Back at Woodford
I went to the Woodford Folk Festival again this year – on the second day of the event and again yesterday on the final day. I was a speaker in a couple of different activities, which always provides a good excuse to get up to the festival and have a wander around. This is becoming something of a pattern – follow these links to posts on my Woodford visits from 2006 and 2005. There has been a lot of rain around this year, which makes the place fairly muddy, although as long its not torrential rain, I find it preferable to baking heat and dust.
This year I was part of the ‘Great Green Debate’ on whether ‘mandatory simplicity should be compulsory’ and also a panel session in the Greenhouse tent on the environmental impacts of meat eating. The first was a (semi)comedy debate, which are usually fairly popular, and it packed out the Concert tent, which looked to me like it holds about 1000 people. The crowd seemed to enjoy the debate, although I’m not sure I gave my best performance – not that I can be very objective about it I suppose.
The second session was held on a rainy New Years Day around 11am, so I wasn’t expecting many people there, particularly given that the topic isn’t overly sexy. I was pleasantly surprised when it filled up with around 130 people who seemed interested and engaged in the topic.
Apart from my speaking bits, I just wandered around the place on my own both days, having a look at some of the entertainment, conversing with people who come up to talk with me about something, or saying hello to people I know.
65 Comments, Comment or Ping
Alistair Dark
Hi Andrew.
I would have loved to be present at the meat-environment debate. This topic is still so taboo, as being anti-meat (pro human health and environment) is still considered anti-australian for various reasons. I feel really enthused when I hear that people are opening up to the topic.
Of course there is much to be discussed when it comes to the environment. There’s a lot of misconception about the various ways the meat industry depletes and pollutes our resources.
I would really love more and clearer information out there for people to begin evaulating the situation propperly.
I’m always disheartened when I hear the phrase ‘climate change set to threaten agriculture’, knowing that in fact, our agriculture, which is mostly for meat, poses the greatest threat to our climate.
I guess you heard all of this and more at the conference.
Of course the most thorough evaulation of the situation has been done by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which everyone can see here
However, since the release, the role of natural forests in mitigating climate change has been hilighted. In the last 50 years so much has been cleared globally for grazing and feedcrop production. I’m really watching progress in halting this trend, and there’s a lot being done. I try to keep track of this here
I still think the best is that we switch to plant based foods – a diet which is shown again and again to be perfectly healthy.
Jan 3rd, 2008
philip travers
Why is the subject of vegetarian diet taboo!?I dont think it is, there have been examples with insulting adverts, towards vegetarians that plainly were offensive.Are butchers,slaughtermen ,women and farmers actually believe free speech should be impeded for the sake of meat!?Probably not!I think the diet is one function of self, that doesnt necessarily mean the footprint on the earth is valid.Takes a long time to see something unremarkably wrong with the Footprint view of resources.It is like suburban water use.When one decides to go to the front fence and look across the road to the adjoining property,it seems highly incongruous the private owner of property is the great water guzzler,because the self evident lack of water catchment becomes so in rainy conditions.That is why it is a thoughtless prank to consider that older people,who always watched the money were prolific water uses.They werent!Watering the drive car and cooling down the house,because of the material were the only options.It is failed infrastructure planning that has shifted the responsibility completely to house owners.Vegetarians,and I am one of them,cannot claim some sort of higher moral ground re climate change.The problems remain systems other than farm use by cattle and other domestic animals.Road kill isnt entirely a function of fenced lands but more where old roads have had faster vehicles travel on them.Vegetarians and others will kill on roads.Farmers are smarter than what a frightened vegetarian may think. Be Australian,the meat eaters you walk past on the street,may think climate change has to be intelligently responded to.He maybe wearing out his shoes too,and walking across grassy knolls maybe what he or she might want as ideal,but for the cost of living.And has it really been tested effectively in Australia, that a vegetarian footprint will be less than a meat eaters ,off-paddock where they munch to again walk around barefoot in the paddock,or with spiked shoes for aeration of soil!?
Jan 3rd, 2008
Alistair
Regarding the free speech- I don’t think it’s the producers who want to misinform. They may be entrenched views like the rest of us, but in the end they’re making a meager living like the rest of us. Many of them are very nice and would never maliciously misinform- I think. There seems to be a lobby, for the most part MLA and AGFORCE, that does include propaganda in their campaigns and media releases. CSIRO sometimes suprises me too, although less so recently. I would be interested to find out how much of this lobbying is malicious (knowlingly against public interest) or just guided by beliefs. I’m sure it’s a mix.
The principle of “personal choice” is always a good one, except that unequal choices are presented to us as equal ones, through undervaluing of natural resources. The problem is systemic. The full cost is difficult to quantify – and as the issue is an inconvenience (from an industry standpoint) – in the absence of certainty it is likely to continue to be ignored.
Is climate change a moral issue? I’m not sure myself. If it is, then there must be a higher ground somewhere.
Jan 4th, 2008
CORAL
Climate change is something we mere mortals can do precious little about.
Those who oppose livestock industries must know that if cutbacks in animal production occur, they will be taking both meat-eaters’ and vegetarians’ choices away.
It wouldn’t take a very large cutback to push the prices of meat, eggs and dairy products through the roof, so that most people couldn’t afford them.
Misguided vegans, who comprise a very tiny percentage of the Australian population, have no business trying to take other people’s choices away.
On a global scale, there are other influences at work to promote the myth of “man made” global warming for the benefit of the greedy.
It is a politico-scientific cult, whose leaders’ main aim is to mislead and exploit the world’s populations.
I have asked many people what they think. I have only found two (young) men who believe the myth, mostly due to fear and lack of life experience.
I think it is a moral issue, that we dare not ignore.
Jan 4th, 2008
Donna
… and here I was thinking I was your typical agnostic Catholic.
… so, can you tell me who my leaders are and where the cult hangs out Coral?
Can I get a good dahl recipe from them?
Will they make my dog give up chicken?
Jan 5th, 2008
CORAL
I suggest you work it out for yourself, Donna.
Your leaders are probably good for a dahl recipe … and as for the dog eating chicken into the future … if the world doesn’t wake up to what is really happening, you can forget it.
I would have thought these answers would be clearly obvious.
I look forward to some mature, worthwhile input coming from you.
Jan 5th, 2008
Donna
So my dog must become a vegan?
Can I compromise and make her a vegetarian?
She really likes eggs … free range of course!
Jan 6th, 2008
CORAL
Very funny, but not very mature or worthwhile.
In case you weren’t aware, chooks are livestock as well.
When there is no livestock left, or the products become too expensive, your dog may start eyeing its owner’s calves speculatively. That’s the closest it’s going to get to eating beef.
Jan 6th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Alistair, I think anyone who believes the science regarding climate change, there is an element where it is a moral or ethical issue – which is why I try to emphasise (in as non-moral-high-horse a way as possible) that people have to show more individual personal leadership on the issue, rather than just blame governments, coal miners, etc. Changing one’s diet is an easy and immediate way of doing this, and can also make a more significant impact in reducing greenhouse emissions than most ofthe other personal level actions like catching public transport, using less electricity, etc.
Oh, and as another part of my New Year’s resolution to make my comment threads more interesting and less irritating, I’m also going to be much more likely to just delete or edit comments that are just attacking other commenters or pointless sniping between people (I’m thinking Donna and Coral in this instance, in case its not obvious)
Jan 6th, 2008
CORAL
I try to have respect for other posters, but if they’re going to treat me badly, I have every right to retaliate.
In future, I will try to ignore belittling comments.
Jan 7th, 2008
ken
Is there any evidcen to support the contention that changing one’s diet will have a “significant” impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? I would not have thought the margial greenhouse prodction v the fixed greenhouse prodction would be that elastic.
I dont think the issue is a clear cut as Alistar’s contention that being anti meat mens pro life etc. I have a frined who is anti vegan and pro starvation (you see there’s alwasy some one more moral and pure that oneself. The argument is spurious.
Although I do agree that people should do the most thay can and the most they are capable of without some guilt trip attachemnet to improve their and others lots.
I think to keep your site interstiong you do need some personal interplay between posters, in general I think you have keopt it pretty much in line, (although i accept my own conflict iof interest in this regard) – however the last thing we want is turgid long winded tirades fromt the self righteous and serious as the only form of communication. Lancing bubbles are an important part of debate, althouhg I agree outright insults are off limits however.
Jan 7th, 2008
CORAL
My daughter-in-law is a biological scientist and chemist. She agrees with me that a nation comprising 100% vegans will produce more greenhouse gases than the current production of livestock.
The population of Queensland is growing by about 125,000 to 150,000 per year. What sense would it make to REDUCE the production of any kind of food under these circumstances?
Plant proteins are less bioavailable than animal proteins i.e. they are harder for the human body to utilise. A vegan diet is also very low in zinc, and may require supplementation.
Vegans who are zinc deficient can develop hormonal problems, with consequent effects on brain chemistry, which could lead to the development of mental health problems.
Jan 7th, 2008
muzzmonster
Coral, you seem to be making an assumption that the extra population in Queensland is coming from births only as if the state was a closed system. Although I don’t know precise figures, a significant portion of Queensland’s population growth is from migration (interstate and international – as well as intrastate).
Similarly, Queensland’s food is not all grown (or eaten) in Queensland.
I’m trying to point out that everything to do with climate change takes place in a very complex and interactive system where things we do affect others and vice versa.
But the main point is that we can reduce per capita consumption and waste of both food and greenhouse gas emissions.
Jan 7th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
“The population of Queensland is growing by about 125,000 to 150,000 per year.”
Coral, you’ve been bandying around these sorts of figures for some time now. However, the Bureau of Statistics reckon that Qld’s population increased by a little under 319,000 between the 2001 & 2006 censuses, ie about half the rate you claim.
How do you account for this rather large discrepancy?
Jan 7th, 2008
Donna
Ken
In my snipey little opinion, chickpeas and chicken use approximately the same amount of water to produce. So, if you cut down from red meat to chicken, then at least you’re reducing your virtual water usage.
I’m not sure off-hand about the other legumes, but they use less water than red meat … and that’s an important consideration in SE Qld.
Jan 7th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
“A vegan diet is also very low in zinc”
Try nuts, grains & legumes i.e. the staples of most vegetarian diets. Avocados also contain reasonable levels of zinc.
“What sense would it make to REDUCE the production of any kind of food under these circumstances?”
Coral, this claim only holds if the land that is taken out of production is not put to other agricultural use, or if the alternate use is a less efficient means of producing food.
The production of meat from mammals is an inefficient means of producing food, particularly when the animals are fed grains that could be used for human consumption.
“My daughter-in-law is a biological scientist and chemist. She agrees with me that a nation comprising 100% vegans will produce more greenhouse gases than the current production of livestock.”
On what basis has she come to this conclusion? Has she made the calculations? Has she published her findings in a peer-reviewed journal? In any case, haven’t you been telling us that anthropogenic climate change is all bunkum anyway?
Jan 7th, 2008
Donna
… just a personal choice, not saying anyone has to give up beef, unlike those who are intolerant towards vegans.
Jan 7th, 2008
ken
Count the heads feral
Jan 8th, 2008
CORAL
Feral and Muzz:
That’s right. Anthropogenic climate changed is largely (but possibly not wholly) bunkum. So the argument is relatively pointless.
BTW my figures didn’t take into account births or deaths – only movements from interstate and overseas.
The government tells us 140,000 are coming in from overseas each year, of which I think Queensland would be receiving an unequal share.
The other stats on interstate migration have come from the government and media sources as well – varying between 75,000 and 100,000 per annum.
The nutritional value of meats, dairy products and eggs is often greater than that of other agricultural products – being more bioavailable and nutrient dense.
It isn’t only about water useage, greenhouse emission control or soil erosion.
My daughter-in-law cannot publish her findings in a peer reviewed journal because only a tiny percentage of the population is currently vegan.
The same concept applies to the IPCC’s ill-informed and manipulative extrapolations on the state of the world into the future.
Anna Bligh recently announced a cut to the fishing industry, affecting the livelihood of many fisherman.
The current surplus of sharks must be consuming more than its fair share of fish.
Anna Bligh should get some of the fisherman onto the job of reducing their numbers to fill the seafood gap, so we can eventually enjoy more of the smaller fry ourselves.
Donna:
You make a good point about the chooks and the chickpeas (chooks also produce something extra – eggs), but please try to remember that I am pro-choice where food is concerned.
It is those who would take away the choices of eaters of meat, dairy products and eggs who are of concern in that regard.
Last week there was a poll on whether or not the drought would end in 2008. I think the drought ended in mid-2007.
Jan 8th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Ken, when I talk about changing one’s diet having a “more significant” impact than other individual actions, I mean in a comparative sense. On one level, anything one person does will have an infinitesimal impact on its own. But we need society wide behavioural and cultural change here, and that comes about best through an accumlation of individuals changing the behaviours and views. Unlike other things like reducing car travel or swutching to renewable energy, changing diet is immediate, affordable, easy and achieveable for almost everyone, and doesn’t need to wait for governments or business to assist through providing the alternatives.
Cumulatively it can also have a quicker impact in reducing climate change risks because it will quickly cut methane emissions, which dissipate in the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2.
And regardless of Coral’s daughter-in-laws views, the science on greenhouse emissions from livestock is well established and is not disputed (at least in the broad) even by the livestock industry – to provide just a couple of examples: this article cites one such study, and this article cites another. There are many more of course. The number of vegans or vegetarians has nothing to do with the scientific facts about emissions and resource usage from various types of food production.
Jan 8th, 2008
CORAL
It sounds as if the plan is to push us into veganism as quickly as possible, whether we like it or not – not very democratic.
If that happens, there will be a huge backlash from Australian voters, verging on civil war.
If 100% of Australians are forced into veganism, it will produce a whole new set of negative facts and statistics – both medical and scientific.
Human beings produce more greenhouse gas emissions when they eat excessive vegetation, particularly legumes.
We need to look at the broader picture and the hidden agendas of the IPCC and their affiliates – to drive wages down (partly by bringing in migrant slaves), get us onto a low cost “peasant” diet which will make us more compliant, and bring in a global communist government which will capitalise on the exploitation of the poor.
Ken:
Now do you get what I mean by Green global capitalistic communists???
Australian citizens should oppose all attempts to amalgamate or wipe out government at the local, state and federal levels.
Such a wiping out has already commenced in Queensland with the amalgamation of local Councils, most of which were already in a very strong financial position.
Now Anna Bligh is wiping out the fishing industry.
At the federal level, Labor gave its preferences to Greens and Democrats.
Politicians need to pay attention to the fact that the poles are melting on other planets – some much further from the sun than we are – and then wake up to the con.
Jan 8th, 2008
Alistair
I think that many people are yet to be convinced by the climate change idea, and fair enough, as it is apparently not self-evident to most.
However the stresses on our immediately quantifiable resources such as land and water are real. From the perspective of practical sustainability the meat diet is disastrous for even today’s population, not to speak of 2030’s 9 billion!
Worrying about ‘choices’ won’t be an issue in the future because there won’t be a choice.
It’s common sense to conserve. I want to see a peaceful future. The real choice is the choice to act on habit or humanism… to stay in our cultural comfort zone or look critically at our lifestyles and make necessary changes.
If you investigate the matter with an open mind you will be surprised how much difference this particular change can make. It’s not small, not at all. It is the biggest, fastest, easiest thing we can change for a plentiful future – and a climatically stable one, perhaps. The rehabilitation of the freed up land (at least half will become immediately free) might provide income for farmers etc.
Jan 8th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Coral, you’ve made a bit of a mess of relaying a straightforward population statistic, one that can be readily verified on-line. By your own admission, you didn’t even consider the effects of births & deaths on population growth. That’s a fundamental error.
So I’m not sure that you are the right person to be accusing anyone else of “ill-informed and manipulative extrapolations”.
BTW cows & other ruminants produce somewhere around 250-500 litres of methane a day. Do you think that vegetarian humans would be able to maintain such a prodigious rate of flatulence & belching, even on a weight-for-weight basis?
Jan 8th, 2008
CORAL
Feral:
The Bureau of Statistics does not (and cannot) produce reliable figures.
Some people return their census papers in sealed envelopes with rude graffiti written all over them, and the questions unanswered.
Some people have reason to lie about the number of people in their households.
The number of homeless people is also increasing exponentially. Some of them probably get missed in the count. Then there are the illegals.
BTW the census stats from 2001 to 2006 are hardly relevant in 2008.
The huge increases in migration from interstate and overseas are relatively recent occurrences. That’s how I account for such a large discrepancy between your figures and mine.
Since John Howard decided to give people $4000 for having a baby, there has been a rise in births. Everywhere I go, there are pregnant tummies and tiny babies.
In the last 6 months, the number of people dying in nursing homes has also increased exponentially – and new arrivals have mostly had fewer capabilities for independence and participation than previously. However, this could be a reflection of the dire shortage of nursing home beds.
At this point in time, it is impossible to do the statistical comparison with animals which your question requires.
BTW I’m not talking about vegetarians or their various derivatives. I’m only talking about vegans because, when all of the livestock are gone, or the prices become hugely inflated, choice will be taken away.
I know a man who may not even think about opening a baked bean can, under threat of divorce. A woman will not eat any kind of beans due to serious anti-social consequences.
We humans are omnivores. We have nothing to “ruminate” with, outside of our thought processes. We have only one stomach for digestive purposes.
I have no underlying agenda which would be served by deliberate misinformation or manipulation, but there are others who do.
Jan 9th, 2008
ken
Didnt you know Feral aussies alwasy punch above their weight….
If we had feedlots everywhere could we capture and use all that methane and still enjoy steaks. Now theres a conundrum, environement v animal welfare v choice?
Jan 9th, 2008
muzzmonster
I really think you’re being paranoid about things Coral. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone (except maybe a few rabid Greens) say that everyone should be vegans. Andrew seems to suggest it as a good measure, but I’m not supporting him – especially since I’m not even a vegetarisn.
As to the IPCC, I’d suggest you have a look at who exactly belongs to it (open to all 182 member countries of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme). To get all these parties to come up with your hidden agenda seems ludicrous to me.
Jan 9th, 2008
Donna
Muzz
I think you’d find it hard to find a decent representation of vegetarians, let alone a vegan, in the Greens or Democrats.
Our good senator is the only one I’ve heard of.
I could be wrong of course …
Jan 9th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
“The Bureau of Statistics does not (and cannot) produce reliable figures.”
Coral, although misreporting can affect census figures, the Bureau of Statistics go to great lengths to cross-check data, to minimize the effects of misreporting, and to understand how any unresolved errors might affect the interpretation of the data – details at this page.
In contrast to the wild speculations presented as rock-solid fact by some blog commenters, almost all statisticians are very careful to qualify any areas of uncertainty that may surround their conclusions. After all, they see their profession as being the art & science of making sense out of incomplete or uncertain information. I should also point out that the ABS does a lot more than conduct censuses, and many of their activities are not affected by the sorts of data quality issues that surround censuses.
That said, your insistence that the ABS has underestimated Qld’s population growth by a whopping 50% is … Well, let’s not allow reality to get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
“At this point in time, it is impossible to do the statistical comparison with animals which your question requires.”
Whyever not? It might not be the easiest thing to measure, but compared with measuring the speed of light – which was done quite accurately in the 18th C – it’d be a doddle. Find me the funding & I’ll arrange to have it done for you.
Jan 9th, 2008
CORAL
Well Muzz, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Just don’t expect to get anything that isn’t a plant on the side.
At one time, scientists thought that the Earth was flat, and that ships might sail over the edge.
In regard to hidden agendas, it is very common for the real agenda to be hidden from nearly everyone involved.
BTW you can kiss goodbye to your superannuation as well.
Jan 9th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
ken – whatever your two-headed hypothesis (@18) lacks in plausibility, it certainly makes up for in terms of internal consistency & explanatory power. Far more convincing than some other post-rationalizations proferred here.
“If we had feedlots everywhere could we capture and use all that methane and still enjoy steaks. Now theres a conundrum, environement v animal welfare v choice?”
A good point – actually a set of good points with all those awkward ethical trade-offs – and judging from the subjects of some recently-published research, one that must be on other people’s minds too. It sounds as though its in the realm of the possible, but I don’t know how feasible it might be. And of course there’s still the matter of the energetic inefficiencies of converting plant matter into animal protein.
Mammals use most of their food to maintain homeostatis; only a small proportion of food is converted into body mass (except when one is male & middle-aged, and the laws of nature no longer apply…)
And then there are the greenhouse emissions generated in growing and transporting animal fodder, not to mention the emissions involved in building and maintaining feedlots, and no doubt others I haven’t thought of…
Jan 9th, 2008
CORAL
Feral:
Can you tell us how the output of 250-500 litres of methane a day was measured?
Did someone tie large bags to both ends and wait until they filled? Did they do this on the same cows for weeks on end to get a consistent reading? Did they do it again using different types of fodder? If so, how many cows were used?
I think beef cattle weigh about the same as 15 adults. There are plenty of men who could give a cow some serious competition per kg of body weight on a per capita basis, even without feeding them more gas-producing foods.
The current IPCC policy neglects the fact that, in the future, most fruits and vegetables will be hydroponically or aeroponically grown – not sure about grains.
This puts me in mind of the time when my youngest son won both the Year 5 and Open Sections of a Speaking Competition conducted at his school.
The title of his speech was “The Future”. I remember this sentence from his discussion about food shortages:
“Imagine a fight to the death over the very last steak or chipolata sausage!”
One of the judges said he would take the steak, thanks.
Once again, we’re looking at governments being decades behind in their narrow-minded thinking.
In my experience, statistical analyses of many things have very serious shortcomings, especially where social issues are concerned. You have to look behind the statistics to get at the truth.
The only statistician I have ever known was so locked into his narrow mathematical reasoning that he was not open to other ideas. He had also been divorced twice.
The stats I have given were published in the media – 1,500 to 2,000 coming to Queensland from interstate every week; and 140,000 migrants coming to Australia from overseas each year.
I’ve worked with researchers producing stats. They can be manipulated in any direction, and often don’t take into account relevant background information or related issues.
The poles are melting on other planets.
Jan 11th, 2008
ken
So there feral – stick your abacus where the sun dont shine sonny boy – all we need for truth is the meedja.
Jan 11th, 2008
CORAL
Greenhouse emissions are also generated when transporting fruits, vegetables and grains – not to mention the emissions from building extra warehouses and silos for storage, and factories to prepare, wash and manufacture various meat-replacing vegan commodities.
Jan 11th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
ken – I can’t say I’ve ever tried that myself. Is it as uncomfortable as is sounds?
Coral, thanks for your responses. Sorry, the methane link in my post 23 has broken. Try here to access the full paper (1.1Mb pdf). Although it is some years old, it provides details on the various ways that ruminant methane emmisions can be measured.
There have been a number of studies, including several more recently published papers: the upshot is that methane emissions vary with a number of factors, such as fodder type and air temperature, but that most fall measurements fall in the 250-500 L per day range. This equates to 16.5-33 L of gas per day assuming your 15 humans per cow is about right. However, according to this article, typical human flatus emission is around 0.5-2 L per day, and according to the Wikipedia page on flatulence, 0-10% of that is methane.
So humans really do not even come within coo-ee of giving cows a run for their money in the methane stakes.
… I can’t believe I’m spending a Friday evening writing this stuff.
Jan 11th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Coral, I’d say a degree of skepticism is a good thing. However, it seems that you discount any information from academic or formal sources, while uncritically accepting much of what you gain from other sources, such as the media. Paradoxically, information in the media often originates from academic/formal sources, but is usually misreported & misrepresented, and almost never understood by the journalist (George Megalogenis from The Australian is a notable exception).
Of course its your prerogative to do so, just as its my prerogative to protest that it doesn’t make sense to me.
“statistical analyses of many things have very serious shortcomings, especially where social issues are concerned. You have to look behind the statistics to get at the truth”
Yes & no. Statistics are very useful for determining whether we can be reasonably sure that we have got at the truth.
Its helpful to differentiate between data, the results of data analyses, and the interpretation of those results. The laws of probability are as immutable as gravity: its up to researchers to collect appropriate data, apply a reasonable analysis, and to draw valid conclusions given their methods and taking into consideration prior knowledge.
Those processes can certainly go awry. But that does not mean that we should reject statistical practise in its entirety any more than we would reject the entire Western musical canon because, say, Glen Gould had played a wrong note in his second recording of Bach’s Goldberg Variations.
“The poles are melting on other planets”
Interesting, but not really the point. The issue is not so much whether recent weather patterns are evidence that climate change is already occuring (the question is worth asking, but may not be answerable on current data), but that increased levels of greenhouse gases will inevitably cause climatic change. Its a dead cert given the physics.
Jan 11th, 2008
Donna
Hey Feral
I agree that George Megalogenis is an outstanding journalist from ‘The Australian’.
If it wasn’t for him, I don’t know if I’d even bother buying the paper.
As far as belching and flatulence is concerned, I’m wondering if a human diet rich in beer and beef might give a hearty heifer a run for their money?
Jan 12th, 2008
CORAL
Feral:
Thanks for the links. I will need more time to read them, because I have visitors arriving shortly for a post-Xmas lunch.
In the introductory section on the topic of gas-producing cattle, they say that they will be responsible for only 2% of emissions in the next 50-100 years.
That doesn’t sound like much, and as stated, the amount of methane produced can be reduced by feeding them other products such as grains and oils.
Since humankind are also mammals, it would make sense that eating too many vegetable products (such as greens), may increase the flatulence levels of both man and beast.
Certainly a person drinking beer (or any carbonated beverage) could have more than his/her share of output coming from both ends.
But the carbon is coming from somewhere else first, just as it is with the fodder of cattle. I don’t think anyone or anything could put more carbon back into the environment than they are taking out in another form.
I’ve seen the human figure of up to 2 litres of methane a day quite a few times – seems pretty low to me.
Getting down to tin tacks, since the poles are also melting on other planets, it does not make sense that humankind is responsible for global warming anyway.
I don’t think we can “undo” what we have not done in the beginning.
Sure we can clean up a bit, but drastic changes to the diet are unnecessary and will be fruitless (figuratively speaking) in achieving the stated goals. But results from multiple co-existing agendas could pay off for the wrong people, to the detriment of us all.
BTW according to my daughter-in-law in Canberra, you can now send your used disposable nappies someplace for recycling.
But I feel certain that the man on TV who said it costs less to use disposable nappies, also works for a company which makes and profits from them.
Jan 13th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Donna – I’m having problems with links breaking where the web address ends in a digit; the one in post 34 was to http://discovermagazine.com/1995/apr/whatagas494 – an article about Dr Michael Levitt, a gastroenterologist who specialises in flatulence. Google will turn up many other links to his research.
The short response to your question is that although diet certainly affects flatulence, even the most exceptionally flatulent patients produce far less methane than cattle on a weight for weight basis.
This is a consequence of the differences between human and ruminant digestive processes. Unlike us, ruminants pre-digest their food through anaerobic microbial fermentation in the rumen before food passes to the stomach. This allows them to obtain adequate nutrition from low-grade food sources like grass. Much of the methane is generated by other rumen microbes anaerobically digesting fermentation by-products – see here for the technical details.
Coral, I noticed that 2% comment too. I don’t know whether the figure has been subsequently revised; its based on a 1992 IPCC publication. In fact the 2% refers to the estimated effect on global warming, not to methane emissions per se. By Johnson & Johnson’s figures, livestock account for more than 15% of global methane emissions.
And as I mentioned earlier, that’s just the direct emissions; it doesn’t take into account energetic inefficiencies or the greenhouse consequences of other aspects of meat production.
Jan 14th, 2008
ken
All this is very interesting but at the end of the day (nice cliche) like all problem solving or business decisions the pareto principle msut come into play. Surely someone can defintitively tell us what is the 20% of “things” that create the 80% of greenhouse.
Accordingly to make any signficant change it is those 20% that has to be addressed. I suspect burning coal must be one of them.
All this other stuff is fluff and bubble round the edges – feel good and die happy and impact on ones own personal finance eg turning off the power, all well and good, but irrelevant in any real approach to saving the planet.
Jan 15th, 2008
CORAL
But we are still overlooking the fact that the poles are melting on other planets. That’s a fairly significant oversight, don’t you think???
I find it quite arrogant of humankind to think that we can “save the planet” – especially since we have neither created nor melted it – or invented the solar system.
In an interglacial period, everything dies, so why don’t we barbecue to our hearts’ content in the meantime?
I recently saw Tim Flannery discussing this issue on TV. It sounded as if he also wanted to stop us from cooking. I hope you all have good teeth!
I think the best place to buy your meat where I live is at the Super IGA. Yesterday I got 10 servings of rump steak for $10.00. They have excellent specials on meat every week, far outdoing Woolworths or Coles.
Their fresh fruit and vegetables are very competitive also.
For those who think (as I used to) that shopping at the small butcher shop in the shopping centre might be cheaper, here is my experience.
When I asked for shoulder pork chops, I received huge mammoth slabs. I also paid for useless fat and bone.
When I wanted chicken drumsticks, I got massive pterydactyl shanks.
When I bought sausages, I received goods that put me in mind of stallions. I had to rehang the whole lot just to fit them into an electric frying pan. At least there were twice as many, I suppose.
Instead of buying a hind quarter of beef at a bulk butcher, it is actually cheaper to buy the whole cuts you prefer. But if you have a large dog, it might enjoy the large thigh bone and other bits, and that would be different.
I’ve often encountered middle-aged and elderly men in the Meat Section of the supermarket who don’t know what to buy for only one person.
If they can get some kind of roast on special, one part could be roasted, some cut into steaks, and some cut into strips for a stirfry, and cubes for a casserole – also excellent if they have limited freezer space or money.
Jan 15th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
I just noticed an article in today’s Financial Review by Chris Haskins, a farmer and former chairman of the UK company northern foods, which contained the following quote:
The Fin Review doesn’t have it online, but the same piece also appeared on this website.
Jan 15th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
“But we are still overlooking the fact that the poles are melting on other planets. That’s a fairly significant oversight, don’t you think???”
Coral, apart from being somewhat off topic, you haven’t provided any reason why this observation is relevant. In fact, you haven’t presented any sort of argument at all, just stated several times that “poles are melting” in some other part of the solar system. The mere invocation of this observation won’t nullify everything else that has been said here.
So if you think that this idea is important, go do your homework and present an argument for us to discuss. I can hardly rebut a case that has yet to be put forward.
And as I said in post 35, we know that some gases trap heat, we know that the atmospheric concentrations of some of those gases has been increasing over the last 100-200 years, and we know that human activity is responsible for at least part of that increase. Anthropogenic climate change is inevitable; the questions are how much and when, and what to do about it.
And don’t forget that unicellular organisms were responsible for a massive change in the composition of the earth’s atmosphere early in its history. If they can do it, surely we can too.
Jan 15th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
ken, the IPCC reports would be a good place to start in trying to figure out the sources of the bulk of greenhouse emissions. Of course the tricky bit is finding which of those can readily be scaled back. Reducing coal burning would be an important step, but it will take time to implement substantial reductions.
Generally speaking, targetting methane emissions is likely to be an effective strategy due to methane’s much higher warming effect – it is about 70 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Jan 15th, 2008
Donna
Thanks for that info Feral.
I suppose you just have to look at the size of cattle (as well as their numerous stomaches) to work that out.
But with all his scepticism about green house gases and the grazing industry, my own experiences with graziers is that they are only too aware of it.
They don’t appear to be in denial at all.
Jan 15th, 2008
CORAL
I have now read the link to the Malthusian Prophet of Doom, whose prophecy was proven incorrect.
Now Haskins has appointed himself the new Prophet of Doom, with plenty of negative input.
I find it very hard to believe that 3/4 of the world’s wheat, maize and soya is fed to cattle.
My guess is that Haskins is a fruit, vegetable or grain farmer (probably grain), hoping to cash in on the availability of prime grazing land for his own profit.
Feral:
Melting poles are very much on-topic. You cannot push them off-topic when a couple of cracks appear in the foundation of your argument.
I’m afraid I don’t have a spaceship to take you with me so we can check out the poles on the other planets (and our own) at first hand.
I also don’t have a reliable gasometer with which we can do our own measurements. BTW the measurement methods used by the experts in your link did not sound at all precise.
You seem quite willing to believe that a cow can produce more than half its body weight in gas every day. If that were the case, if we stuck a pin in it, it could almost fly over the moon without even jumping.
I have two cousins on the land in SE Qld. One is a dairy farmer who also keeps pigs. The other has beef cattle.
Their cattle range freely and just “mow” the grass. They have plenty of water from creeks and dams, trees for shelter, and also some of those shelters resembling large carports to protect them from the sun and rain.
From your link, probably the best way of decreasing methane output without feeding the cattle ANY GRAIN OR SOY might be to grind and pelletise the natural forage, resulting in improvement in digestability and methane reduction of 20-40%.
Let the very greedy, deceitful Haskins stick that up a cow’s khyber and try to profit from it.
Jan 16th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
“I’m afraid I don’t have a spaceship to take you with me so we can check out the poles on the other planets (and our own) at first hand.”
Was I relieved to read that! I’d half expected an invitation to a quick tour of the solar system from a backyard launching pad, and I really wasn’t too sure how we’d cope with being shut up together in a confined space for a day or two.
I must say that I really don’t think I stated anything along the lines of “a cow can produce more than half its body weight in gas every day” – after all, every measurement of methane production that I quoted was in volume, not weight. And the figures I gave were the methane component, not total gas emissions. BTW the methane volumes (250-500 litres) translate into somewhere around 5kg mass, from memory.
And I’m still waiting to hear from you exactly what you think are the “couple of cracks” that have allegedly “appear[ed] in the foundation of [my] argument”. I would like to know why you think that an observation of an event on a planet many millions of kilometres away is relevant to this discussion. I’d prefer not to try to second guess what you are thinking.
If you’d like more time to mull it over, be my guest.
Donna – I had a bit of contact with farmers & landholders in SE Qld when I was working there, and most of them were adamant that the climate there had changed since the 1950s or 1960s, at least regionally. I’m not sure what they attributed the change to, but I’d have to say that they were quite a contrast to the farmers & graziers who were featured in Queensland Country Life.
Jan 16th, 2008
ken
Could be worse feral – dont ever shop at IGA
Jan 17th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Noted, ken. Should I find myself there by accident I will be torn between adhering to Senator Bartlett’s admonitions and Coral’s recommendations re value for money. Always hard to resist a bargain, but I should be OK as long as I steer clear of the meat counter.
Coral, this paper on coincidence (300 Kb pdf) might assist you prepare your argument. Some of it is rather technical, but most intelligent readers would be able to follow sections 1-5 & section 8 without too much difficulty.
Jan 17th, 2008
CORAL
I think you have a very closed mind, Feral, if you cannot draw an interrelationship between what happens on planet Earth and other planets that are serviced in the same solar system by the same star – without assistance from another person.
I’m sure I could stand your company for at least a couple of days. In 2 days, I’m sure you would quickly learn to think beyond university teaching, researchers’ opinions and other biased nincompoopery – especially when a lot of it is coming from vegetarians and vegans.
It’s a sad day when a poor cow cannot innocently flatulate without someone wanting to terminate both her and her potential progeny – not to mention abolish other people’s food choices.
People whine at the drop of a hat over (perceived) racism and sexism, but are quite happy to ignore a case of blatant flatulism.
Perhaps you will change your mind when you are forced to grind your dried beans with a mortar and pestle, after the government has decided you may no longer cook or use kitchen appliances, for fear of terminating us all with your surplus electricity use.
You might need to go out into the sun with the magnifying glass after all.
BTW a 5 kg (mass) of methane inside a cow isn’t the same as bone or even fat. It’s an enormous volume, taking up a much larger space.
On Monday afternoon, I spoke with a very well educated lady who works in the Meat Department at Woolworths.
I can assure you she was not at all concerned about a possible move to the Bean Department, when I ran the prospect past her.
She thinks a Civil War is a much greater likelihood before anything like that happens.
When I flew from Brisbane to Canberra via Sydney for Xmas, the landscape was greener than I have ever seen it in the last 12 years.
Canberra used to be as brown and dry as a drought-stricken prairie, but now even it’s a bit green.
Maybe one day we’ll crunch a whole carrot together, trying not to break our teeth, or neigh like horses.
Jan 17th, 2008
CORAL
Feral:
I have looked at your link.
Here’s another way of looking at it. You might remember I previously mentioned that people are easier to control and manipulate if you keep them on a high carbohydrate/low protein diet.
Now we have Haskins telling us that the cattle are eating 3/4 of the world’s wheat, maize and soya. (Do you honestly think animals would get all that grain if humans needed it?)
Haskins is probably part of the Green global conspiracy to replace the largest component of protein in our diets (livestock and their byproducts) with grain foods – for his own gain.
I have done a bit of casual reading about Haskins and his exploits. He says he wants to get rid of the Upper House of Parliament in the UK. The man is a communist – not to mention a WHEAT FARMER.
Do you think his wheat would command such high prices if it was being fed to cattle?
He also has an interest in using farming land to build holiday retreats.
I tend to agree with him that organic farming is not the way to go, due to lesser productivity – but his driving force is greed.
Last night, I spoke with a friend who is a Chaplain at a large university. He said fanatical Greens are bombarding the campus with gore and horror stories to try to stop students from eating meat.
Although he doesn’t eat red meat or dairy products (lactose intolerance), he also doesn’t like fanatics trying to take away other people’s choices.
Despite trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle and diet, this highly intelligent man has osteoporosis due to calcium deficiency.
I cannot tell you more about his major social and scientific achievements outside of the Chaplaincy, without lots of people being able to identify him.
Here are a couple of links:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming-2.html
Jan 18th, 2008
CORAL
Sorry, here’s the second link again:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
Jan 18th, 2008
The Feral Abacus
Hi Coral – thanks for the links.
But first, it was Senator B who posted the link to the article about Haskins, not me.
Re your links: I note that only one of the scientists interviewed for the National Geographic article thought that solar irradiance was increasing, and that it was the major factor in changes on Earth and on Mars. The others disagreed very strongly: when a scientist says that someone’s idea “just isn’t supported by the theory or by the observations” they are accusing them of indulging in baseless speculation.
What’s more, nearly 30 years of satellite measurements show that solar irradiance is only varying over a tiny range – less than plus/minus 0.3% (scroll down to figure 3).
One particularly interesting aspect of this graph is that it shows that solar irradiance has been decreasing since 2001-2002, yet global temperatures have been consistently unusually warm over this period. Although there could be time-lags involved, the lack of a global temperature cycle with a period of 10-11 years is further evidence that recent variation in solar irradiance is having minimal effect on global temperatures.
These data also put paid to the claims made in the Heartland Institute article that you linked to, as they clarify trends that would not have been so clear at the time the article was written.
So I think we can discount solar variability as being a major factor in determining recent climatic events, and that the planetary ice caps story is a furphy WRT climate change on earth. There’s also a good article on solar variability at National Geographic.
Jan 20th, 2008
CORAL
Feral:
No claims should ever be “put paid to”. Please don’t be too quick to label anything a furphy. It’s important not to take anything you read as the gospel truth.
The majority view is also not necessarily the correct one. We got the GST, didn’t we?
I know this because I’ve worked with researchers. I know what they do when there’s money in it.
Yes, I realise that Senator B posted the link about Haskins. He is actually Lord Haskins, master of all he surveys.
When he was Chairman of National Foods, the company was criticised for selling very substandard burgers, pizzas etc (with barely a moo or oink in them) at very MEATY prices.
You will have noticed that I was onto this fellow fairly quickly, after reading only one paragraph. After further perusal, I wouldn’t believe a single syllable that came out of his mouth.
This week the Supa IGA has bolar blade roasts on special for $4.97 kg – might suit my suggestion at post #40.
But for those who would rather know how to store a very large white cauliflower for 6 weeks or longer (because you have only 1 or 2 people to feed), this is for you.
Cut a bit off the base and remove the leaves. Now cut off all of the big florettes. Put a paper towel over the top of each one, and then store them in a plastic bag in the fridge (about 4 per bag).
The middle part can be left as it is and roasted whole in the oven with a cheese sauce and breadcrumbs on top. Feral might need to put something else on instead of the cheese sauce (something with tomatoes perhaps?)
Jan 21st, 2008
The Feral Abacus
“No claims should ever be ‘put paid to’. Please don’t be too quick to label anything a furphy. It’s important not to take anything you read as the gospel truth.”
Coral, I’d agree with your latter two sentences. I certainly think it is important to read everything with a critical eye. For instance, your Heartland Institute link is clearly partisan – I’d discount (but not necessarily dismiss) anything they said that I couldn’t verify from a neutral source.
Conversely, my academic supervisor taught me to love ideas, to hold to them lightly, and to be prepared to discard them when the weight of evidence runs against them. That advice still rings true.
Re your 1st sentence: sometimes one has to admit that an idea doesn’t have legs. Galileo, Lavoisier and Pasteur each provided compelling evidence that ultimately put paid to ideas that were widely held in their times.
Melting polar icecaps on Mars might not be as decisively dismissed, but the reality is that there is no evidence to justify linking that with climatic events on earth. We can find far better explanations without needing to invoke extra-terrestrial phenomena – eg. that all the methane and CO2 we put in the atmosphere must increase the total thermal energy in the global system.
Jan 21st, 2008
The Feral Abacus
… (ctd)
“The majority view is also not necessarily the correct one. We got the GST, didn’t we?”
The parallels between scientific and political processes are much weaker than you imply.
Scientists spend a lot of time looking for reasons to disagree with each other. In that respect they resemble politicians, except that their disagreements are tempered by logic and evidence.
There’s a large number of scientists involved in anthropogenic global warming research, remarkably few of whom hold dissenting views. That strongly suggests that their findings are at least broadly correct. Any errors are most likely restricted to the details.
re cauliflour: thanks for the tip. I often use caulis in curries (eg comment 31 on the recipes thread), and in vegetable soups. I also enjoy blanched cauliflour served with a bechamel sauce, but I rarely get around to that sort of cooking.
Must get round to trying out your barley mushroom casserole recipe too.
Jan 21st, 2008
CORAL
Feral:
You’re still missing something. The weight of evidence is often wrong, especially when there’s money in it.
Just because something is strongly suggested does not make it a certainty.
I’ve had ideas that grew legs after a decade or more of criticism by those who didn’t understand them, and I’m just one person out of multi-billions.
The idea that we could have also warmed up Mars is absolutely flabbergasting.
It would be very premature of us to put paid to ideas regarding a solar cause of global warming.
Jan 23rd, 2008
The Feral Abacus
So less solar energy = more atmospheric heating????
Novel, but totally illogical.
And weren’t you saying earlier in the thread (#4) that “the myth of “man made” global warming … is a politico-scientific cult”?
Wouldn’t you say that your devotion to a belief in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, and in the face of near-overwhelming evidence in favour of another hypothesis, is in itself cult-like?
“the weight of evidence is often wrong, especially when there’s money in it.”
Piffle! The REAL money – by a mind-boggling margin – is in denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Consider the economic clout of the carbon-based energy business in Qld alone – it outweighs the entire national research budget by several orders of magnitude.
“The idea that we could have also warmed up Mars is absolutely flabbergasting.”
It is – I take it that you haven’t read my links to find out the most likely explanation.
Jan 23rd, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
A few more links for anyone interested in extra facts:
- Livestock a major threat to the environment”;
- Cows, not cars, top threat to environment says UN report.
Jan 23rd, 2008
CORAL
Feral and Andrew:
Even some of the Prophets of Doom seem to think world population will start to fall around 2040 to 2050, which invalidates a lot of arguments on its own.
Yes, I think it is a politico-scientific cult, which does not bother to look beyond a certain narrow perspective.
Individuals and small groups of people (including myself) have been right in the face of near-overwhelming evidence, on numerous occasions throughout history.
We’ll soon find out who has the bull by the tail, and what is “illogical” and “piffle”.
Such insults are based on an acceptance of other people’s ideas. You accept them – I don’t – and neither do any of the highly intelligent people I know.
It may sound frightening, but something much bigger has to be happening, over which humankind has absolutely no control.
Jan 23rd, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
You do more of the insulting than most Coral, even if it is sometimes insulting collectively rather than individually.
Backing up assertions with a variety of sources, peer-reviewed and evidence based seems to me to be a better approach than sweeping assertions based on nothing but anecdotes and insults. Each to their own of course – but please stop telling me I’m in a cult every time I express my views, especially when I back them up with scientific reports.
Jan 23rd, 2008
CORAL
Andrew:
I didn’t say you were in a cult. That’s something you inferred.
You came up with Lord Haskins – not me. It is necessary to look behind what individual people or groups say, to find their true agenda, and cross reference that with other things that are going on in the world.
For me, that would also include previous education and experiences that are not “sweeping assertions based on nothing but anecdotes and insults”.
Some of the most destructive cults are worldwide organisations with huge followings and very eminent members.
You said the Australian Farmers’ Federation had written to every Territory and State Premier to try to stop Animal Clubs being formed in our schools.
You wondered why, since a lot of them would have been growing grains, fruits and vegetables. But some are graziers also.
The AFA is well aware that Labor/Greens have an agenda to wipe out the livestock industries – and probably not for the stated reasons.
We could all provide links until they are virtually coming out of our ears. This doesn’t mean that any of them are completely accurate or inaccurate.
I reiterate that something bigger has to be happening, over which humankind has absolutely no control.
The IPCC could try to find one or more holes in the ozone layer, and pump the greenhouse gases back out. That might be an excellent short term solution, based on their own hypotheses.
I saw the British High Commissioner do the National Press Club address yesterday. She was getting very tense about the rising sea levels.
BTW I think we all know who is responsible for most of the DELIBERATE personal attacks and insults on this blog, and it certainly isn’t you, Feral or me.
Jan 24th, 2008
CORAL
A friend of mine who is an eminent scientist says they should use sequestration.
If you have too much carbon above the Earth’s surface, it definitely makes sense to pump some back down below, to even up the balance.
But I’m wondering what the risk might be of influencing further earthquake and volcanic activity etc – negating the exercise, and possibly creating further problems.
Jan 25th, 2008
CORAL
On further thought, what normally goes back down under the Earth’s surface generally includes dead animals, people, trees and vegetation – thus giving back fertiliser and fossil fuels.
I don’t think sequestration is the answer. Interreactions with other gases and minerals might cause the Earth to heat up and expand from within, and then explode.
Greenhouse gases need to be pumped out of the Earth’s atmosphere through some holes in the ozone layer. The IPCC should get on the job without further delay.
Jan 27th, 2008
muzzmonster
At post #49, Coral said: It’s a sad day when a poor cow cannot innocently flatulate without someone wanting to terminate both her and her potential progeny – not to mention abolish other people’s food choices.
I’m afraid those cows are going to die anyway, so people can eat them. If people chose not to eat them, they wouldn’t be living in the first place. Farmers don’t go to the trouble and expense of raising beef cattle just to look at.
Jan 30th, 2008
CORAL
That’s known as stating the obvious, Muzz.
Jan 30th, 2008