The Sixth Mass Extinction

103%.

I was expecting higher.

I still wouldn't read that much into that calculator, things like 'did you buy a washing machine?' is pretty ridiculous as it's very unlikely that is something people do every year. I'd also argue that lots of things on there such as tech, clothes and travel are circumstantial and not things people to do on the name of being green.

Can someone please tell me why meat is so bad? I can't understand why imported fruit and veg is so much better than locally sourced meat.

That calculator is a bit crude but it gives you an idea. It also is only for 2020 targets (which scientists say are no where near good enough, so even for me at 50% I need to be doing more.) There was a more in depth one the WWF did a few years ago that covered a lot more but I can't find it now

Pancake wrote:I do find it fascinating how many people are concerned about this but still refuse to consider a plant-based diet, or at least dramatically reduce their meat and dairy consumption. It's difficult to know what else to do. I switched to Bulb (100% renewable energy), try to buy food that isn't wrapped in plastic where possible, use a refillable coffee cup rather than takeaway cups and have switched to biodegradable coffee pods. Any other easier things that we can do?

Clothing? It's up there with Meat, Dairy and Fossil Fuels for damaging the planet

There was a documentary on BBC recently, but it only really covered water consumption for the most part, but the documentary would have had to go on for hours to cover everything I guess. It's here if you have access to iPlayer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b ... ty-secrets

Hime wrote:Mine is...yeah

To be fair we did move house this year so bought new stuff. Lots of the questions are nonsense though, you can't actually buy your electricity from a company that uses renewables for instance.

Why is meat considered so bad? I buy lots of fruit too and most of that is imported but the meat is from the UK.

Meat is one of the most resource intensive products on the planet. WWF recently produced a report on this in fact.

https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/fi ... report.PDF

WWF found that one meal of chicken tikka masala is equivalent to boiling a kettle 89 times. A lamb stew produces the equivalent of 722 full smartphone charges.

Again like the carbon footprint calculator, these graphics are a bit crude but they will give you an idea on how red meat stacks up against white meat, vegetables etc: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vegan ... 66&bih=651

Corazon de Leon wrote:They’ve been able to grow meat in a lab basically from scratch within the last couple of years haven’t they? Could that not drastically reduce emissions and the horrific cruelty that goes on in the farming industry?

It's probably Leonardo DiCaprio's "Beyond Meat" stuff right? They do burgers and steaks but they're plant based. I haven't had them because I think it would gross me out after not having meat for so long https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=beyon ... 66&bih=651

BID0 wrote:That calculator is a bit crude but it gives you an idea. It also is only for 2020 targets (which scientists say are no where near good enough, so even for me at 50% I need to be doing more.) There was a more in depth one the WWF did a few years ago that covered a lot more but I can't find it now

Pancake wrote:I do find it fascinating how many people are concerned about this but still refuse to consider a plant-based diet, or at least dramatically reduce their meat and dairy consumption. It's difficult to know what else to do. I switched to Bulb (100% renewable energy), try to buy food that isn't wrapped in plastic where possible, use a refillable coffee cup rather than takeaway cups and have switched to biodegradable coffee pods. Any other easier things that we can do?

Clothing? It's up there with Meat, Dairy and Fossil Fuels for damaging the planet

There was a documentary on BBC recently, but it only really covered water consumption for the most part, but the documentary would have had to go on for hours to cover everything I guess. It's here if you have access to iPlayer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b ... ty-secrets

Hime wrote:Mine is...yeah

To be fair we did move house this year so bought new stuff. Lots of the questions are nonsense though, you can't actually buy your electricity from a company that uses renewables for instance.

Why is meat considered so bad? I buy lots of fruit too and most of that is imported but the meat is from the UK.

Meat is one of the most resource intensive products on the planet. WWF recently produced a report on this in fact.

https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/fi ... report.PDF

WWF found that one meal of chicken tikka masala is equivalent to boiling a kettle 89 times. A lamb stew produces the equivalent of 722 full smartphone charges.

Again like the carbon footprint calculator, these graphics are a bit crude but they will give you an idea on how red meat stacks up against white meat, vegetables etc: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vegan ... 66&bih=651

Corazon de Leon wrote:They’ve been able to grow meat in a lab basically from scratch within the last couple of years haven’t they? Could that not drastically reduce emissions and the horrific cruelty that goes on in the farming industry?

It's probably Leonardo DiCaprio's "Beyond Meat" stuff right? They do burgers and steaks but they're plant based.

Thanks for that, I had a quick look through and I couldn't see anything about imported vegetables as three resources used in bringing them to our tables is pretty high. I also can't see how locally sourced meat is that resource intensive, I can think of other industries that use far more resources.

Hime wrote:

BID0 wrote:That calculator is a bit crude but it gives you an idea. It also is only for 2020 targets (which scientists say are no where near good enough, so even for me at 50% I need to be doing more.) There was a more in depth one the WWF did a few years ago that covered a lot more but I can't find it now

Pancake wrote:I do find it fascinating how many people are concerned about this but still refuse to consider a plant-based diet, or at least dramatically reduce their meat and dairy consumption. It's difficult to know what else to do. I switched to Bulb (100% renewable energy), try to buy food that isn't wrapped in plastic where possible, use a refillable coffee cup rather than takeaway cups and have switched to biodegradable coffee pods. Any other easier things that we can do?

Clothing? It's up there with Meat, Dairy and Fossil Fuels for damaging the planet

There was a documentary on BBC recently, but it only really covered water consumption for the most part, but the documentary would have had to go on for hours to cover everything I guess. It's here if you have access to iPlayer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b ... ty-secrets

Hime wrote:Mine is...yeah

To be fair we did move house this year so bought new stuff. Lots of the questions are nonsense though, you can't actually buy your electricity from a company that uses renewables for instance.

Why is meat considered so bad? I buy lots of fruit too and most of that is imported but the meat is from the UK.

Meat is one of the most resource intensive products on the planet. WWF recently produced a report on this in fact.

https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/fi ... report.PDF

WWF found that one meal of chicken tikka masala is equivalent to boiling a kettle 89 times. A lamb stew produces the equivalent of 722 full smartphone charges.

Again like the carbon footprint calculator, these graphics are a bit crude but they will give you an idea on how red meat stacks up against white meat, vegetables etc: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vegan ... 66&bih=651

Corazon de Leon wrote:They’ve been able to grow meat in a lab basically from scratch within the last couple of years haven’t they? Could that not drastically reduce emissions and the horrific cruelty that goes on in the farming industry?

It's probably Leonardo DiCaprio's "Beyond Meat" stuff right? They do burgers and steaks but they're plant based.

Thanks for that, I had a quick look through and I couldn't see anything about imported vegetables as three resources used in bringing them to our tables is pretty high. I also can't see how locally sourced meat is that resource intensive, I can think of other industries that use far more resources.

Well if you think what it takes to grow some root vegetables... and then think of what it takes to produce a steak. (the land, time, food, water, energy, equipment)

Before the Flood is a good one even though it's aimed towards the US. It's not focused on food production, but at about 46 minutes they talk about food briefly and palm oil production. Hopefully this link works (it was free to watch on YouTube for the first month and then went behind a paywall) https://archive.org/details/youtube-90CkXVF-Q8M

And with regards to locally sourced vegetables versus vegetables from the other size of the world, the locally source vegetable will win. markets are a good place to go for locally sourced veg.

BID0 wrote:Well if you think what it takes to grow some root vegetables... and then think of what it takes to produce a steak.

Before the Flood is a good one even though it's aimed towards the US. It's not focused on food production, but at about 46 minutes they talk about food briefly and palm oil production. Hopefully this link works (it was free to watch on YouTube for the first month and then went behind a paywall) https://archive.org/details/youtube-90CkXVF-Q8M

What about the vegetables that were grown half way round the world, had to picked, processed, transported, shipped, transported again, etc. Probably not as much resources as the cows that live a few miles away from me being turned into steak.

Hime wrote:

BID0 wrote:Well if you think what it takes to grow some root vegetables... and then think of what it takes to produce a steak.

Before the Flood is a good one even though it's aimed towards the US. It's not focused on food production, but at about 46 minutes they talk about food briefly and palm oil production. Hopefully this link works (it was free to watch on YouTube for the first month and then went behind a paywall) https://archive.org/details/youtube-90CkXVF-Q8M

What about the vegetables that were grown half way round the world, had to picked, processed, transported, shipped, transported again, etc. Probably not as much resources as the cows that live a few miles away from me being turned into steak.

Nope cows take a gooseberry fool ton of resources.

BID0 wrote:

Hime wrote:

BID0 wrote:Well if you think what it takes to grow some root vegetables... and then think of what it takes to produce a steak.

Before the Flood is a good one even though it's aimed towards the US. It's not focused on food production, but at about 46 minutes they talk about food briefly and palm oil production. Hopefully this link works (it was free to watch on YouTube for the first month and then went behind a paywall) https://archive.org/details/youtube-90CkXVF-Q8M

What about the vegetables that were grown half way round the world, had to picked, processed, transported, shipped, transported again, etc. Probably not as much resources as the cows that live a few miles away from me being turned into steak.

Nope cows take a gooseberry fool ton of resources.

So does moving plants across the globe.

Just eat local vegetables? Who makes an entire meal from vegetables from the other side of the world anyway?

But for arguments sake let's take avocados which are famous for being huge polluters

But a new study conducted by Carbon Footprint Ltd claims a small pack of two avocados has an emissions footprint of 846.36g CO2, almost twice the size of one kilo of bananas (480g).

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/reve ... 91501.html

producing 1 kg of lamb releases 1·3–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 1) and 1·5–4·7 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 2). The production of beef releases 1·5–5·3 and 1·4–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight.
Within a wider system boundary that also includes GHG emissions from animals and farm soils, lamb released 8·1–31·7 and 20·3–143·5 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight on the two case study farms, and beef released 9·7–38·1 and 18·8–132·6 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight. The difference in emissions for this system boundary relates to nitrous oxides emitted from the organic soils on case study farm 2.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 30BC8856FE


They come from two different sources (it's hard to find figures based on importing and farming comparisons in the UK)

Typically I can't find a standard weight for "small pack of two avocados" on Tesco/Sainsburys etc. But we can use the bananas (another high impact food) figure in the same study and compare it with the best case scenerio for Welsh beef.

That's the CO2 impact. Then we need to think of the land mass required for both types of food, water required and food (for the cows)

I need to get some work done now so that's me out

It would appear the most logical solution would be to reduce the fertility level of humans immediately - by at least 50% in the first instance, and if you want faster action suspend heath care for those above a set age level too to hasten the depopulation.

It is that or find another rock to spread to.

BID0 wrote:Just eat local vegetables? Who makes an entire meal from vegetables from the other side of the world anyway?

But for arguments sake let's take avocados which are famous for being huge polluters

But a new study conducted by Carbon Footprint Ltd claims a small pack of two avocados has an emissions footprint of 846.36g CO2, almost twice the size of one kilo of bananas (480g).

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/reve ... 91501.html

producing 1 kg of lamb releases 1·3–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 1) and 1·5–4·7 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 2). The production of beef releases 1·5–5·3 and 1·4–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight.
Within a wider system boundary that also includes GHG emissions from animals and farm soils, lamb released 8·1–31·7 and 20·3–143·5 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight on the two case study farms, and beef released 9·7–38·1 and 18·8–132·6 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight. The difference in emissions for this system boundary relates to nitrous oxides emitted from the organic soils on case study farm 2.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 30BC8856FE


They come from two different sources (it's hard to find figures based on importing and farming comparisons in the UK)

Typically I can't find a standard weight for "small pack of two avocados" on Tesco/Sainsburys etc. But we can use the bananas (another high impact food) figure in the same study and compare it with the best case scenerio for Welsh beef.

That's the CO2 impact. Then we need to think of the land mass required for both types of food, water required and food (for the cows)

I need to get some work done now so that's me out

Likewise who makes a meal entirely from red meat? I don't like the suggestion that eating plants is saving the planet while eating red meat is the equivalent to head butting a polar bear. Wouldn't it be better to give figures of CO2 each food produces and give figures that show a responsible amount of consumption?

jimbojango wrote:It would appear the most logical solution would be to reduce the fertility level of humans immediately - by at least 50% in the first instance, and if you want faster action suspend heath care for those above a set age level too to hasten the depopulation.

It is that or find another rock to spread to.

We're doing this anyway aren't we.

WWF found that one meal of chicken tikka masala is equivalent to boiling a kettle 89 times. A lamb stew produces the equivalent of 722 full smartphone charges.

I wish when they made statements like this, they'd stop messing about with units. I can't compare a chicken tikka masala to a lamb stew because they don't give a conversion between kettle boiling and smartphone charging. I assume smartphone charges take less energy, but there's nearly 10 times as many required. It all becomes a bit meaningless.

I get that there's a lot of energy required, but I give their clarity a score of 13 dolphins out of 482 celery stalks.

Lime wrote:

WWF found that one meal of chicken tikka masala is equivalent to boiling a kettle 89 times. A lamb stew produces the equivalent of 722 full smartphone charges.

I wish when they made statements like this, they'd stop messing about with units. I can't compare a chicken tikka masala to a lamb stew because they don't give a conversion between kettle boiling and smartphone charging. I assume smartphone charges take less energy, but there's nearly 10 times as many required. It all becomes a bit meaningless.

I get that there's a lot of energy required, but I give their clarity a score of 13 dolphins out of 482 celery stalks.

Page 6 of the report (https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/fi ... report.PDF)

I'm not sure that would help most people quantify it much better though. In comparison to each meal sure, but in comparison to the damage to the planet probably not.

Hime wrote:

BID0 wrote:Just eat local vegetables? Who makes an entire meal from vegetables from the other side of the world anyway?

But for arguments sake let's take avocados which are famous for being huge polluters

But a new study conducted by Carbon Footprint Ltd claims a small pack of two avocados has an emissions footprint of 846.36g CO2, almost twice the size of one kilo of bananas (480g).

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/reve ... 91501.html

producing 1 kg of lamb releases 1·3–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 1) and 1·5–4·7 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 2). The production of beef releases 1·5–5·3 and 1·4–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight.
Within a wider system boundary that also includes GHG emissions from animals and farm soils, lamb released 8·1–31·7 and 20·3–143·5 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight on the two case study farms, and beef released 9·7–38·1 and 18·8–132·6 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight. The difference in emissions for this system boundary relates to nitrous oxides emitted from the organic soils on case study farm 2.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 30BC8856FE


They come from two different sources (it's hard to find figures based on importing and farming comparisons in the UK)

Typically I can't find a standard weight for "small pack of two avocados" on Tesco/Sainsburys etc. But we can use the bananas (another high impact food) figure in the same study and compare it with the best case scenerio for Welsh beef.

That's the CO2 impact. Then we need to think of the land mass required for both types of food, water required and food (for the cows)

I need to get some work done now so that's me out

Likewise who makes a meal entirely from red meat? I don't like the suggestion that eating plants is saving the planet while eating red meat is the equivalent to head butting a polar bear. Wouldn't it be better to give figures of CO2 each food produces and give figures that show a responsible amount of consumption?

Meat heavy diets are a popular thing now. Since the end of WW2 meat consumption has increased an incredible amount from having meat occasionally to using it in every single meal. What would a responsible amount be though? Surely the lowest you can do, the better... I'm not sure how animal meat will ever be able to be classed as a responsible amount of consumption.

BID0 wrote:

Lime wrote:

WWF found that one meal of chicken tikka masala is equivalent to boiling a kettle 89 times. A lamb stew produces the equivalent of 722 full smartphone charges.

I wish when they made statements like this, they'd stop messing about with units. I can't compare a chicken tikka masala to a lamb stew because they don't give a conversion between kettle boiling and smartphone charging. I assume smartphone charges take less energy, but there's nearly 10 times as many required. It all becomes a bit meaningless.

I get that there's a lot of energy required, but I give their clarity a score of 13 dolphins out of 482 celery stalks.

Page 6 of the report (https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/fi ... report.PDF)

I'm not sure that would help most people quantify it much better though. In comparison to each meal sure, but in comparison to the damage to the planet probably not.

My bad, I thought you were quoting from the report and I didn't follow the link originally.

Was surprised how poorly the ploughman's turned out, due to the cheese. Looks like you need to go fully Vegan to realise the environmental benefits.

jimbojango wrote:It would appear the most logical solution would be to reduce the fertility level of humans immediately - by at least 50% in the first instance, and if you want faster action suspend heath care for those above a set age level too to hasten the depopulation.

I'm not sure if this is actually meant to be taken seriously.

If it is then god help us.

Lime wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Lime wrote:

WWF found that one meal of chicken tikka masala is equivalent to boiling a kettle 89 times. A lamb stew produces the equivalent of 722 full smartphone charges.

I wish when they made statements like this, they'd stop messing about with units. I can't compare a chicken tikka masala to a lamb stew because they don't give a conversion between kettle boiling and smartphone charging. I assume smartphone charges take less energy, but there's nearly 10 times as many required. It all becomes a bit meaningless.

I get that there's a lot of energy required, but I give their clarity a score of 13 dolphins out of 482 celery stalks.

Page 6 of the report (https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/fi ... report.PDF)

I'm not sure that would help most people quantify it much better though. In comparison to each meal sure, but in comparison to the damage to the planet probably not.

My bad, I thought you were quoting from the report and I didn't follow the link originally.

Was surprised how poorly the ploughman's turned out, due to the cheese. Looks like you need to go fully Vegan to realise the environmental benefits.

No problem, maybe I should have picked out more than that choice quote it's surprising how much impact things like cheese has. I've learnt a lot since transitioning my diet a few years ago. I can't believe I was nearly in my thirties before realising a cow didn't make milk on demand and had to give birth first that would be my guess why cheese has such a large footprint for what it is.

BID0 wrote:It's surprising how much impact things like cheese has.

..and that's just in Wallace's house.

BID0 wrote:

Lime wrote:

WWF found that one meal of chicken tikka masala is equivalent to boiling a kettle 89 times. A lamb stew produces the equivalent of 722 full smartphone charges.

I wish when they made statements like this, they'd stop messing about with units. I can't compare a chicken tikka masala to a lamb stew because they don't give a conversion between kettle boiling and smartphone charging. I assume smartphone charges take less energy, but there's nearly 10 times as many required. It all becomes a bit meaningless.

I get that there's a lot of energy required, but I give their clarity a score of 13 dolphins out of 482 celery stalks.

Page 6 of the report (https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/fi ... report.PDF)

I'm not sure that would help most people quantify it much better though. In comparison to each meal sure, but in comparison to the damage to the planet probably not.

Hime wrote:

BID0 wrote:Just eat local vegetables? Who makes an entire meal from vegetables from the other side of the world anyway?

But for arguments sake let's take avocados which are famous for being huge polluters

But a new study conducted by Carbon Footprint Ltd claims a small pack of two avocados has an emissions footprint of 846.36g CO2, almost twice the size of one kilo of bananas (480g).

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/reve ... 91501.html

producing 1 kg of lamb releases 1·3–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 1) and 1·5–4·7 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 2). The production of beef releases 1·5–5·3 and 1·4–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight.
Within a wider system boundary that also includes GHG emissions from animals and farm soils, lamb released 8·1–31·7 and 20·3–143·5 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight on the two case study farms, and beef released 9·7–38·1 and 18·8–132·6 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight. The difference in emissions for this system boundary relates to nitrous oxides emitted from the organic soils on case study farm 2.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 30BC8856FE


They come from two different sources (it's hard to find figures based on importing and farming comparisons in the UK)

Typically I can't find a standard weight for "small pack of two avocados" on Tesco/Sainsburys etc. But we can use the bananas (another high impact food) figure in the same study and compare it with the best case scenerio for Welsh beef.

That's the CO2 impact. Then we need to think of the land mass required for both types of food, water required and food (for the cows)

I need to get some work done now so that's me out

Likewise who makes a meal entirely from red meat? I don't like the suggestion that eating plants is saving the planet while eating red meat is the equivalent to head butting a polar bear. Wouldn't it be better to give figures of CO2 each food produces and give figures that show a responsible amount of consumption?

Meat heavy diets are a popular thing now. Since the end of WW2 meat consumption has increased an incredible amount from having meat occasionally to using it in every single meal. What would a responsible amount be though? Surely the lowest you can do, the better... I'm not sure how animal meat will ever be able to be classed as a responsible amount of consumption.

That example of raw goods send incredibly basic, what about berries, peppers, melons, nuts, etc. The percentage of people eating a plant based diet consisting of plants grown in the UK must be extremely small. Just to use your example I eat lamb maybe once a month and probably about 100-200 grams but eat avocado's most days. Using the logic that plant based diets are better then I could convince myself that I've saved an emperor penguin when clearly that isn't the case.

Just to clarify I do eat quite a lot of chicken and steak as I am into weight lifting/body building so it would be hard to get the required protein without meat or dairy so lamb is a fairly specific example, I'm just using it to point out that having some sort of CO2 calculator would be more beneficial than just saying plants=good meat=bad as it's both wrong and a bit preachy.

*Edit* apologies, I just realised the list is comparing specific meals

Is this a stealth vegan thread? Smells like one.