Skip to main content

View Diary: UN chief scientist urges action on climate: 'We have five minutes before midnight' (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nations Don't Have the Power to Act. (16+ / 0-)

    He needs to take this to global ownership. Only they can give governments the power to act.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:20:50 AM PDT

    •  nations can reduce their own consumption... (15+ / 0-)

      that task seems to be difficult enough

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:24:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kill Global Ownership should be item #1 (5+ / 0-)

      on the action list.

      Then maybe they'd say Hey, no, we'll cooperate, please don't kill us.

      /snark or is it.

      •  not easy to do but easy to reduce our own (11+ / 0-)

        consumption

        Macca's Meatless Monday

        by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:50:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure (11+ / 0-)

          but how much impact is that really going to have?

          Not that we shouldn't. I do, and my husband and I live frugally in an environmental and consumer sense.

          But I've seen charts which list types of pollution in the US. Agricultural pollution, etc. etc. all seem to be extremely high. We can reduce our consumption as individuals - but corporations also need to take a lot of responsibility. I'd love to see a breakdown - how much pollution is caused by individuals? How much by corporations?

          Because it seems to me that, as in many other things, we citizens are shouldering the burdens belonging to corporations.

          •  doesn't matter who solves the problem... (8+ / 0-)

            as long as it's solved.

            Macca's Meatless Monday

            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:40:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Long been debunked (15+ / 0-)

              If I quit my job, lived in the woods, and used no fossil fuel, the problem would not be solved.

              We have to get the resource giants to quit digging and mining. If you believe people will voluntarily stop driving, when we don't even have a decent public transportation system, well, sorry.

              The problem has to start with Exxon, BP, coal diggers, tar sands companies, and many other huge mining interests.

              They take the material out of the Earth without paying for it. Its not their earth to destroy, but they will if we don't stop them.

              Supply and demand dynamics will not function in this context. Our government is subsidizing big oil to the tune of billions a year. It has got to start there.

              A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

              by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:21:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You can do all that, 100 of us can do (5+ / 0-)

                all that, and not come close to counteracting the impact of one leer jet asshole.

                "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

                by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:32:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you're advocating that people do nothing... (6+ / 0-)

                  that is the problem

                  Macca's Meatless Monday

                  by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:31:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, that's not what he's saying (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueoasis, DawnN

                    VL, you're putting words in his mouth. Nowhere does Jesse say that people should do nothing.  What he DOES say is that people should do something that will actually help to solve the problem.  Reducing one's consumption is not a bad thing, but it will not solve the problem. Building a movement will.  

                    FYI, you seem more interested in reducing meat consumption than in solving climate change.  That's fine if that's your priority, but if so then I think you should be upfront about that in any climate change diary.  

                    •  you didn't even look at the video right? the (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Crider, julesrules39

                      same UN chief scientist who made the remarks made the video

                      Macca's Meatless Monday

                      by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:22:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Reducing meat consumption is not anywhere near (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueoasis, Pescadero Bill, DawnN

                      as important for the individual to do as reducing direct consumption of energy in all of its forms....

                      Saying that meat consumption is the most important thing a person can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions impact is just plain wrong and unscientific advice.

                      •  You keep on saying this (4+ / 0-)

                        but VL Baker provides quie a bit of evidence to support her claim. If you have a factual rebuttal with links why keep it to yourself? Prove your case!

                        "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                        by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:04:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  yes, LS is in disagreement with Dr. Pachauri too (3+ / 0-)

                          in video Dr. P says that reducing meat consumption is most effective way for individuals to reduce personal greenhouse gases.

                          Macca's Meatless Monday

                          by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:20:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  James Hansen agrees with Dr. Pachauri too (3+ / 0-)

                            so Lake Superior disagrees with both lol

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:25:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think LS disagrees with climate change. (3+ / 0-)

                            He's been trolling your diaries for some time. Engaging in debate is one thing. Sewing the seeds of doubt is quite another. I've already contacted the admins and I encourage others to do the same so we can sort out what team he's on. As your diary points out we no longer have time to mess around with people who continue to ignore the facts.

                            Time for LS to put up or shut up.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:37:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It doesn't make any difference what Lake Superior (0+ / 0-)

                            thinks - his opinion doesn't change the fact that appeals to authority are fallacious, especially when authorities are talking out of their ... field.

                            And I'd be happy to put up rather than shut up when I have some time to write a diary, because the diaries about ag and climate science are almost entirely based on either ideology or a narrow - not wholistic or system-wide - examination of the issues.

                            I'm sorry you feel so threatened by another poster that you have to try and get him/her censored.

                            No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin

                            by badger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:32:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's all I'm asking for (3+ / 0-)

                            If you can factually prove from objective sources (not industry lobbying groups) that this UN report which concludes that meat production causes more greenhouse gasses than cars is total BS then I'd love to hear it. This is a reality-based community after all. The user I'm referring to doesn't do that and seems ultimately concerned with sewing doubt, not engaging in a debate about the facts.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:54:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here is what EPA states as the sector contribution (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pescadero Bill, DawnN, Sarenth

                            to emissions of greenhouse gases here in the United States from agriculture:

                            http://www.epa.gov/...

                            The entire agriculture sector contributes 8% of United States greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalents.  

                            Of all of the economic sectors of electricity production, industrial production, residential and commercial and transportation, the entire agriculture sector produces the least greenhouse gas emissions of all United States economic sectors show.   Transportation and electricity produce far more CO2 equivalents than agriculture does.....and this is a result that contradicts the conclusions of the UN report, at least for purposes of agriculture in the United States.

                          •  So your rebuttal to the UN Report is a pie chart? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, julesrules39

                            If what VL Baker is asserting is so far out of the scientific mainstream there should be a mountain of evidence refuting her rather than a mountain of evidence support her, right? You can do better than that, can't you?

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:04:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The pie chart showing all of agriculture as only (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pescadero Bill

                            contributing only 8% of all emissions of greenhouse gas CO2 equivalents is summary information from the final EPA emission inventory for the United States published in 2013.

                            When confronted with EPA's depiction of the present reality of what United States agriculture sector emissions are, you're proclivity is to engage in an act of science denial in rejecting the final findings of the primary U.S. Government agency responsible for tracking CO2e emission inventories in the United States.

                            You make this rejection without any ability to cite a valid reason for your rejection, which is solely motivated by your political/ideological view against meat and not as a scientific finding of emissions determination.

                            This is the best data available describing the actual physical reality of emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States from human-caused sources.  

                            At a very minimum, use of a 2013 U.S. greenhouse gas emission inventory is preferable to using a 2006 emission inventory and calculation for decisionmaking purposes.   If you have a reason that a 2006 emission inventory is preferable to using a 2013 emission inventory, I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for that, if you have one.

                             

                          •  Apples v. Oranges comparison (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            julesrules39

                            Did you even read the UN report or are you just content to regurgitate industry press releases? You're comparing US numbers with worldwide numbers by the UN. When did the EPA do a study of global greenhouse gas emissions and the associating factors? Show me that and you have a valid comparison. Until then you're just doing what you've always done: sewing the seeds of doubt about climate change facts.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:01:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please see my downthread comment about (0+ / 0-)

                            the UN report using an inflated value for energy per kg of body weight at sale for beef...compared to actual data recorded at the US Department of Agriculture Agriculture Research Service facility in Nebraska explicitly tasked with determining the energy impacts of typical animal agriculture systems carried out under USDA NRCS standards and practices.   In addition, the UN data is not for the most recent emission inventory year.

                            Agricultural research carried out by the USDA and published by that agency are not industry press releases and are valid agronomy scientific work products.   Of course that won't mean anything to you if you're a denier of agricultural science.

                          •  Have to disagree with you again. You are (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            stating that the research published is not done so with any influence from the industries and is totally unbiased?  In reality, part of the government's job is to weigh the public good along with the economic impact.  BigAg is a huge factor in the US economy.

                            The US industrialized food systems were developed for mass production, not from a sustainability perspective.  They are in many ways influenced by the industries that make monies from livestock production.  For example, 80% of the antibiotics sold in the US are for animals raised for livestock.  About 40% of the corn grown in the US is for livestock feed.

                            Here's what Wikipedia says about Michael Taylor (Deputy Commissioner of the FDA:

                            "Taylor is featured in the documentaries The Future of Food and The World According to Monsanto[23] as a pertinent example of revolving door since he is a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA."

                          •  I guess your position is that the US Dept of (0+ / 0-)

                            Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service does not practice science.  

                          •  The UN report was written by scientists (0+ / 0-)

                            so how does using it to prove my point make me a “science denier”? Show me where I even "denied" the data you’ve provided? You have failed to show how the USDA’s controlled study and the EPA’s assessment of greenhouse gasses apply worldwide. I’ve questioned that and you haven’t provided any additional data in response or any further rebuttal to the findings of the UN Report. The only person denying science here is you with your denial that the UN Report is valid, and you’ve attempted to do so with invalid comparisons and assertions not backed up by evidence (links). For some reason you have a strong bias to believe that everything in the report is false even though you have no scientific reason to believe that is the case. In fact, you have no way of proving that the UN Report is invalid since there isn’t another study of its scope that disputes its findings. Admit it and move on.

                            And, yes, you did provide a meat industry website as part of your evidence against the UN Report. Probably since they're the only other entity that reached the same mistaken conclusions you did. Did you forget that inconvenient fact?

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:38:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If the EPA did a study, it would probably be done (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            by a consultant to a chemical/GMO company or a meat integrator.  

                          •  You're totally wrong on this, Lake Superior. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            for reasons that the EPA's website partially states.  Their number is totally understated as I've described above.

                          •  Your position that the EPA greenhouse gas (0+ / 0-)

                            emission inventory is wrong does not have any basis.   You are not stating why the EPA emission inventory is wrong.

                            All of your objections to the EPA emission inventory and the 8% share of greenhouse gases generated by agriculture in the United States are without any specifically stated objection to the methods and data published in that report.

                            In declaring the EPA emission inventory to be wrong, you are engaging in politics and ideology....not science.

                            If it were science, they you would be able to say why the EPA emission inventory is wrong as published.

                          •  Come on, Lake Superior. You're not that stupid. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, sillia, Jason Hackman

                            The EPA website you reference provides a totally understated number for agricultural GHG emissions, by their own admission.  If you look below the pie chart to the detail, next to the Agricultural data, the site clearly states:

                            Addresses anthropogenic emissions from agricultural activities (not including fuel combustion and sewage emissions, which are addressed in the Energy and Waste chapters).
                            Not including fuel combustion and sewage emissions??? Pretty huge oversight.  That's like saying we can grow corn without using a tractor or any mechanized equipment.  We can move a couple billion cattle without any trucks.  We'll just herd them across the country ... We can call Scotty and beam that meat up to market in China or the EU.  We know that we don't do that;  but, we'll just pretend that we do.  Do you know how many times GMO fields have to be irrigated to ensure that all those lovely chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers) get into the practically dead soil and into the roots of that corn?

                            By the way, land clearing for crops (deforestation) is another huge gap in their numbers.

                            Why is that number produced to look smaller?  Hmmm ... how much lobbying monies are spent from the pharmaceutical, chemical companies and meat integrators?  How many subsidies and tax shelters are utilized in those industries.

                            I do agree with you that the number one thing from a policy perspective that must change is energy, not the total consumption, they type of energy.  Fossil fuels should be way more expensive reflecting the harm that they cause to property, health and the planetary systems.  Using sustainable energy should be the norm, not the exception.

                          •  Lake Superior appears stupid because.... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Jason Hackman, julesrules39

                            he has no common sense. So here he is auguring in a diary where the chief UN climate scientist says we have about 5 minutes to save humanity.  He needs some kind of intervention..how embarrassing for him. In the meantime he harasses.  How totally sad to have to be an industry shrill working against solutions to the greatest crisis humanity faces.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 04:39:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not so sure (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, julesrules39

                            that he's an industry shill, but

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:44:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ... he does seem more concerned with (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, julesrules39

                            refuting the findings than trying to understand them.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:48:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no common sense for sure... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Jason Hackman, julesrules39

                            it's not that he's in disagreement because he's not supporting his case very well..he's trying to be disruptive.
                            I don't deserve his harassment none of us do. Maybe that's his life...pathetic.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:00:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you trying to perfect the technique of a (0+ / 0-)

                            'non-insult' insult?

                          •  You said: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pescadero Bill, CanisMaximus

                            First of all, I am not a troll and I don't make troll comments.    I realize that you may be part of the 'everyone who disagrees with me is a troll or shill' contingent sometimes here on DK.

                            On this....

                            I think LS disagrees with climate change.
                            ...you're deliberately distorting my position saying that using the terms 'climate change' to describe our problem is not a good idea when the best description is of our problems as "global warming" problems.

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            Time for LS to put up or shut up.
                            What I'm saying is error are statements claiming that the cessation of eating meat is the most effective thing that a typical meat-eating individual can do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions as compared to all other actions that can be taken.

                            Let's start with the USDA report which can be fairly characterized as reflecting the environmental footprint of typical beef cattle CAFO-feedlot operations in the United States:

                            http://www.ars.usda.gov/...

                            The GHG impacts were:
                            10.9 kg of CO2e/kg Body Weight

                            The energy impacts were:
                            26.5 MJ/kg BW

                            To convert to lbs of meat from live weight as sold, we need the dressing percentage which we'll assume to be 59%

                            10.9 kg CO2e     kg BW
                            --------------- *   --------------  =   18.5 kg CO2e/kg meat
                            kg BW                 0.59 kg meat

                            26.5 MJ/kg BW     kg BW
                            ----------------  *  ------------------  =  44.9 MJ / kg meat
                            kg BW                   0.59 kg meat

                            Let's convert these to lbs  

                            18.5 kg CO2e
                            --------------    = 18.5 lbs CO2e/lb meat
                            kg meat

                            44.9 MJ      0.454 kg
                            ---------  *   ------------    = 20.4 MJ / lb meat
                            kg meat         lb

                            Let's assume a diet of eating 0.5 lb of U.S. grown beef per day annually or 183 lbs of beef consumption per year.

                            If that consumption was produced by typical U.S. CAFO beef production methods (not grazing beef cattle):

                            18.5 lbs CO2e / lb meat   *  183 lbs  =  3386 lbs CO2e/yr

                            This does not include energy for processing, transport and refridgeration.

                            However, let's say you drive a 23 mile per gallon vehicle  10000 miles per year for 435 gallons of gasoline consumed.

                                          0.125 mmbtu     71.35 kg CO2      2.2 lb
                            435 gal *  ----------       *   ------------   *    ----
                                            gallon               mmbtu               kg

                               =   8530 lbs of CO2e

                            If you cut driving by 20% and bought a 35 mpg vehicle, you would generate:

                                          0.125 mmbtu     71.35 kg CO2      2.2 lb
                            229 gal *  ----------       *   ------------   *    ----
                                            gallon               mmbtu               kg

                            =  4493 lbs of CO2e  for a difference of 4037 lbs of CO2e reduction from driving less and using a more efficient vehicle....and an amount exceeding the GHG emission reduction achievable by not eating U.S. beef.

                            Similar exercises can be carried out on personal electricity consumption and natural gas consumption.

                          •  Not flying anymore will be far more effective than (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pescadero Bill, Sarenth

                            ceasing the eating of meat in reducing an individual's greenhouse gas emissions.

                          •  not everyone flys and not everyone drives... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SoCaliana, julesrules39

                            but everyone eats, even children who don't drive.  so that is the difference and you said us beef you didn't mention other meat.  

                            Please write your own post and correct everything you want sure it will be of great interest.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 03:51:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What does this have to do with the UN Report? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            That's what you were going to offer a rebuttal to if I provided it to you, right? See link below.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:51:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The UN report uses an estimated energy use of (0+ / 0-)

                            51 MJ per kg body weight when USDA uses a figure about half as much and which has been determined in actual field operations to within 1% of the actual value.

                            This would dramatically affect the calculations of emissions in the UN report describing emissions from United States beef operations (not in grazing management).

                          •  Appeals to authority (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LakeSuperior

                            even to credible authorities, don't replace facts, and as far as I can determine, both sources you cite are right about climate (it's their specialty) and wrong about agriculture (in which they have no particular expertise).

                            The IPCC, for example, which has assembled ag expertise to evaluate the situation, doesn't come up with any recommendations about meat consumption. They do recommend that all ag practices need remediation to reduce GHG emissions.

                            No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin

                            by badger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:18:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Badger, the man in the video claims to be the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            current head of the IPCC, and he is recommending reduced meat consumption as a way to be healthier and fight climate change.  

                            The USDA's food pyramid has been updated to reflect that Americans should eat less meat and dairy that previously recommended.  Here's that link.

                          •  RealClimate.org (4+ / 0-)
                            All of this is well-intentioned stuff, none of it denies the central importance of CO2, and I’m sure there are many benefits to be had from reducing soot emissions sooner rather than later. Given the large agricultural component of methane emissions, keeping these emissions from growing in the face of a the need to feed a growing number of people is a serious challenge that must ultimately be met. But still, these proposals tend to convey the impression that dealing with the short-lived forcings now will in some way make it easier to deal with CO2 later, and that’s wrong. In this post, I will explain why.

                            http://www.realclimate.org/...


                            "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

                            by Pescadero Bill on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:22:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The problem is not personal (0+ / 0-)

                            Its systemic, and plutocorporocratic. Honestly, if you believe that personal habits modification will solve climate change, that may actually be an obstacle.

                            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                            by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:39:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so you advocate waiting for plutocorporocrats to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            julesrules39

                            modify your behavior..because modifying personal behavior has to happen whether it's done individually or by waiting for governmental/corporative decree.  We have lost precious time waiting for 'something' to modify our behavior.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:53:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I advocate doing something that will work (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            julesrules39

                            Like getting our energy policy changed. Why don't you read the comments I already put on this thread? I don't like to type the same thing over and over.

                            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                            by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:11:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you didn't click the diary link in last paragraph (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            julesrules39

                            above the video that explains solutions.  there is a reason for links

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:15:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes the article is well meaning (0+ / 0-)

                            But as far as taking us into the future, "we have to rid ourselves of oil addiction" does not cut it at all. Bill McKibben is more on the game. I would ride a gas hog truck to an anti-tar sands demonstration, despite the irony. Otherwise I might not be there, right?

                            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                            by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:35:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you either didn't read the piece or didn't (0+ / 0-)

                            understand it.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:40:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is a third option (0+ / 0-)

                            which you did not mention

                            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                            by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:37:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, we must advocate for policy changes with (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, sillia

                            respect to emissions and any other type of pollution that harms us.  If dirty energy remains cheaper than renewables, then people will keep using them.

                            Yet, we cannot divorce ourselves from the lifestyle changes that we can make to be part of the solution as well.  

                            Eating less unsustainably produced meat and dairy does reduce emissions significantly.  Vegans have a much lower carbon footprint (given all other variables are the same).

                            No one disputes that to my knowledge.

                        •  To do that rebuttal effectively I have to have (0+ / 0-)

                          that entire UN Food and Ag report and it is not available at the link provided.    That meat institute link suggested that portions of the UN report have been withdrawn.

                          In the meantime, here is information from tax-payer-financed USDA research on energy and other environmental footprint of at least beef grown by USDA technical methods in the United States in a typical industrial agricultural (CAFO/feedlot-style operation):

                          http://www.ars.usda.gov/...

                          The amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that a person is responsible for  as a result of their personal consumption is measured in tons per year (i.e. energy for space and water heating, for producing electricity consumed, energy for transportation, etc.).

                          The amount of greenhouse gases generated from production of beef by a person eating a typical beef-consuming diet will far, far less than the amount of GHG gases released as a result of energy utilization for space and water heating and to generate electricity.

                          •  You Said: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            radical simplicity, VL Baker
                            One of the problems with the UN Food and Agriculture report is that it is not very useful to evaluating energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing beef as it is predominately carried out in the United States.
                            And then provided me with a report from the USDA, which doesn't mention the livestock we consume that is produced outside of the US? I'm pretty sure you haven't bothered with the UN Report, which I found easily using the google right here.
                            http://www.fao.org/...

                            Here's a teaser

                             

                            “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.

                            When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

                            And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:55:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please see again this rendition of the situation (0+ / 0-)

                            in the United States showing the agricultural sector to have the least greenhouse gas emissions of all United States sectors and, in particular, agricultural emissions that are far behind emissions from electricity generation and transportation:

                            http://www.epa.gov/...

                            Agriculture is only responsible for 8% of all emissions of
                            CO2 equivalents.

                          •  sorry LS....IPCC was more accurate and (0+ / 0-)

                            thorough in their global assessment of emissions from livestock sector:

                            aggregating emissions throughout the livestock commodity chain - from feed production (which includes chemical fertilizer production, deforestation for pasture and feed crops, and pasture degradation), through animal production (including enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide emissions from manure) to the carbon dioxide emitted during processing and transportation of animal products.
                            http://www.fao.org/...

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:42:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What exactly and specifically about the 2013 EPA (0+ / 0-)

                            emission inventory for greenhouse gases in the United States
                            do you deem to be in error and what is the basis you have for making the objection?

                            And, how specifically are you interpreting IPCC reports to be at variance with EPA's CO2e emission inventory?

                            Emissions inventory determination is a scientific process and participants in that scientific process always have a basis for statements saying that another participant's workproduct is wrong.  

                          •  please write your diary supporting your views (0+ / 0-)

                            your comments don't do it justice.  I dare you

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:55:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Evidence. (0+ / 0-)

                          http://www.realclimate.org/...

                          Check it out, seriously.

                          Carbon reduction and scrubbing should be the number one goal of individuals and governments alike.


                          "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

                          by Pescadero Bill on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:12:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  I am advocating (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueoasis, DawnN, Sarenth

                    that people wake up to the facts. It has got to change with the corruption in DC. As long as the president appoints industry hacks to run the energy policy, it won't change.

                    Until the leverage applied to our elected by the Koch brothers and the oil and coal industries, it won't change.

                    Tim DeChristopher did something.

                    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                    by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:18:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Our whole contemporary society (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marina, radical simplicity, Sarenth

                is set up such that you often have to drive to get anywhere; thus forcing a continued dependence upon fossil fuel.

                There is an increasing trend of people using electric carts to get around their immediate area, which is promising and probably should be widely promoted.

                The only way to kill this beast is by starving it, and that is something all of us can contribute to.

                THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. -- L. Ron Hubbard Technique 88

                by xenubarb on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:14:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Shove it, Gandhi! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VL Baker
                “We must become the change we want to see in the world.”

                "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:16:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Carbon taxation is an option that works. The one (0+ / 0-)

              that British Columbia put in around 2008 has led them to the lowest emissions and taxes in Canada.  It is progressive, in that it increases over time, allowing people to adapt as they are able; but, it gives incentive to do so sooner than later.

              If the US, China, India, Brazil, the rest of Canada and the EU could agree to that, it would go a long way toward a sustainable, livable future.

          •  I think that individuals have had a huge impact (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sillia

            already.  Just a few years ago, I couldn't, for example, buy organic beans at Kroger.  I could hardly find a restaurant that I could somehow get to serve me something vegan.  Increased availability means that vegetarianism is a viable choice for more and more people.  And then people try some veg meals (say at a party, or when a group goes out to lunch at a veg place to accommodate some co-workers) and realize that they can really taste great.  People like Bill Clinton make a public case for veganism being healthy and not some freaky fetish, and something that a good host should accommodate.  Huff post just had a story with a pretty impressive list of vegan celebrities.  Say what you will (both about celebrities and huff post), but "stars" are role models in our culture.
            I remember people smoking in the building I worked in back in the 70's.  Seriously.  I find that hard to imagine today.  But like smoke-free buildings, vegetarianism is slowly becoming much more mainstream.  Be the change you want to see, as they say.  Activism exists because most problems will never be solved from the top down, since "the top" are the most threatened by change.

      •  "Kill[ing] Global Ownership" has nothing to do (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, Sarenth

        with gaining emission reductions greenhouse gases  necessary to address our global warming problem, so declaring that to be your number 1 objective seems pointless.

      •  Please, no (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radical simplicity

        Not even in jest.

        Help stop gas drilling in Pennsylvania's Loyalsock State Forest!

        by marina on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:07:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ? just the opposite, bt governments have forgotten (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane, JesseCW

      they have the power and not the multinational corporations

      Its time for governments of the world to unite and do what needs to be done even if it involves confiscating funds and property from the oligarchs, jailing quite a few of the oligarchs, etc

      •  Too many governments are corrupted by their (9+ / 0-)

        greedy elite.

        Greedy, wealthy, and probably assuming they and their heirs will be able to buy their way out of at least a centuries' worth of discomfort.

        That, or most of those greedy usurpers think 'those that day with the most are the winners'.

        We're a crazy and still primitive species I guess.


        "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

        by Pescadero Bill on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:29:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It appears that committed individuals may (12+ / 0-)

        have the power.  It really is time to stop being dependent on the entities we're so infuriated by.  

        Boulder, CO activists "publicized" a private electric utility by VOTING for a public utility.  Excel Energy is fighting back hard because if Boulder wins many other communities will follow suit.  The activists didn't target Big Oil or Big Coal, they took back their town with a splendid plan for creating all power with wind and solar facilities.

        We can keep grumbling about weak politicians and the immense power of 1000 billionaires or we can get off our asses and take control.  That requires effort, of course, and planning.  I hope we have the energy to work on our own behalf.  

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:58:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, they did target Big Oil and Big Coal. (6+ / 0-)

          They did it effectively and creatively.  The long term goal is to destroy them.  

          It's a war for survival.

          Do you actually know any of the people involved?  I mean, have you even heard any of them speak publicly?

          We can keep grumbling about weak politicians and the immense power of 1000 billionaires or we can get off our asses and take control.  
          Because they do plenty of grumbling about weak politicians and predatory billionaires, while fighting them.

          "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

          by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:36:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I'm not a friend, just an admirer. And my (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sarenth

            point is that they didn't send stern petitions to Big Coal and Big Oil, or write harsh LTE's, they educated and registered voters and won an astonishing win.  And they're still fighting Excel's highly funded campaign to nullify that win, they aren't caving in because it's too hard to fight corporate money.  I'm suggesting them as role models for the rest of us.

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:55:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah. Almost all of them *did* and still do (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity, Sarenth

              those things.  LTE's and arguing on-line and calling their State Reps and Congressperson.

              You're assuming an either/or where none exists.

              "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

              by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:27:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Get a grip, Jesse. Everything doesn't have (0+ / 0-)

                to be deathmatch determining degrees of rightness.  

                I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                by I love OCD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:15:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Nations DO have the power to act (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VL Baker

      The same argument could be made about individuals.  Individuals acting is where collective action begins.  Individuals not acting is how tyranny and oppression thrive.  In this world of nation-states, the exact same is true of nations.  Indeed, and unfortunately, ONLY nations have the power to act.

      For those that say nations cannot, look at the Montreal Protocol to limit ozone-depleting gasses in the late 1980s.  It was unquestionably pretty damn successful, if not perfect.  WE must make OUR nation act.

      And on this - regardless whether China currently puts out more GHGs than we do - it is the USA's action that will begin to save the future... if we make us all undertake the changes that the future demands of us.

      If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. Thomas Paine

      by WestCider on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:17:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site