wanker (RT Davies, leader of the Welsh Tories) was self conscious enough to wake up one day, realise he was a cunt and quit...and checked himself into rehab..


Your lot just go on and on and on, from cradle to grave.

Though from the nation that gave us George Osborne...am I am expecting way too much?

[NeilOJism]

Gawd, the English are cunts.
Piggish, plump, knee deep in the blood of the poor, sick and unemployed, punching down cunts.

These are your guys England.

Not trying to make this nationalistic, and make you all rush to the defence of these creatures..but has any civilised society on the planet produced this amount of unashamed, right wing, gammon wank?

What the fuck is it with you lot?
How do you look at Jeremy Kyle and not recognise him for every bit of the cunt he is?

Never change, REFRY...

[Line6 HXFX]

Sorry, I am sure that cunts like this exist in other nations, other than England, like apartheid era South Africa or ...the extremes of the Right wing media in America, that is dominated by the Trump family, and other areas I guess...and to say it is an English trait to be cruel, spiteful, heartless nasty and selfish is a over generalisation, but when you put Jeremy Kyke and this flabby faced fucking gammon creature together, it just shocks and appals the system.

"Revolting" doesn't touch it.

[Slick]

China says nothing, India pledges action decades too late. What an enormous fucking waste of time. Who would have guessed.

I'm sure in years to come people will look back on this and laugh their tits off that tens of thousands of people flew in from around the world to agree nothing.

[Lobby]

World leaders setting a great example in reducing their impact as well

[Paddington Bear]

Are we really going to stand here and pretend that Biden was going to take the bus?

[Lobby]

Are we really going to stand here and pretend that Biden was going to take the bus?

I suppose we should applaud him for his effort in reducing his motorcade to about 20 cars and buses, rather than the 85 he required in Rome.

[Paddington Bear]

Are we really going to stand here and pretend that Biden was going to take the bus?

I suppose we should applaud him for his effort in reducing his motorcade to about 20 cars and buses, rather than the 85 he required in Rome.

He's the most powerful man in the world and has a security detail to match.

[robmatic]

Are we really going to stand here and pretend that Biden was going to take the bus?

I suppose we should applaud him for his effort in reducing his motorcade to about 20 cars and buses, rather than the 85 he required in Rome.

He's the most powerful man in the world and has a security detail to match.

Erdogan didn't attend because the Brits wouldn't let him have a security detail as big as Biden's.

[Jock42]

If you're a bit bored follow @RAFLuton on twitter for a bit of a laugh.

[weegie01]

My wife's family have been hill farmers for generations. They are among many farmers who bridle at the suggestion that stopping eating meat will help solve global warming. One of the key points they make is that if they were not growing sheep and cattle in the hills, no food would be coming out from that ground at all. The calories they generate would have to be replaced by calories imported from elsewhere, which means more land elsewhere will have to be given over to arable farming. And since there is no good arable land left just lying around, that means more habitat destruction.

So one set of relations made this video to give people a bit more of an idea of where (some of) their food comes from.



Fun fact. I was at school with Mary McCall Smith who is featured. Her uncle is Alexander McCall Smith.

[Biffer]

My wife's family have been hill farmers for generations. They are among many farmers who bridle at the suggestion that stopping eating meat will help solve global warming. One of the key points they make is that if they were not growing sheep and cattle in the hills, no food would be coming out from that ground at all. The calories they generate would have to be replaced by calories imported from elsewhere, which means more land elsewhere will have to be given over to arable farming. And since there is no good arable land left just lying around, that means more habitat destruction.

So one set of relations made this video to give people a bit more of an idea of where (some of) their food comes from.



Fun fact. I was at school with Mary McCall Smith who is featured. Her uncle is Alexander McCall Smith.

So, I understand where they're coming from and broadly agree, but from an environmental point of view the uplands were for the most part fully forested before they were used for sheep farming. So their importance in carbon sequestration and storage, if not used for farming, is positive. Land use isn't just food production.

[Guy Smiley]

You could grow more food indoors using hydroponics and grow lights using less energy and effort for greater profitability...

but grazin's what we know and we're quite happy doin' it thankye

[weegie01]

You could grow more food indoors using hydroponics and grow lights using less energy and effort for greater profitability...

but grazin's what we know and we're quite happy doin' it thankye

Hydroponics and other indoor systems are a growing part of agriculture. But they are enormously capital intensive, and whilst they will have an increasing role in the agricultural future, they are no panacea.

Hydroponics are also hugely energy intensive. The main source of energy for all food is the sun. For crops grown indoors, this has to be replaced by generated power. In addition to the capital cost, this restricts the amount that can be grown indoors, and indeed what can be profitably grown.

There are a significant number of the plants which make up the bulk of our food that either don't grow well hydroponically, or if they can be the energy issues mean there is no current way to do so at anything remotely cost effectively. Research is going on, but for many of our main food plants the cost of growing them hydroponically is so high that there is currently no expectation of them ever becoming feasible.

[weegie01]

My wife's family have been hill farmers for generations. They are among many farmers who bridle at the suggestion that stopping eating meat will help solve global warming. One of the key points they make is that if they were not growing sheep and cattle in the hills, no food would be coming out from that ground at all. The calories they generate would have to be replaced by calories imported from elsewhere, which means more land elsewhere will have to be given over to arable farming. And since there is no good arable land left just lying around, that means more habitat destruction.

So one set of relations made this video to give people a bit more of an idea of where (some of) their food comes from.



Fun fact. I was at school with Mary McCall Smith who is featured. Her uncle is Alexander McCall Smith.

So, I understand where they're coming from and broadly agree, but from an environmental point of view the uplands were for the most part fully forested before they were used for sheep farming. So their importance in carbon sequestration and storage, if not used for farming, is positive. Land use isn't just food production.

Sheep farming did not drive deforestation, it took advantage of it. Over half Scotland's forest were gone before the Romans got here. By the time the Clearances came along, most of the rest was also gone. The sheep that came after just replace the people and their communal farms.

I am planting trees. I see the need and advantages in doing so. But the point still stands, if land is taken out of food production for trees, the food has to be substituted from elsewhere. And as the world is now, that probably means deforestation elsewhere.

What I rail against is the simplistic panaceas put forward and latched onto. There is a whole range of inter-related actions required to both feed the planet, and reduce our carbon footprint while doing so.

[Biffer]

My wife's family have been hill farmers for generations. They are among many farmers who bridle at the suggestion that stopping eating meat will help solve global warming. One of the key points they make is that if they were not growing sheep and cattle in the hills, no food would be coming out from that ground at all. The calories they generate would have to be replaced by calories imported from elsewhere, which means more land elsewhere will have to be given over to arable farming. And since there is no good arable land left just lying around, that means more habitat destruction.

So one set of relations made this video to give people a bit more of an idea of where (some of) their food comes from.



Fun fact. I was at school with Mary McCall Smith who is featured. Her uncle is Alexander McCall Smith.

So, I understand where they're coming from and broadly agree, but from an environmental point of view the uplands were for the most part fully forested before they were used for sheep farming. So their importance in carbon sequestration and storage, if not used for farming, is positive. Land use isn't just food production.

Sheep farming did not drive deforestation, it took advantage of it. Over half Scotland's forest were gone before the Romans got here. By the time the Clearances came along, most of the rest was also gone. The sheep that came after just replace the people and their communal farms.

I am planting trees. I see the need and advantages in doing so. But the point still stands, if land is taken out of food production for trees, the food has to be substituted from elsewhere. And as the world is now, that probably means deforestation elsewhere.

What I rail against is the simplistic panaceas put forward and latched onto. There is a whole range of inter-related actions required to both feed the planet, and reduce our carbon footprint while doing so.

Not disagreeing with the thrust of it, but if you reduce meat consumption, in most cases you reduce the amount of land required to feed the population. Highland sheep farming is one of very few exceptions to this.

[weegie01]

Not disagreeing with the thrust of it, but if you reduce meat consumption, in most cases you reduce the amount of land required to feed the population. Highland sheep farming is one of very few exceptions to this.

I have no issue at all with the idea that we in the west should reduce our meat consumption. We all eat more than we need, and many people eat fat, far more than they need.

However, there is a far more complex relationship between livestock farming and land use than most realise.

The Highlands are a long way from being the exception. As a sweeping generalisation, globally poor land is used for grazing, land that is fertile enough for arable farming to provide food into the human food chain is used for that. There is a reason why, in the Scottish example, there is barely a fence in huge areas of East Lothian, Angus etc, and that is simply that it is the best farmland so there are no animals. Livestock farms appear as you get to the poorer soils.

At the two extremes we have the fertile land used to grow crops for human consumption, then at the other vast areas of the world where crops are impossible so livestock is farmed. The first can be used for either livestock or arable but is only ever used for arable, the second can only ever be used for livestock. There is a reason that in many areas of the world ranches / stock farms are in measured in 10s if not 100s of thousands of acres, and that is that the need to be that big due to the poor quality of the land.

The interesting bit is the land in between.

Only about half the arable land produces food for human consumption. About 10% goes for biofuel, the rest for animal feed. I think it is something like 12 vegetable calories fed to an animal to produce one beef calorie. The obvious solution is to stop feeding so much to animals and use it for humans as we'd get 12 times as many calories.

Except that a lot of the feed fed to animals is too poor quality to go into the human food chain. Everything is a continuum so I am sure it is possible to convert or adapt the better quality fairly easily to the human food chain, but for the really poor quality stuff, at the moment the best way to do this is by feeding it animals.

So in summary, let's come up with a solution that makes the best use of all land in terms of the calories it can produce, which in more case than people seem to realise will be by livestock farming, though in all likelihood less than today.

[Biffer]

Not disagreeing with the thrust of it, but if you reduce meat consumption, in most cases you reduce the amount of land required to feed the population. Highland sheep farming is one of very few exceptions to this.

I have no issue at all with the idea that we in the west should reduce our meat consumption. We all eat more than we need, and many people eat fat, far more than they need.

However, there is a far more complex relationship between livestock farming and land use than most realise.

The Highlands are a long way from being the exception. As a sweeping generalisation, globally poor land is used for grazing, land that is fertile enough for arable farming to provide food into the human food chain is used for that. There is a reason why, in the Scottish example, there is barely a fence in huge areas of East Lothian, Angus etc, and that is simply that it is the best farmland so there are no animals. Livestock farms appear as you get to the poorer soils.

At the two extremes we have the fertile land used to grow crops for human consumption, then at the other vast areas of the world where crops are impossible so livestock is farmed. The first can be used for either livestock or arable but is only ever used for arable, the second can only ever be used for livestock. There is a reason that in many areas of the world ranches / stock farms are in measured in 10s if not 100s of thousands of acres, and that is that the need to be that big due to the poor quality of the land.

The interesting bit is the land in between.

Only about half the arable land produces food for human consumption. About 10% goes for biofuel, the rest for animal feed. I think it is something like 12 vegetable calories fed to an animal to produce one beef calorie. The obvious solution is to stop feeding so much to animals and use it for humans as we'd get 12 times as many calories.

Except that a lot of the feed fed to animals is too poor quality to go into the human food chain. Everything is a continuum so I am sure it is possible to convert or adapt the better quality fairly easily to the human food chain, but for the really poor quality stuff, at the moment the best way to do this is by feeding it animals.

So in summary, let's come up with a solution that makes the best use of all land in terms of the calories it can produce, which in more case than people seem to realise will be by livestock farming, though in all likelihood less than today.

Yeah, it’s horrendously complex.

Have you seen the EAT Lancet commission report on what constitutes a sustainable diet? Very interesting and when you think it through it’s very good thing to tune your own diet to.

https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/

[fishfoodie]

Yeah, it’s horrendously complex.

Never truer word spoken !

Some years ago Irish Sugar closed its last remaining refinery, that used to process sugar beets for the domestic market.

There was outrage in Irish farming, because Sugar beet is a crop you plant in a regular crop cycle, & if you can't sell it for refining for sugar, then all it's fit for is fodder, & the drop in income to the farmer is vast.

So the farmers lost income, & the country needed to import sugar, with all the associated extra carbon of transport.

Geography & climate are incredibly important. Ireland can only produce wheat fit for milling for flour in maybe 1 year in 20; but we have the perfect climate for producing milk, & grass fed beef.

The carbon trading business has a bad rep, but if agriculture is going to be setup to succeed, then there has to a system that makes it possible for cattle to be slaughtered in Ireland, & the beef to be sold in Birmingham, or Berlin; rather than the beef to be raised in Brazil, or Oz, & that beef to make it all the way to Europe.

[weegie01]

As many people rush to put in woodburners, a cautionary tale.

We are in the process of getting our 5 wood burners serviced.

We used a HETAS approved installer to put them in, and had them serviced regularly by them. They went out of business during lockdown. We have used the same chimney sweep for years but could not get hold of him so got a new sweep with various accreditations.

The new sweep went through all five woodburners and chimneys. One woodburner was condemned on the 'I can't believe the house has not caught fire basis'. Two were condemned on a 'what cowboy put these in' basis. The other two needed tweaking.

The work was done by the new HETAS installer. One new woodburner of a different type was needed as it was cheaper than doing all the remedial work, lots of parts were needed, but the killer was when they asked if we had ever had the woodburners serviced. They assumed from what they'd found that we had done the cosmetic stuff ourselves but never had a proper service done.

We are also in breach in that we have 3 woodburners over 5kw with no air vents in the floor / wall which we'd never been told we needed.

Apart from that, everything is fine.

I am very peeved about this. We have had poor quality workmanship done before, but not on things that could genuinely set the house on fire.