| Question for the Eco warriers on here 10:17 - Oct 20 with 4178 views | bluelagos |
Understand there are lots of ways to reduce our Co2 emissions / carbon footprint, but how can we ever be carbon neutral?
Just by eating say plant based diets, we still have an impact, tools for farmers need to be made, food needs to be moved. We need clothes. We need heating in winter.
So even after we go as green as possible, surely we will still generating a carbon footprint? Whaf am I missing? |  |
| |  |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:20 - Oct 20 with 3507 views | Footballpete |
I'm by no means an expert, but aren't there things that can be done to counterbalance the examples you site, such as reforestation? |  |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:21 - Oct 20 with 3504 views | Herbivore |
Yes we will always have a carbon footprint but it's about offsetting it. The world can cope with us producing a certain amount of carbon dioxide and things like re-wilding help to increase that capacity. The issue is not to produce more carbon than can be absorbed by the environment, and things like going vegan, not flying, using public transport etc. help individuals to ensure they aren't producing an excess. What's really needed though is for businesses and governments to make changes to ensure they are carbon neutral as that will have a bigger impact than individuals making changes. |  |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:24 - Oct 20 with 3484 views | StokieBlue |
It's possible to be carbon neutral but it would be difficult at the moment. Certain technologies, some of which might not be that popular would make it possible.
As herb says, there is an allowance for carbon which can be maintained, we just constantly break it.
Got to run but will try and answer more fully tonight.
COYB.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:25 - Oct 20 with 3485 views | WeWereZombies |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:20 - Oct 20 by Footballpete |
I'm by no means an expert, but aren't there things that can be done to counterbalance the examples you site, such as reforestation? |
And we are part of other ecosystems so we can fit into them in a sustainable way despite creating a volume of greenhouse gases and other adverse effects if those are offset by other elements in the systems. It is a combination of our proliferation, living longer and at an enhanced degree of performance, and finally being far too profligate with resources that is causing long term harmful effects. |  |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:25 - Oct 20 with 3483 views | bluelagos |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:21 - Oct 20 by Herbivore |
Yes we will always have a carbon footprint but it's about offsetting it. The world can cope with us producing a certain amount of carbon dioxide and things like re-wilding help to increase that capacity. The issue is not to produce more carbon than can be absorbed by the environment, and things like going vegan, not flying, using public transport etc. help individuals to ensure they aren't producing an excess. What's really needed though is for businesses and governments to make changes to ensure they are carbon neutral as that will have a bigger impact than individuals making changes. |
So it's about reducing our carbon footprint to a sustainable level rather than to nil? Offsetting (new trees) would help too, can see that. | |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:26 - Oct 20 with 3484 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Because the entire argument is fatuous cr@p. All that needs to be done is allow the world to absorb the excess CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) being produced. That can be done naturally or artificially. Billy moo cows are vegans - but they produce an awful lot of greenhouse gases. |  |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:29 - Oct 20 with 3467 views | Oldsmoker |
Stop farting.
 |  |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:31 - Oct 20 with 3461 views | Herbivore |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:26 - Oct 20 by ElephantintheRoom |
Because the entire argument is fatuous cr@p. All that needs to be done is allow the world to absorb the excess CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) being produced. That can be done naturally or artificially. Billy moo cows are vegans - but they produce an awful lot of greenhouse gases. |
My word. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:32 - Oct 20 with 3455 views | Herbivore |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:25 - Oct 20 by bluelagos |
So it's about reducing our carbon footprint to a sustainable level rather than to nil? Offsetting (new trees) would help too, can see that. |
Indeed, we can't realistically reach a point of zero emissions so it's about keeping emissions at a sustainable level. | |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:33 - Oct 20 with 3456 views | WeWereZombies |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:26 - Oct 20 by ElephantintheRoom |
Because the entire argument is fatuous cr@p. All that needs to be done is allow the world to absorb the excess CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) being produced. That can be done naturally or artificially. Billy moo cows are vegans - but they produce an awful lot of greenhouse gases. |
Wouldn't Billy moo cows actually be bulls? That's a whole different gender of cattle... | |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:36 - Oct 20 with 3446 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:33 - Oct 20 by WeWereZombies |
Wouldn't Billy moo cows actually be bulls? That's a whole different gender of cattle... |
Maybe they are gender neutral steers. | |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 11:21 - Oct 20 with 3382 views | agentp |
We have evolved beyond ever being carbon neutral or being able to offset it. The size of the worlds population could never be provided with enough food and medicine without having a negative carbon effect.
We need to deny people food and the right to life achieve neutrality.
That said we can make a huge difference. The issue that I see that most people want others to change while denying their own responsibilities. A friends daughter - due to her rural location, has a taxi take her to college everyday - 120m round trip. Two holidays a year to Thailand and Ibiza and eats mainly fruit - imported. Buys shed loads of cr4p online, she is always protesting for us to change the way we live. [Post edited 20 Oct 2019 11:22]
| |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 11:47 - Oct 20 with 3343 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Would offer a fuller reply but it is hard to while hugging this tree. |  |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 11:47 - Oct 20 with 3343 views | J2BLUE |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 11:21 - Oct 20 by agentp |
We have evolved beyond ever being carbon neutral or being able to offset it. The size of the worlds population could never be provided with enough food and medicine without having a negative carbon effect.
We need to deny people food and the right to life achieve neutrality.
That said we can make a huge difference. The issue that I see that most people want others to change while denying their own responsibilities. A friends daughter - due to her rural location, has a taxi take her to college everyday - 120m round trip. Two holidays a year to Thailand and Ibiza and eats mainly fruit - imported. Buys shed loads of cr4p online, she is always protesting for us to change the way we live. [Post edited 20 Oct 2019 11:22]
|
'The size of the worlds population could never be provided with enough food and medicine without having a negative carbon effect.'
Animals produce methane. If we started eating some of the massive amount of crops we grow just to feed animals we could actually feed the entire world with much less of a carbon cost and we'd have a shed load more land left over which we could use to plant trees etc and offset even more. |  |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:03 - Oct 20 with 3287 views | agentp |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 11:47 - Oct 20 by J2BLUE |
'The size of the worlds population could never be provided with enough food and medicine without having a negative carbon effect.'
Animals produce methane. If we started eating some of the massive amount of crops we grow just to feed animals we could actually feed the entire world with much less of a carbon cost and we'd have a shed load more land left over which we could use to plant trees etc and offset even more. |
No, we couldn't. We really couldn't | |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:06 - Oct 20 with 3274 views | Herbivore |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:03 - Oct 20 by agentp |
No, we couldn't. We really couldn't |
Show your working. | |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:14 - Oct 20 with 3269 views | sparks |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 10:25 - Oct 20 by bluelagos |
So it's about reducing our carbon footprint to a sustainable level rather than to nil? Offsetting (new trees) would help too, can see that. |
In the long run, new trees wont help that much. New trees will capture carbon, and then when they die, get used, decompose, burn etc- they release it again... |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:18 - Oct 20 with 3262 views | J2BLUE |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:03 - Oct 20 by agentp |
No, we couldn't. We really couldn't |
I suggest you do some research. | |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:23 - Oct 20 with 3246 views | sparks |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:03 - Oct 20 by agentp |
No, we couldn't. We really couldn't |
Yes we could. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:29 - Oct 20 with 3237 views | J2BLUE |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:14 - Oct 20 by sparks |
In the long run, new trees wont help that much. New trees will capture carbon, and then when they die, get used, decompose, burn etc- they release it again... |
Apparently beech trees have a large appetite for carbon and they live for 150-200 years. Would it not be worth using them to kick the can down the road while we use the time wisely to come up with new technologies to deal with the problem?
I know trees aren't the whole answer but every little helps for now? [Post edited 20 Oct 2019 16:30]
| |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:35 - Oct 20 with 3221 views | jeera |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:14 - Oct 20 by sparks |
In the long run, new trees wont help that much. New trees will capture carbon, and then when they die, get used, decompose, burn etc- they release it again... |
But surely that's defeatable.
If they're managed and the time comes for a tree's final death throe, a massive plastic bag can be thrown over its head to capture the carbon.
Then the bag can be thrown into the sea. Or something like that. |  |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:36 - Oct 20 with 3215 views | J2BLUE |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:35 - Oct 20 by jeera |
But surely that's defeatable.
If they're managed and the time comes for a tree's final death throe, a massive plastic bag can be thrown over its head to capture the carbon.
Then the bag can be thrown into the sea. Or something like that. |
We could use Mars as a dump? | |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:38 - Oct 20 with 3211 views | agentp |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:06 - Oct 20 by Herbivore |
Show your working. |
I shouldn't need to. We are producing way too much meat and growing far too many crops to sustain that, I agree. We are pumping the world full of fertiliser to grow crops for both sides of the argument, but what is happening here is that the human consumption tonnage that doesn't make human consumption. I.e Barley and Oats with too high a moisture content, over-production during to the high yield years, damaged crops etc [Just some examples] are included in both sides figures to add weight to their argument and there lies the problem - honesty in the debate. You can't provide the figures and neither can I until we have honesty.
However, If we take the figures manipulated by the meat producers and compare them with the figures manipulated by the veggie brigade and average them out and they show we cannot be Carbon neutral nationally, let alone internationally. Alternatively, we could just look at the volumes of food flying around the globe and think for a minute.
We are intent on destroying the planet to produce convenience, and sh1t that we don't need, and until that is addressed the figures will be meaningless.
My daughter [at Uni]is a Mathematican and gets involves in all kinds of complicated discussions where numbers are involved. She has been recently on a paper regarding the true impact of our shopping habits. Her tutor - a hippy personified, uses food production in that and clearly states that we cannot be carbon neutral in food production with the size of the population, I tend to believe him TBH
Personally, eat little meat nowadays for health reasons and those we are discussing here, but we are destroying this planet by false ideals, lies and misrepresentations as much as by actions
Can't write anymore the Wi-fi here is shocking. Words are appearing 30 seconds after i am writing them. | |
| |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:47 - Oct 20 with 3186 views | J2BLUE |
| Question for the Eco warriers on here on 16:38 - Oct 20 by agentp |
I shouldn't need to. We are producing way too much meat and growing far too many crops to sustain that, I agree. We are pumping the world full of fertiliser to grow crops for both sides of the argument, but what is happening here is that the human consumption tonnage that doesn't make human consumption. I.e Barley and Oats with too high a moisture content, over-production during to the high yield years, damaged crops etc [Just some examples] are included in both sides figures to add weight to their argument and there lies the problem - honesty in the debate. You can't provide the figures and neither can I until we have honesty.
However, If we take the figures manipulated by the meat producers and compare them with the figures manipulated by the veggie brigade and average them out and they show we cannot be Carbon neutral nationally, let alone internationally. Alternatively, we could just look at the volumes of food flying around the globe and think for a minute.
We are intent on destroying the planet to produce convenience, and sh1t that we don't need, and until that is addressed the figures will be meaningless.
My daughter [at Uni]is a Mathematican and gets involves in all kinds of complicated discussions where numbers are involved. She has been recently on a paper regarding the true impact of our shopping habits. Her tutor - a hippy personified, uses food production in that and clearly states that we cannot be carbon neutral in food production with the size of the population, I tend to believe him TBH
Personally, eat little meat nowadays for health reasons and those we are discussing here, but we are destroying this planet by false ideals, lies and misrepresentations as much as by actions
Can't write anymore the Wi-fi here is shocking. Words are appearing 30 seconds after i am writing them. |
So you're using anecdotal evidence and your own made up stats? I don't think I said we could be entirely neutral anyway. I just said that is a way to make a big impact and would leave land over to further reduce carbon with trees etc. I don't think we need to be entirely carbon neutral do we? Just need to dramatically reduce our emissions? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
