Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ive stopped eating red meat, and in a bad week 25% of my meals are vegan, in a good week 75% or more of my meals are vegan. I’ve read that a medium sized dog has the carbon footprint of a medium sized SUV, approximately. I have two small-medium dogs. They eat a lot of vegetables and legumes. 90% of their snacks / treats are sweet potato / carrots / apples. Their main meals consist of a mix of grated veggies, cooked b…
Is there any research on how doggies do on vegan or reduced-meat diets? I wonder they'd have any long term health benefits from a well-planned, balanced vegan diet?
Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
191–200 of 225 posts
Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say I was eating as much as possible. I said I am going to continue to eat it at the same rate I currently do. Personally I am not going vegetarian.
I've noticed you keep making posts that boil down to 'I do/am/believe ' without it offering much relevance or insight to the discussion. It seems like you're just live blogging on HN. I'm very curious what your reasons are for doing so. EDIT: I'm honestly curious. It doesn't bother me too much, and I'm sure I've made comments that I thought were valuable but in hindsight were probably just me wanting to be present. I…
But it's honestly fucking weird that you are tracking my comments.
Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, No we don't. Global warming is a self-reinforcing effect. So there's no point to slowing down emissions. No point at all. Even if you get it to zero, the resulting concentrations will still accelerate into the right. Even if you get it negative at the same rate we're producing it today (which would eliminate all human co2 contributions EVER in ~60 years) wou…
If we ceased all carbon emissions today the earth would continue to warm for centuries, sure. But if we did that then it wouldn't the total temperature rise be lower, requiring less geoengineering? How is that pointless?
Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, No we don't. Global warming is a self-reinforcing effect. So there's no point to slowing down emissions. No point at all. Even if you get it to zero, the resulting concentrations will still accelerate into the right. Even if you get it negative at the same rate we're producing it today (which would eliminate all human co2 contributions EVER in ~60 years) wou…
Quoted post unavailable.
Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't get it wrong. They did the best they could with the data they had, which they knew was sparse. "However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007" You'll note here the methodology isn't the issue, but rather the dataset. They've improved the dataset. > why should I trust anything else Well, technicall…
Ok, let’s even stipulate that it’s a failure of data rather than methodology. The computerized climate models have very sensitive dependence on this kind of poorly measured data. Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined?
You are begging the question here.
Simply put, "that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined", isn't reflected in the article. It's something you are making up. Again, the data was within the estimation previously made. They've refined that data.
A wild swing would in fact go from showing one thing to showing another thing entirely. That's how a swing works. What really happened is the predication was correct. We are now getting to see more precisely how correct.
Regardless, I honestly don't believe you are being honest here, since you are asking the same question and not putting any effort into this. You are trolling. If you aren't, put forth some effort. You think you are being "smart," but the truth is, you aren't.
Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do that stuff but it's not going to save the world. To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, a faster path to developing advanced nuclear power (in addition to continuing renewables deployment), a major rollout of lab-grown meat as soon as it's affordable with decent quality, negative emissions methods both technological (direct air capture) and biological (kelp, reforesting), and maybe some kind o…
> To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, No we don't. Global warming is a self-reinforcing effect. So there's no point to slowing down emissions. No point at all. Even if you get it to zero, the resulting concentrations will still accelerate into the right. Even if you get it negative at the same rate we're producing it today (which would eliminate all human co2 contributions EVER in ~60 years) wou…
This right here sums up about 97% of the entire issue. People look at the scale of problem, figure they can't make "a real difference" and use that as justification for continuing on with business as usual. It boils down to "The pain and nuisance of me personally taking fewer airplane trips, walking more or eating less meat (or whatever) far outweighs in my mind the benefit to The World of me inconveniencing myself. So Why Bother?"
And, conveniently, it's an argument that frames itself in a way that is nigh impossible to argue with.
Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed you keep making posts that boil down to 'I do/am/believe ' without it offering much relevance or insight to the discussion. It seems like you're just live blogging on HN. I'm very curious what your reasons are for doing so. EDIT: I'm honestly curious. It doesn't bother me too much, and I'm sure I've made comments that I thought were valuable but in hindsight were probably just me wanting to be present. I…
It's a discussion thread. I add my input, maybe you find it relevant, maybe you dont. Maybe I don't add enough insight. Fair enough. But it's honestly fucking weird that you are tracking my comments.
Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as ethically farmed meat. If it’s killed for your plate, it’s still bad karma.
Death isn't the problem, everything dies. The problem is needless suffering. Eating meat can actually be a moral act. If the animal you eat lead a better life than it otherwise would have because of the care you provided in raising it, it's a net good. To put this in perspective, imagine you were impoverished and living a miserable existence and someone offered to let you live in comfort and luxury, and promised to t…
Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't acknowledge an ethical difference between a pig that has never seen the sun and lived on barely enough room to stand and a pig that has been held in a way that accommodated its natural behaviors?
I think the argument that eating the pig raised in dark factory is better than the pig that had a life is valid.
Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
0) Address the fact that the vast majority of carbon, methane, and other contributors to climate change is produced by fewer than 100 international corporations. (Animal agriculture is a big part of it, as is the fossil fuel industry, but so is shipping.)
Address it how? Stop buying goods from those companies?
We have environmental regulations, they just aren't strong enough and they often have loopholes specifically for the worst offenders (e.g. animal agriculture and shipping both externalize tremendous environmental costs on everyone). There's also differences between nations that make it possible to outsource environmental impact, which needs to be balanced.
It's not realistic to tell consumers, "Don't buy products made overseas", because for most people in most parts of the world, most of the products they need are made overseas. I don't think it's a bad thing for manufacture to flow to where it is most efficient, but it is a bad thing when environmental impact explodes because of it. There needs to be pressure on the companies hauling those goods, from every nation they ship to, to reduce emissions dramatically.
And, while I've been vegetarian or vegan for 24 years, and I encourage everyone to do so, both to reduce suffering and to reduce environmental impact, it turns out asking people to become vegetarian or vegan doesn't actually work. There have been organizations encouraging plant-based diets for decades, and yet only a small percentage of people eat a plant-based diet. The industry has to be made to internalize those costs, so they change their practices. It'll also raise prices to more realistic levels, which would shift consumption to plant-based alternatives which have orders of magnitude lower environmental impact (though still high, when talking about feeding a few billion people, but certainly more sustainable than feeding a few billion people beef).