51–60 of 115 posts
People Still Don't Get the Link Between the Number of People on this Planet and Climate Change (I hardly eat meat these days, but nothing will help if the population continues to grow at the same rate)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly why the rule of 72 should be thought more often. Just seeing how quickly the population can double at the current growth rate is an eye opener. 72 / 1.1 = 65 Years Meat isn't the problem, endless growth is.
Do regions with most growth also eat most meat, per capita?
1. China 58.2 kg/person and year
2. India 4.4 kg/person and year
3. USA 120.2 kg/person and year
There are very big differences that have more to do with culture and income rather than growth.
sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not ?! It seems the most effective way to change peoples habits is still prices.
If it's more expensive the less eco friendly ways of making meat will be consumed instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recycling is useless because the process takes more energy than mining new except for a few select materials. It’s a feel good exercise in wastefulness.
As mined materials start to get more scarce, their prices will rise, and mining companies will have increased power over markets. You can see recycling as a kind of "intertemporal power smoothing", depriving mining companies of future economic power by reducing the rate at which materials are mined. Economic concentration of power imposes tremendous externalities, most of which are felt by ordinary people in the form…
The maximum effect of your policy will be to delay the moment when recycling becomes economic advantageous, and waste money/energy until then.
People don't believe the link between meat consumption and climate change. It seems like one leftist agenda being used to push another leftist agenda and pretty much anyone who isn't down with leftist agendas tunes right out as this is just too far fetched to even consider. (Not a heavy meat eater myself but not for planet saving reasons. I just don't like a lot of meat sitting in my stomach. Beans and whole grains a…
People love to neglect grass fed meat. Much of the planet is grasslands that require grazing animals. You put grazing animals on the land, move them around, and that’s it. The only real energy input is the sun. Compare that to monocropping which requires vast oil and pesticide/herbicide input, displaces local habitats, reduces the biodiversity of the planet.
Meat is cheap. AND it's not up to individuals to make the broad policy changes needed to affect climate change. That's done by governments. People will follow suit. If there's a tax on meat, less meat will be eaten. To put the onus on individuals to make policy decisions is preposterous.
I have some questions that maybe someone who has read the paper (or has access to it may be able to find out).
The abstract talks about Outstanding effectiveness and fairly positive effectiveness, what was the scaling they used? (Great, good, neutral, bad, awful? or something else)
Similarly, it talks about correlations with motivational and cultural factors, were these identified at all?
And what was the methodology/measure for the effectiveness rating?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As mined materials start to get more scarce, their prices will rise, and mining companies will have increased power over markets. You can see recycling as a kind of "intertemporal power smoothing", depriving mining companies of future economic power by reducing the rate at which materials are mined. Economic concentration of power imposes tremendous externalities, most of which are felt by ordinary people in the form…
As price rises, recycling will be more advantageous and will compete with mined materials reducing their future economic power by the same amount as it would if you recycle now. The maximum effect of your policy will be to delay the moment when recycling becomes economic advantageous, and waste money/energy until then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like saying recycling is useless because no one recycles. You have to start somewhere
Recycling is useless because the process takes more energy than mining new except for a few select materials. It’s a feel good exercise in wastefulness.
Also, certain plastics are very easy to recycle, so it's already profitable, I suppose.
Otherwise, you can see landfills as future mining sites, when technology improves.
Meat is cheap. AND it's not up to individuals to make the broad policy changes needed to affect climate change. That's done by governments. People will follow suit. If there's a tax on meat, less meat will be eaten. To put the onus on individuals to make policy decisions is preposterous.
Exactly. Price in the externalities, and people will make better choices.