Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abolish The Meat Industry

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, this actually isn't a thread about the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry against animals, which is a horror story none the less. And I won't be breaking into some big defense of animal rights. I just want to present you with a simple fact. Believe it or now, this thread is actually about climate change.

You see, the meat industry actually contributes more to green house gas omission than all the cars and planes combined, according to the United Nations and many other sources. There's disagreement about the exact percentage. The lowest estimate is 18% and the highest is 51%.

"The entire goal of today"s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today"s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives.", writes co-author of World Watch Magazine and World Bank group environmental adviser, Robert Goodland.

http://www.un.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.unep.org...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 6:42:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No, this actually isn't a thread about the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry against animals, which is a horror story none the less. And I won't be breaking into some big defense of animal rights. I just want to present you with a simple fact. Believe it or now, this thread is actually about climate change.

You see, the meat industry actually contributes more to green house gas omission than all the cars and planes combined, according to the United Nations and many other sources. There's disagreement about the exact percentage. The lowest estimate is 18% and the highest is 51%.

"The entire goal of today"s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today"s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives.", writes co-author of World Watch Magazine and World Bank group environmental adviser, Robert Goodland.

http://www.un.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.unep.org...

Sorry, but this is bordering on either idiocy or insanity. The meat industry contributes $864.2 billion in revenue each year. That is 6% of our nation's GDP. I am sorry, unless the world is going to be destroyed in this generation from green house gases, you would probably not get any politicians to enlist in your fight to get rid of meat. Instead promote a movement to get more people to be vegetarian, don't impose your morality on others.

http://www.meatami.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:13:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 6:42:42 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No, this actually isn't a thread about the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry against animals, which is a horror story none the less. And I won't be breaking into some big defense of animal rights. I just want to present you with a simple fact. Believe it or now, this thread is actually about climate change.

You see, the meat industry actually contributes more to green house gas omission than all the cars and planes combined, according to the United Nations and many other sources. There's disagreement about the exact percentage. The lowest estimate is 18% and the highest is 51%.

"The entire goal of today"s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today"s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives.", writes co-author of World Watch Magazine and World Bank group environmental adviser, Robert Goodland.

http://www.un.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.unep.org...

Sorry, but this is bordering on either idiocy or insanity. The meat industry contributes $864.2 billion in revenue each year. That is 6% of our nation's GDP. I am sorry, unless the world is going to be destroyed in this generation from green house gases, you would probably not get any politicians to enlist in your fight to get rid of meat. Instead promote a movement to get more people to be vegetarian, don't impose your morality on others.


http://www.meatami.com...

Highly misleading. From the website:

The meat and poultry industry"s economic ripple effect generates $864.2 billion annually to the U.S. economy, or roughly 6% of the entire GDP.

In 2009, meat and poultry industry sales totaled $154.8 billion.

Direct contribution to GDP is about 1%. Also, the meat industry, like most of US agriculture, is highly subsidized.

The main argument against increased meat consumption is that the world simply cannot support it. There is simply not enough arable land to feed the developing world the amounts of meat the developed world eats. It takes 7 pounds of plant protein to create one pound of meat protein.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:51:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:13:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/30/2013 6:42:42 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No, this actually isn't a thread about the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry against animals, which is a horror story none the less. And I won't be breaking into some big defense of animal rights. I just want to present you with a simple fact. Believe it or now, this thread is actually about climate change.

You see, the meat industry actually contributes more to green house gas omission than all the cars and planes combined, according to the United Nations and many other sources. There's disagreement about the exact percentage. The lowest estimate is 18% and the highest is 51%.

"The entire goal of today"s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today"s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives.", writes co-author of World Watch Magazine and World Bank group environmental adviser, Robert Goodland.

http://www.un.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.unep.org...

Sorry, but this is bordering on either idiocy or insanity. The meat industry contributes $864.2 billion in revenue each year. That is 6% of our nation's GDP. I am sorry, unless the world is going to be destroyed in this generation from green house gases, you would probably not get any politicians to enlist in your fight to get rid of meat. Instead promote a movement to get more people to be vegetarian, don't impose your morality on others.


http://www.meatami.com...

Highly misleading. From the website:

The meat and poultry industry"s economic ripple effect generates $864.2 billion annually to the U.S. economy, or roughly 6% of the entire GDP.

In 2009, meat and poultry industry sales totaled $154.8 billion.

Direct contribution to GDP is about 1%. Also, the meat industry, like most of US agriculture, is highly subsidized.

Sorry, I didn't see that. It's still a significant contribution to the economy. The fact that it's subsidized doesn't really pose any relevance to the amount of revenue that would be taken away from the economy and the amount of jobs that would be lost if we abolished the meat industry.

The main argument against increased meat consumption is that the world simply cannot support it. There is simply not enough arable land to feed the developing world the amounts of meat the developed world eats. It takes 7 pounds of plant protein to create one pound of meat protein.

Supply and Demand. More demand with equal supply would just cause higher prices.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:58:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No, this actually isn't a thread about the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry against animals, which is a horror story none the less. And I won't be breaking into some big defense of animal rights. I just want to present you with a simple fact. Believe it or now, this thread is actually about climate change.

You see, the meat industry actually contributes more to green house gas omission than all the cars and planes combined, according to the United Nations and many other sources. There's disagreement about the exact percentage. The lowest estimate is 18% and the highest is 51%.

"The entire goal of today"s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today"s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives.", writes co-author of World Watch Magazine and World Bank group environmental adviser, Robert Goodland.

http://www.un.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.unep.org...

The injistice and cruelty of animals. Well, if you were out in the woods all alone with noone to call and was lost and not found. What would you do if you had no food, water, or place to stay. That rabbit, squirrel, or possum just might become that much more appealing when you are starving to death.
So you see my friend. Its only cruel when you are following propaganda. Now that is cruel. =)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:25:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The main argument against increased meat consumption is that the world simply cannot support it. There is simply not enough arable land to feed the developing world the amounts of meat the developed world eats. It takes 7 pounds of plant protein to create one pound of meat protein.

Supply and Demand. More demand with equal supply would just cause higher prices.

...which would lead to less meat consumption, yes? :D

Oh, forgot the OP. Yeah that's just lol :)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:54:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:13:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/30/2013 6:42:42 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No, this actually isn't a thread about the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry against animals, which is a horror story none the less. And I won't be breaking into some big defense of animal rights. I just want to present you with a simple fact. Believe it or now, this thread is actually about climate change.

You see, the meat industry actually contributes more to green house gas omission than all the cars and planes combined, according to the United Nations and many other sources. There's disagreement about the exact percentage. The lowest estimate is 18% and the highest is 51%.

"The entire goal of today"s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today"s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives.", writes co-author of World Watch Magazine and World Bank group environmental adviser, Robert Goodland.

http://www.un.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.unep.org...

Sorry, but this is bordering on either idiocy or insanity. The meat industry contributes $864.2 billion in revenue each year. That is 6% of our nation's GDP. I am sorry, unless the world is going to be destroyed in this generation from green house gases, you would probably not get any politicians to enlist in your fight to get rid of meat. Instead promote a movement to get more people to be vegetarian, don't impose your morality on others.


http://www.meatami.com...

Highly misleading. From the website:

The meat and poultry industry"s economic ripple effect generates $864.2 billion annually to the U.S. economy, or roughly 6% of the entire GDP.

In 2009, meat and poultry industry sales totaled $154.8 billion.

Direct contribution to GDP is about 1%. Also, the meat industry, like most of US agriculture, is highly subsidized.

The main argument against increased meat consumption is that the world simply cannot support it. There is simply not enough arable land to feed the developing world the amounts of meat the developed world eats. It takes 7 pounds of plant protein to create one pound of meat protein.

This assumes that all land is fitted to growing crops. Some land, due to various ecological reasons, are better suited to have livestock grazed on them. It's not like you can magically carve it up and transition it over to productive agricultural use in every situation.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:02:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 12:54:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/30/2013 7:13:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/30/2013 6:42:42 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No, this actually isn't a thread about the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry against animals, which is a horror story none the less. And I won't be breaking into some big defense of animal rights. I just want to present you with a simple fact. Believe it or now, this thread is actually about climate change.

You see, the meat industry actually contributes more to green house gas omission than all the cars and planes combined, according to the United Nations and many other sources. There's disagreement about the exact percentage. The lowest estimate is 18% and the highest is 51%.

"The entire goal of today"s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today"s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives.", writes co-author of World Watch Magazine and World Bank group environmental adviser, Robert Goodland.

http://www.un.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.unep.org...

Sorry, but this is bordering on either idiocy or insanity. The meat industry contributes $864.2 billion in revenue each year. That is 6% of our nation's GDP. I am sorry, unless the world is going to be destroyed in this generation from green house gases, you would probably not get any politicians to enlist in your fight to get rid of meat. Instead promote a movement to get more people to be vegetarian, don't impose your morality on others.


http://www.meatami.com...

Highly misleading. From the website:

The meat and poultry industry"s economic ripple effect generates $864.2 billion annually to the U.S. economy, or roughly 6% of the entire GDP.

In 2009, meat and poultry industry sales totaled $154.8 billion.

Direct contribution to GDP is about 1%. Also, the meat industry, like most of US agriculture, is highly subsidized.

The main argument against increased meat consumption is that the world simply cannot support it. There is simply not enough arable land to feed the developing world the amounts of meat the developed world eats. It takes 7 pounds of plant protein to create one pound of meat protein.

This assumes that all land is fitted to growing crops. Some land, due to various ecological reasons, are better suited to have livestock grazed on them. It's not like you can magically carve it up and transition it over to productive agricultural use in every situation.

True, but there isn't much land that makes good pasture land and doesn't make good cropland. And meat is simply less efficient than plants, for obvious reasons.

At 5/30/2013 8:58:57 AM, inferno wrote:
The injistice and cruelty of animals. Well, if you were out in the woods all alone with noone to call and was lost and not found. What would you do if you had no food, water, or place to stay. That rabbit, squirrel, or possum just might become that much more appealing when you are starving to death.
So you see my friend. Its only cruel when you are following propaganda. Now that is cruel. =)

I eat plants. Logically, if rabbits and squirrels are managing to survive, there's a decent chance that there's food I can eat.

Also, after being a vegetarian for about ten or eight years, I can't digest meat well, so I'd end up with awful indigestion and lose precious water that way.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:20:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 1:02:58 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/30/2013 12:54:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/30/2013 7:13:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/30/2013 6:42:42 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No, this actually isn't a thread about the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry against animals, which is a horror story none the less. And I won't be breaking into some big defense of animal rights. I just want to present you with a simple fact. Believe it or now, this thread is actually about climate change.

You see, the meat industry actually contributes more to green house gas omission than all the cars and planes combined, according to the United Nations and many other sources. There's disagreement about the exact percentage. The lowest estimate is 18% and the highest is 51%.

"The entire goal of today"s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today"s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives.", writes co-author of World Watch Magazine and World Bank group environmental adviser, Robert Goodland.

http://www.un.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.unep.org...

Sorry, but this is bordering on either idiocy or insanity. The meat industry contributes $864.2 billion in revenue each year. That is 6% of our nation's GDP. I am sorry, unless the world is going to be destroyed in this generation from green house gases, you would probably not get any politicians to enlist in your fight to get rid of meat. Instead promote a movement to get more people to be vegetarian, don't impose your morality on others.


http://www.meatami.com...

Highly misleading. From the website:

The meat and poultry industry"s economic ripple effect generates $864.2 billion annually to the U.S. economy, or roughly 6% of the entire GDP.

In 2009, meat and poultry industry sales totaled $154.8 billion.

Direct contribution to GDP is about 1%. Also, the meat industry, like most of US agriculture, is highly subsidized.

The main argument against increased meat consumption is that the world simply cannot support it. There is simply not enough arable land to feed the developing world the amounts of meat the developed world eats. It takes 7 pounds of plant protein to create one pound of meat protein.

This assumes that all land is fitted to growing crops. Some land, due to various ecological reasons, are better suited to have livestock grazed on them. It's not like you can magically carve it up and transition it over to productive agricultural use in every situation.

True, but there isn't much land that makes good pasture land and doesn't make good cropland. And meat is simply less efficient than plants, for obvious reasons.


I'd agree that the amount of meat which most people eat is way out of proportion when you look at efficiency, and that, if people were actually rational, it would be toned down. But I also hold that there are many sensible sources of meat.

As far as pastures go, rocky soil and high gradation are two big contributors. Plant crops on a steep hills without terraces and you'll erode the soil very quickly. Rocky soil faces obvious problems, plus an additional one: it's difficult to till. And because the plant life is adapted to the previous rock conditions, breaking it up and enriching it can also lead to erosion, as rocky areas tend to have pretty high wind speeds in general.

Aside from pastures, there are forests, which in certain conditions, such as areas rich with glacial boulders, are not really suited to agricultural use. What's more, such areas are of use to the local community as areas of groundwater recharge. These areas support game naturally, which can be sustainably hunted in order to provide very efficient meat.

The final big one is bodies of water, which, aside from seaweed and other oddities, produce animal life exclusively. Fishing, when sustainably done, is also a good source of meat.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:26:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The main argument against increased meat consumption is that the world simply cannot support it. There is simply not enough arable land to feed the developing world the amounts of meat the developed world eats. It takes 7 pounds of plant protein to create one pound of meat protein.

This assumes that all land is fitted to growing crops. Some land, due to various ecological reasons, are better suited to have livestock grazed on them. It's not like you can magically carve it up and transition it over to productive agricultural use in every situation.

My point was specific to arable land, which would indeed imply crops that would otherwise be perfectly fit for human consumption being used to raise livestock.

Land suitable for grazing may not be suitable for arability.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:28:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just to add, any industrialized meat production would gravitate towards animal feed (i.e. crops to livestock), and not pasture grazing, which is generally wildly inefficient in comparison.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:32:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Finally, the big players in this industry know of these limitations:

http://news.yahoo.com...

If I truly cared about the future of America, I would be getting worried right now. In fact, I would have been worried about 10 years ago.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:34:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 1:28:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Just to add, any industrialized meat production would gravitate towards animal feed (i.e. crops to livestock), and not pasture grazing, which is generally wildly inefficient in comparison.

No, it's actually more efficient when you look at the actual resources consumed and food produced. Factory farming is only tenable because of protectionist measures; if they actually had to pay the full cost of the production of the corn that their livestock consumed, factory farming would be out-competed by pasture grazing. So really, vegans should be arguing against corn subsidies.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 2:20:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 1:34:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:28:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Just to add, any industrialized meat production would gravitate towards animal feed (i.e. crops to livestock), and not pasture grazing, which is generally wildly inefficient in comparison.

No, it's actually more efficient when you look at the actual resources consumed and food produced. Factory farming is only tenable because of protectionist measures; if they actually had to pay the full cost of the production of the corn that their livestock consumed, factory farming would be out-competed by pasture grazing. So really, vegans should be arguing against corn subsidies.

Ok, I was arguing from a corporate profit perspective. I'm sure there are many ways to interpret "efficiency".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 2:30:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is sheer and utter nonsense. We need more CO2.

"CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient."

http://www.naturalnews.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 2:31:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 2:20:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:34:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:28:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Just to add, any industrialized meat production would gravitate towards animal feed (i.e. crops to livestock), and not pasture grazing, which is generally wildly inefficient in comparison.

No, it's actually more efficient when you look at the actual resources consumed and food produced. Factory farming is only tenable because of protectionist measures; if they actually had to pay the full cost of the production of the corn that their livestock consumed, factory farming would be out-competed by pasture grazing. So really, vegans should be arguing against corn subsidies.

Ok, I was arguing from a corporate profit perspective. I'm sure there are many ways to interpret "efficiency".

Yeah, I was pointing this out more for anyone else reading than for you (I figured that you understood) in an attempt to show that factory farming is a practice propped up by intervention in the market, not some natural result of eating meat. So banning it is silly; just stop paying to support it!
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 2:42:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 2:30:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is sheer and utter nonsense. We need more CO2.

"CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient."

http://www.naturalnews.com...

Well, considering that the CO2 released by industrial activity is often accompanied by compounds which severely interfere with basic functions of plant physiology, not all CO2 is good. Sure, a bit of pure CO2 makes plants grow better. But it's a balancing act, as plants still need to undergo respiration. Just look at aquatic hypoxia after algal blooms as an example of such imbalances. Plus, taking the climate scientists at their word, drastic shifts in climate would be far more devastating to plant life than any purported CO2 usage, so the argument falls flat on its face there. All in all, saying 'CO2 IS GOOD FOR PLANTS!' is just as silly as saying 'NITROGEN IS GOOD FOR PLANTS!'. Nothing is good for plants in and of itself, its always a balancing act. As the toxicologists maxim goes, sola dosis facit venenum. Only the dose makes the poison.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:06:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 2:30:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is sheer and utter nonsense. We need more CO2.

"CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient."

http://www.naturalnews.com...

CO2 can do that in small amounts in controlled settings, yes, but that's a long way from pumping CO2 into the air and expecting it to help plants. Furthermore, to grow plants need things besides sugar (derived from CO2 and water), and of course plants will need more water if they have more CO2.

Furthermore, experiments have shown that significantly increased CO2 levels can actually harm some plants.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:08:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some day, we will be able to lab-grow meat. And hopefully, doing so will be able to address the ethical and environmental issues. And let me eat pepperoni again.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:32:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
http://www.un.org...

Did you just cite the U.N., a group that wants to eliminate all private property, eliminate all suburban living, and force me into a hobbit home in a dense inner city?

No, sorry, but anything they say I will believe the opposite.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:34:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:06:02 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:30:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is sheer and utter nonsense. We need more CO2.

"CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient."

http://www.naturalnews.com...

CO2 can do that in small amounts in controlled settings, yes, but that's a long way from pumping CO2 into the air and expecting it to help plants. Furthermore, to grow plants need things besides sugar (derived from CO2 and water), and of course plants will need more water if they have more CO2.

Furthermore, experiments have shown that significantly increased CO2 levels can actually harm some plants.

So if this only can happen in a labaratory, explain why the world is getting greener.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:49:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 6:42:42 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:24:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No, this actually isn't a thread about the injustice and cruelty of the meat industry against animals, which is a horror story none the less. And I won't be breaking into some big defense of animal rights. I just want to present you with a simple fact. Believe it or now, this thread is actually about climate change.

You see, the meat industry actually contributes more to green house gas omission than all the cars and planes combined, according to the United Nations and many other sources. There's disagreement about the exact percentage. The lowest estimate is 18% and the highest is 51%.

"The entire goal of today"s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today"s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives.", writes co-author of World Watch Magazine and World Bank group environmental adviser, Robert Goodland.

http://www.un.org...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.unep.org...

Sorry, but this is bordering on either idiocy or insanity. The meat industry contributes $864.2 billion in revenue each year. That is 6% of our nation's GDP. I am sorry, unless the world is going to be destroyed in this generation from green house gases, you would probably not get any politicians to enlist in your fight to get rid of meat. Instead promote a movement to get more people to be vegetarian, don't impose your morality on others.


http://www.meatami.com...

Since when have politicians done something intelligent or for the benefit of everybody?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:52:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:34:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:06:02 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:30:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is sheer and utter nonsense. We need more CO2.

"CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient."

http://www.naturalnews.com...

CO2 can do that in small amounts in controlled settings, yes, but that's a long way from pumping CO2 into the air and expecting it to help plants. Furthermore, to grow plants need things besides sugar (derived from CO2 and water), and of course plants will need more water if they have more CO2.

Furthermore, experiments have shown that significantly increased CO2 levels can actually harm some plants.

So if this only can happen in a labaratory, explain why the world is getting greener.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com...

Apparently, finding unbiased websites that support your viewpoint is extremely challenging. Resorting to partisan websites, although common for people in your position, is not valid.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:59:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:52:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:34:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:06:02 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:30:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is sheer and utter nonsense. We need more CO2.

"CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient."

http://www.naturalnews.com...

CO2 can do that in small amounts in controlled settings, yes, but that's a long way from pumping CO2 into the air and expecting it to help plants. Furthermore, to grow plants need things besides sugar (derived from CO2 and water), and of course plants will need more water if they have more CO2.

Furthermore, experiments have shown that significantly increased CO2 levels can actually harm some plants.

So if this only can happen in a labaratory, explain why the world is getting greener.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com...

Apparently, finding unbiased websites that support your viewpoint is extremely challenging. Resorting to partisan websites, although common for people in your position, is not valid.

That was a cop-out. Let me cite the study itself:
http://www.lter.uaf.edu...

As you can see, the conclusion stays the same.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 5:15:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:59:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:52:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:34:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:06:02 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:30:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is sheer and utter nonsense. We need more CO2.

"CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient."

http://www.naturalnews.com...

CO2 can do that in small amounts in controlled settings, yes, but that's a long way from pumping CO2 into the air and expecting it to help plants. Furthermore, to grow plants need things besides sugar (derived from CO2 and water), and of course plants will need more water if they have more CO2.

Furthermore, experiments have shown that significantly increased CO2 levels can actually harm some plants.

So if this only can happen in a labaratory, explain why the world is getting greener.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com...

Apparently, finding unbiased websites that support your viewpoint is extremely challenging. Resorting to partisan websites, although common for people in your position, is not valid.

That was a cop-out. Let me cite the study itself:
http://www.lter.uaf.edu...

As you can see, the conclusion stays the same.

Sourcing a study that you haven't read nor have provided evidence that it is peer-reviewed is a cop-out.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 5:28:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:59:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:52:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:34:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:06:02 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/30/2013 2:30:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is sheer and utter nonsense. We need more CO2.

"CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient."

http://www.naturalnews.com...

CO2 can do that in small amounts in controlled settings, yes, but that's a long way from pumping CO2 into the air and expecting it to help plants. Furthermore, to grow plants need things besides sugar (derived from CO2 and water), and of course plants will need more water if they have more CO2.

Furthermore, experiments have shown that significantly increased CO2 levels can actually harm some plants.

So if this only can happen in a labaratory, explain why the world is getting greener.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com...

Apparently, finding unbiased websites that support your viewpoint is extremely challenging. Resorting to partisan websites, although common for people in your position, is not valid.

That was a cop-out. Let me cite the study itself:
http://www.lter.uaf.edu...

As you can see, the conclusion stays the same.

Correlation does not equal causation. There are literally millions of reasons for any change in 'greenness', and it is undoubtedly controlled by an incredibly complex interaction of countless variables. Your own source contradicts the claim that CO2 is contributing to the global C sink:

"Drivers and outlook of forest carbon sink.
The mechanisms affecting the current C sink in
global forests are diverse, and their dynamics will
determine its future longevity. The C balance of
boreal forests is driven by changes in harvest
patterns, regrowth over abandoned farmlands,
andincreasingdisturbanceregimes.TheCbalance
of temperate forests is primarily driven by forest
management, through low harvest rates (Europe)
(33), recovery from past harvesting and agricul-
tural abandonment (U.S.) (34), and large-scale
afforestation (China) (19). For tropical forests,
deforestation and forest degradation are dom-
inant causes of C emissions, with regrowth and
an increase in biomass in intact forests being the
main sinks balancing the emissions (23, 24).

Changes in climate and atmospheric drivers
(CO2, N-deposition, ozone, diffuse light) affect the
C balance of forests, but it is difficult to separate
their impacts from other factors using ground
observations. For Europe, the U.S., China, and
the tropics, evidence from biogeochemical pro-
cess models suggests that climate change, in-
creasing atmospheric CO2, and N deposition are,
at different levels, important factors driving the
long-term C sink (15, 18, 20, 23, 34). Drought
in all regions and warmer winters in boreal re-
gions reduce the forest sink through suppressed
gross primary production, increased tree mortal-
ity, increased fires, and increased insect damage.
"
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 3:51:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:08:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Some day, we will be able to lab-grow meat. And hopefully, doing so will be able to address the ethical and environmental issues. And let me eat pepperoni again.

We already have that technology.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 6:43:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 12:25:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The main argument against increased meat consumption is that the world simply cannot support it. There is simply not enough arable land to feed the developing world the amounts of meat the developed world eats. It takes 7 pounds of plant protein to create one pound of meat protein.

Supply and Demand. More demand with equal supply would just cause higher prices.

...which would lead to less meat consumption, yes? :D

Ultimately no. If there are more people demanding meat, it would mean it's in high demand and people might be willing to pay higher prices for it. So the consumption should still end up being equal.

Oh, forgot the OP. Yeah that's just lol :)
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 9:40:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
French vegans charged with child neglect after baby's death
Two vegans whose 11-month-old baby daughter died from vitamin deficiency after drinking only its mother's milk have gone on trial in northern France, charged with child neglect.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 10:25:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 6:43:21 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/30/2013 12:25:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The main argument against increased meat consumption is that the world simply cannot support it. There is simply not enough arable land to feed the developing world the amounts of meat the developed world eats. It takes 7 pounds of plant protein to create one pound of meat protein.

Supply and Demand. More demand with equal supply would just cause higher prices.

...which would lead to less meat consumption, yes? :D

Ultimately no. If there are more people demanding meat, it would mean it's in high demand and people might be willing to pay higher prices for it. So the consumption should still end up being equal.

I think we're in agreement here, but somehow are interpreting each other's statements to signal disagreement.

I think you agree that ceteris paribus, higher prices lead to lower quantities demanded.

I think you know I agree that ceteris paribus, increased demand would lead to higher prices.

My main argument was against increased meat consumption.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?