On Wed, 19 May 2021 17:09:25 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

Do you think the "end of the world" hyperbole helps? I am sorry to say
that to me it just signals someone who (consciously or not) has bought
into the hyperbolic non-science.

The options weren't clear enough for you then?

And probably also thinks that eating
meat should be banned from 2025.

Whilst I doubt it will happen from 2025 (it will continue going that
way of course) but do you think we will be able to continue to feed an
ever growing population AND as many livestock as people on the current
viable land indefinitely? Or do you think we should just carry on
flattening places like the Amazon [1] and other ecosystems until we
fell the last tree and then look to see what other planet we can ****
up?

But, for those who have been indoctrinated to *believe* we actually
have to eat the flesh of an animal to survive (when millions of people
around the world haven't for thousands of years) they you should still
be able to get your carnist 'fix' from 'Syntho meat', grown in the lab
and not needing to waste all those resources and pollute the planet.

Irrespective of any MMGW, we have more and more people consuming and
in turn they are producing more pollution where currently much of that
is livestock farming (ground, air, sea).

https://ibb.co/Y81hX7r

Cheers, T i m

[1] The Amazon rain forest is a very fragile ecosystem where it's only
the density of vegetation that allows for a very shallow level of
nutrients to keep the system running.

Fell / slash cut / burn that and plant animal feed and the nutrients
are exhausted very quickly and so not supporting plant growth for
animals (and so man) for very long. You then can't grow anything there
and it will take *years* for any of it ('The lungs of the world'
remember) to recover.

Even if it could sustain trees again and they were replanted, it takes
15 years for an average tree to stop producing CO2 and another 15 to
become net carbon neutral. So even if we did that over the entire
Amazon today, do we have 60+ years to wait before it starts breathing
for us again?