A neutral approach to being neutral
I’ve mentioned before that I’m having a go at being carbon neutral this year, and documenting the process and what I learn from it along the way. The concept of carbon neutral living has started to get a bit of mainstream media coverage in recent times, and the first thing I’ve learnt is that it is much easier to focus on paying money to offset your carbon emitting activities than it is to focus on reducing the amount of emissions you are personally responsible for, which is where the real change has to happen.
It is very easy for people (or businesses) who are reasonably well off to just keeping living roughly the same lifestyles and ‘neutralise’ their carbon emissions by paying some extra money to offset them. Whilst this certainly helps (assuming the offsets are fair dinkum), it is at the easy end of the scale and doesn’t help a great deal to tackle the area we really need to wrestle with, which is significantly reducing emissions.
In a sense, offsetting is like paying a personal carbon tax, and it does at least bring some carbon-linked price signals into your behaviour. But being able to say you are carbon neutral doesn’t negate the fact that we still need to do a lot more to reduce our overall emissions.
The second thing which very quickly became apparent is the need to fairly closely scrutinise the adequacy of the many offsetting proposals that are around.
A lot of offsetting programs involve paying money for someone to sequester carbon through tree planting. This site, which seems a good quality one, is one example. More trees sounds nice enough, and it is certainly true that reducing large scale vegetation clearing can provide major emission savings – indeed the only reason Australia is managing to come within a bull’s roar of our Kyoto emission targets is because of the reduction in landclearing that has occurred in recent years, especially in Queensland. However, there is the issue of guaranteeing the trees won’t be cut down, as well as the risk of monoculture plantations being developed on previously forested areas. As this report on the ABC shows, there still some questions being raised, but there’s also probably some potential there when done properly.
Other offsetting programs involve paying for renewable energy, which seems to me (based on what I know at the moment) to be a better approach. However, reliable accreditation of these services is going to be crucial, as the scope for ineffective use of such money is quite large (through poor understanding of the science as much as through sloppy or dodgy dealings). This link mentions a report which is very critical of offsetting. It is right to scrutinise offsets very closely, but there none the less seems to be potential for them to do a lot of good to be done, particularly in shifting personal behaviour and helping shift energy markets more in the direction they need to go – especially given that governments are still dragging the chain so badly rather than leading on the issue. As long as people don’t think it’s all that needs to be done to fix the problem.
Another issue is how accurately one can calculate what carbon emissions one is responsible for. There’s no need to go down to the last gram, but I feel that a lot of the sites that help you calculate your emissions are somewhat incomplete. Most of them cover road and air transport and home electricity use. Very few of them cover food consumption – I expect in part because it is much harder to calculate. Some people are starting to talk about measuring food miles (that is, trying to ensure the food you buy has not been transported large distances on the assumption this equates to greater emissions), although as this post by Robert Merkel shows, closer scrutiny suggests such assumptions may not always be true. Steve Edney also wrote a good piece looking at the facts rather than the feel when it comes to environmental impacts of food.
I’ve mentioned before the recent report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation which found that emissions from livestock is greater than emissions from all forms of transport, including air travel – and that’s without counting transporting the food or energy use inertial outlets – so ignoring food is a pretty big gap when we try to assess our overall impacts.
I’ll be tracking both my emission reductions and my offsets on my website over the course of the year, and giving some ongoing commentary about issues I discover along the way.
33 Comments, Comment or Ping
Tom Kristensen
Regarding the carbon cost of eating well, I understand that it is quite in order to throw a barbeque as long as the invitation list includes a couple of vegetarians. Even better is to pay the vegetarians to stay at home.
With the tree plantations there is the possibility that the carbon will be released back into the atmosphere. Not a problem, the harvested trees can be towed into the ocean and left to moulder underwater.
There are many other equally inventive carbon saving schemes. I had one young man knocking at my door promising me Green Energy. With missionary zeal he returned many times to help me see the light. I simply had to pay him to send me a new power bill that states that the power I consume is produced by carbon-free green technology. I was confused, but he explained that the green energy is delivered by the existing power utilities. This avoids the need for building new infrastructure, even more carbon savings there.
In another advance, a girl offered to pay my power bill for accepting the gift of new light globes. Why stop at light globes? I’d be happy to throw away all my white goods to save energy. What about a new car to save on petrol consumption?
All it takes is a little imagination and we can all lead carbon-free lives.
Mar 2nd, 2007
philip travers
I must be evil Senator!?Many years ago I was told by an activist that I wasnt a practical member of a conservation group, because I didnt own a car and he did,which meant ,he could get involved in conservation protests in the country.The fact was I wasnt a member just wanted to assist as much as I could.There is something,although true scientifically,boring about blaming cattle for some greenhouse problem ,that is part of the man-made reality.and I did read somewhere it is sheep rather than cattle by their mouths ,rather than the meat cattle who under good management schemes will not be eating improved pasture alone.Now is this site,trying to be theoretical or individuals showing off what they do and dont know,because there is already one example!?And characters and characterisation s are limited! Last night,I again visited KeelyNet.com and was pleasantly surprised to learn that ultrasonics has been applied to biofuel,as in Diesel,which means a significant less time to make it.There are whole panoramas of possibility in what could be achieved in food transport,even as it is,and as designs will permit.And well miles to market approaches really are a duckshoot,because ,even with farm markets some weight is carried to market,but,what about back to the farm,empty capacity or what!? I recently read on plastics in the food chain,this is frightening for me as economic or ecologic collapse from greenhouse,and is really dismaying. Years ago,I came across a book in the Melbourne library,where a small coal burning power station had excess water and heat and grew lobster in that water. I offered a similar solution through a newspaper and in one of the Popular Science, I think, magazines someone had set up a system in the U.S.A with the Australian lobsters or was it cray or could be yabbies? Just joking a little bit although most of what I just said was true.Where I come from on all this is to throw a new perspective where ever I can. Now character beaten.
Mar 2nd, 2007
Donna
I do my best.
I use public transport when possible.
I buy my groceries locally.
I have red meat only once a week.
I live on a small block of land.
I attempt to recycle as much as possible.
I own a rotary blade lawn mower (my bigges commitment as yet).
Any more suggestions anyone?
Mar 2nd, 2007
philip travers
Yes! Donna,there are a few more suggestions.Women have always invented,out of necessity as much as any other reason,often budgetting,and commonally ,until recently in home economics.The motor mower has at least 4 wheels and other parts that could successfully extend your distance to travel.The mower could be converted to carry a large weight without looking out of place,its fuel and noise ,could become totally acceptable.The rotary blade could become replaced and the motor drive the wheels ,if it doesnt do so already.With some assistance the wheels could be replaced by larger ones,and you could drive or ride it, a limited way.The motor mower could be converted to digging up the backyard so even less use of a mower is needed and plant herbs,native grasses,veges ,and maybe a chook,or use a chook or a rabbit in a movable hutch.These have been designed and ,dont require much effort to figure out what is required..I thought I had a design in a little book Does Anything Eat Wasps..A New Scientist publ.but I was wrong.I think the best thing Donna,you can do is turn your regular outings into a major social joy for yourself and try to enrich your social circles,so outings arent necessarily driven by necessity alone,if your income is low.Women are better at this stuff than men.A brother of mine,today is Woofing,sorry wwoofing,willing worker on organic farms, near retiring,just wanted a less than totally boring weekend,and the likelihood the weekend will bring some other options in life.That may not be possible for everyone,and some would not want to do it.Much in the way of optimum social life and minimum costs,evolves around just a strong and clever network of people.Once people have meet the limits of their thriftiness,then it is plainly real they need assistance,to be both productive for themselves and in the greater community.Donna may have organising skills,so that involving more lifts to here and there,she finds oppurtunities for, Finding others in the same boat.
Mar 3rd, 2007
Coalition Unity
How about joining a political movement?
I hear that both the Liberal and National parties are leading the way on policies relating to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
Mar 3rd, 2007
CORAL
Unfortunately, a lot of local councils won’t let you keep chooks within 50 feet of a surburban house.
I suggest that everyone goes back to eating more red meat. It was the eating of red meat which caused the human brain to grow to a large size, and enable mankind to become a powerhouse of knowledge and abilities.
Unfortunately, mankind also has the ability to deceive.
As a counsellor with a cult awareness network, I learned that people placed on a low protein/high carbohydrate diet were less likely to be able to think for themselves and more likely to be exploited.
Carbohydrates (such as rice and pasta) are also far less expensive, allowing for a further degree of financial exploitation as well.
Now Bovine Fartoholics (cows) are being cited as major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
I should have known that vegetarians, animal liberationists, and other intellectual trans-species would be responsible for the myth of “man-made” global warming.
Has anyone noticed the monumental price of fruits and vegetables in the shops these days? I wonder who is gaining the most benefit from it.
Mar 4th, 2007
Robert Merkel
Senator Bartlett, some tree-planting schemes may reduce emissions, yet not help reduce global warming because the darker trees result in more heat being absorbed by the ground. See this post, for instance. I don’t know what the situation for Australian forestry offset schemes is.
Donna, if you want some serious suggestions:
* can you afford to switch to green power?
* have you replaced as many of your lights as possible with compact flourescents?
* If you’ve got an electric water heater, when it breaks down switch to gas or solar (plain gas beats solar-electric in most parts of the country).
* When you buy your next car, switch to a more fuel-efficient model.
Mar 4th, 2007
Donna
Philip
If you invent the rotary car, and Qld Transport decide they’ll register it, I’ll give it more thought.
CU
So you’re telling me the Liberals are going green?
Robert Merkel
I am unintentionally going very green at the moment with no hot water system whatsoever. I want to invest in solar, but it’s too expensive right now.
I will do something about my light bulbs.
I think my car is okay. It’s a Holden Astra.
I also bought a packet of red lentils the other day, with the intention of cutting down on meat meals.
Mar 4th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Not one of your better efforts Coral.
Vegetarians and animal liberationists are responsible for the “myth” of global warming!? So they’ve either duped the vast majority of the world scientists, or they’re all vegetarians who are in on the conspiracy too?
And you say that the fact that rice and pasta are far less expensive than meat “allows for financial exploitation” of those poor vegetarian cult victims who are “unable to think for themselves” (whilst still being clever enough to dupe all those scientists)
Yet at the same time you imply the high price of fruit and vegetables is suspicious.
So what’s the conspiracy – high priced fruit or low priced pasta?
Frankly, it sounds like you’ve been reading too much beef industry propaganda. If it was red meat that made us so brainy, why isn’t the world ruled by lions and tigers?
Mar 4th, 2007
philip travers
Answer! They are running the world,the scavenging bastards!Road kill a plenty,Senator.And the mild mannered non footballer advertising supporters are frustrated like everyone else,about the bottlenecks of money being wasted in war,and worrying about what the U.S.A will do next with antibiotics.FLuoRESCENT GLOBES Senator are not that good for the eyes,like LED and Halogen.General Electric Corp.the non financial part have developed a light globe that competes quite easily with F. globes, we are being bullshitted too on a number of fronts about lighting,and,it will come out soon.A quick look out the window to the power lines ,which in most states are ancient, would make the incandescent globe look environmentally carbon neutral in comparison,there is a carelessness about all this that is pretty disgusting,the incandescent as is is the easiest to recycle as material,the difficulty was the type of glass.It is not sound environmentally to discard the incandescent completely,it is possible to set up little local manufacturers to recycle and produce locally,that then means something else.LED incandescent combined needs to be looked at,because the light would emitting from such,in combination and energy phased periods meet high human eye standards,and fundamentally our eyes arent really coping well now,which is a worthy blog in itself,because of the competing understandings conclusions and limited long term expertise.LED through water could be a go to.I was being serious about invention Senator,including social inventing.A lawn mower can do other work,owners should ask why not,and Uni. students worth their salt could try to modify such,for all the good reasons,and if people want choices of meats,putting the condemned to a happy life across communities,means they are no type of hazard including to themselves.The bunny bank needs depositors and account owners.Life is still sacrosanct.Animal Rights even more worthy,having an interest you cannot afford alone can be spread.
Mar 4th, 2007
The Feral Abacus
Robert Merkel – the Bala et al study appears not to have been published, so its difficult to evaluate and can’t be considered to be peer-reviewed. I note too that web sites carrying this story describe Bala as either a physicist or an ecologist – an unlikely combination these days, Bob May and James Ehleringer notwithstanding.
I’d be interested to know how the cooling effects of transpiration by plants were modelled, and how the thermal effects of the optical properties of extra-cuticular structures were dealt with. I’m also a bit disturbed by the apparent conflation of plant albedo with soil albedo – heated soils re-radiate longwave EMR (which affects atmospheric heating) but is this also the case with foliage?
Mar 5th, 2007
Martin Pluss
HI Andrew,
I have been following your blog in bloglines since I met you at the Blog Talk Downunder Conference in Sydney 2005.
In our community of runners we often have tangental discussions and I thought it appropriate to point a few Cool Runners to this post as it was relevant.
The thread was called:
An Inconvenient Truth -what Do You Do To Be Green?
http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=14023&view=findpost&p=219961
cheers MArtin (Cool Runner Plu)
Mar 6th, 2007
Sharon
How pleasantly surprised to see on Channel 10’s recent “CoolAid” program that the high environmental cost of meat consumption was highlighted! It is getting harder for mainstream media to ignore the scientific evidence. They actually also mentioned that red meat in particular causes 40 TIMES more greenhouse gas emissions that veggies!
Now it seems that Coral and her ilk have obviously missed a few pertinent facts. For one, it is not just the methane expelled, it is the fact that significant amounts of land and water are utilised to graze animals and grow crops that are transported to feed them, to then feed humans. Rather an inefficient and unnecessary way to feed the world. All that extra land and water use, plus the energy needed in crop processing, animal slaughtering, and transport, not to mention the effluent waste and chemical treatment pollution! Phew!
Albert Einstein said in 1936 “Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”
What Andrew Bartlett is doing and advocating is not only intelligent and humane, but a necessary part of the solution for this damaged planet.
Mar 6th, 2007
CORAL
I don’t read ANY beef industry propaganda.
Just as the beef industry sponsors “The CSIRO Diet”, breakfast cereal companies know how to get their particular message across, as do most people pushing something.
It’s clear that some people know nothing about cults and the way in which they work. I wouldn’t waste my time answering such a mish-mash of rubbish.
Lions and tigers are close to, or at the top, of the food chain. They are carnivores that get their grains and vegetables from the stomachs of their prey.
All meat-eaters have canine teeth – just as we do.
We don’t have them so we can all become pseudo-cows – with shrunken brains to match our shrunken diets.
Mar 7th, 2007
CORAL
Sharon:
How’s this for another pertinent fact?
If we stop eating meat, we will need to farm even larger tracts of land to grow grains, fruits and vegetables – which might also require more water.
Cattle, and sheep (in particular), can survive in virtual desert conditions, on fairly meagre pickings.
They can turn what is indigestible to humans into high protein/high energy, brain-boosting food.
What will you be able to plant in arid regions instead?
Mar 7th, 2007
ken
Coral – your a scream – you go girl – stand up to the bullying
Mar 7th, 2007
Donna
Ken
Don’t encourage her.
Coral
‘If we stop eating meat, we will need to farm even larger tracts of land to grow grains, fruits and vegetables – which might also require more water.’
Who says we all have to become vegetarians? And I don’t think larger tracts of land would have to be used for farming. Less land would be used, because there would be less crops grown for stock.
‘Cattle, and sheep (in particular), can survive in virtual desert conditions, on fairly meagre pickings.’
Not true Coral. That’s why they grow crops for stock, and further, the CSIRO are advising the Fed Gov to no longer subsidise properties in regions that frequently experiencing hardship. In Australia, there’s a lot of arid and semi-arid properties that fall under that category.
‘They can turn what is indigestible to humans into high protein/high energy, brain-boosting food. What will you be able to plant in arid regions instead? ‘
Are you for real Coral? For one, not stocking them on fragile ecosystems will leave the soil in place so that the riparian vegetation and top layers of soil will stay intact and not erode, and then have NOTHING growing at all, let alone crops.
Mar 7th, 2007
The Feral Abacus
Donna, Coral is partly right about sheep and cattle being able to graze in low rainfall areas. As long as they are supplied drinking water – and cattle need to have low sodium water – they can get along well enough on a diet of saltbush and bluebush in 45+ degree heat in rainfall zones of 300mm pa or less. But sheep grown in these areas are raised for their wool, not their meat. I’m not sure about low rainfall cattle, but I gather most of Australia’s meat production is from the inland tropical regions across the northern parts of WA, QLD and NT where rainfall is a good deal higher.
Alternatives for arid regions? Try insects (esp locusts), birds (think emu) or reptiles for protein. Cropping is a very bad idea in these systems, but there’s some scope for harvesting native fruits, while saltbush leaves are tasty and have modest protein levels.
Personally I’d rather see most of the arid regions left alone. It’s very easy to do damage to these landscapes that will persist for many, many decades, but they are too starkly beautiful to allow that to happen.
Mar 7th, 2007
CORAL
Thanks, Ken.
When you take one link out of a food chain, it has a tendency to collapse.
What are the possibilities then?
1. Starvation and death.
2. Cannibalism.
3. (I may remember the third later.)
“Sixty Minutes” recently reported that polar bears were cannibalizing one another, due to depletion of the food supply (salmon and other marine animals).
The bears were going into the towns searching for something (or someone!) to eat.
If humans cease or minimise the eating of meat, millions of food animals will no longer be bred.
Since mankind is much smarter than the average bear, we will face exactly the same scenario as the polar bear – only we will have gone one step further by DELIBERATELY creating the food shortage ourselves.
If we changed to eating locusts, reptiles, and native fruits, we would be interfering with the food chain of birds.
But the emus are an interesting option. I don’t mind waiting to eat last. Being at the top of the food chain has its rewards.
Donna can admire the riparian vegetation holding together the non-productive soil, while the rest of us have a banquet.
Mar 8th, 2007
The Feral Abacus
Coral, cattle and sheep grazing already interfere with the food chains of granivorous birds by vastly reducing seed set in grasses.
Insects and reptiles convert fodder into protein more efficiently than mammals by not expending energy on maintaining a constant body temperature. So even a partial changeover to alternative protein sources will benefit birds (and other organisms) by reducing the amount of land that we use for harvesting protein.
Re reptiles – I was thinking of goannas and pythons, so effects on birds WRT these animals would be minimal.
As for human teeth, any biologist will tell you that our dentition is consistent with an omnivorous diet. Our canines are poorly developed – we are obviously not specialist carnivores.
Arguably the best diet for us and for the planet is one that is low in animal protein, high in grains, with middling levels of fruits, nuts and vegies. Something along the lines of peasant diets in southern Europe and SE Asia.
Mar 8th, 2007
CORAL
Feral:
You would need to farm the goannas and pythons to create enough food for all, but then you’d need to breed frogs, rats and birds to feed them.
Then you’d need seed crops and hosts of mosquitoes, dragonflies etc to feed the frogs, rats and birds, creating a far more complex problem.
None of your suggestions include any red meats, very nutritious foods loaded with iron to keep us alert and awake.
That’s right, we were meant to be omnivorous – not vegetarians, vegans or their various derivatives – for reasons previously stated.
I suspect that once the idea of eating locusts is widely floated as an alternative, the eating of red meats will come back into vogue with those who currently oppose it.
Can everyone please take a look at Feral’s last paragraph and last line in particular, and bear it in mind for the future.
“peasant diets”
Mar 8th, 2007
Donna
Feral
Cattle are heavy hooved and, if over populated per acre, which has been the practice in Australia, escalate the erosion process through removing vegetation with their hooves. Of which you would already know. Australia is not like Africa in which the geology support large animals.
Sheep have a jaw shape that when eating grass removes the grass and roots as well. They’ll strip an area bare, and noxious weeds will replace the riparian vegetation. There are tell-tale signs in the interior regions of Australia, where sheep once were grazed. They may not have been farmed there for over 50 years. But the tell-tale signs are obvious.
I’m sure you already know this info Feral, and I certainly don’t want to position myself as the know-all on the subject, but I know enough.
Paul and Feral
I think that you both think that Coral is receiving rough treatment. But this is a woman who has experienced the unreasonable expectations from the Federal Government simply because she is a single mother. And yet, she’ll turn around and apply that same discrimination towards other.
She’s pretty good at ensuring her narrow point of view is heard. She deserves some levelling.
Mar 8th, 2007
Donna
Another thing
Our digestive system resembles that of herbivores, not carnivores.
Mar 8th, 2007
The Feral Abacus
‘Peasant diets is pleasant diets’ I say!
Feral’s Foods: I’d much rather eat chick-peas than chops, risotto than rissoles, or falafel than fritz. And I know that my food preferences have a lower overall adverse impact than more ‘traditional’ Oz diets.
Donna, you are quite right re sheep & cattle. Sheep also cause erosion in drier areas due to their habit of moving around in single file, forming paths that become gutters whenever there is good rain. Management of sheep has lost around 10-20 cm of topsoil across the pastoral zone in SA.
The best tell-tale sign of prior sheep grazing in arid areas – at least on clay soils – is the absence of a soil lichen crust: I know of areas that have been free of grazing for 80 years where the lichen layer is yet to re-establish. This matters, because the lichens provide a fair bit of nitrogen, as well as regulating germination.
Re other commenters: I try not to draw too many conclusions about anyone’s character here, because its so easy to get it wrong. I’ll take someone to task over their arguments, but I try to avoid getting tangled up in personalities or guessing people’s motives. Doesn’t always work out as planned….
It’s not for me to police what other people say, however much I might feel the urge to do so (esp. when comments are little more than gossip). After all, this is supposed to be an arena where anyone can feel comfortable in expressing their view. I think you’ll find that some of the views you (and I) take issue with are widely held in parts of Australia. The reality is that Pauline Hanson is representative of a fair proportion of her electorate.
Mar 8th, 2007
ken
Feral
You do make very sensible points – however we are all massively conditioned to play the person as well as the ball these days – so its not uncommon to see all and sundry falling into the trap despite our own individual protestations or belief in our\n own exalted position on the goodness and light scale. I also believe you are right about misinterpretation and assumptions about people, very common in this medium as it lacks the major communicative cues we all take for granted (nuance and observation), Despite being wms, I’m always happy to admit as much guilt as anyone else. I would suspect that if most of the posters on this site actually spent some time talking they would find more things to be in agreement about and generally a more mature understanding on things they didn’t agree on.
Wrt to the debate above my view is that I don’t particularly care if someone wants to eat locusts, chick peas, or a lamb cutlets – frankly its none of my business and if people have preferences so be it.
Humans have shown themselves to be the most voracious adapters of any species, and will probably continue to do so. When forced some will adapt, most will die and so be it.
Mar 9th, 2007
CORAL
Unlike cattle, we don’t have multiple stomachs. This is because we are omnivores (eaters of meat and vegetables, including grains).
What people choose to eat is up to them at the moment – but I think this is going to change along with a lot of other things.
I hope most people have had time to give some thought to the possible effects and causes of a low protein/high carbohydrate “peasant diet”, and how that might tie in with other issues, including industrial relations.
If everyone cuts back to one or no meals of red meat a week, it would affect our beef industry to a significant degree.
To be perfectly serious, I think we need to find out who or what is really behind attempts to destroy our primary industries – beef, sheep (meat and wool), coal and probably others.
I think it is more important to look at our contribution to greenhouse gases (which is extremely low) on an “area basis” rather than on a “per capita basis”, if we are going to bother looking at it at all.
For decades, some of our secondary industries have been almost annihilated by overseas interests.
Several of my relatives lost jobs in the clothing and car manufacturing industries, as many factories and plants closed down.
For decades, the government has sent our fresh fruit and vegetable industries down the tube by importing items we didn’t and still don’t need.
How many times have farmers dumped truckloads of oranges on the steps of parliament house?
I also remember problems associated with the importation of pork from Canada, which we also didn’t need.
I think we need to look after our own industries and our own workers, instead of forcing them to compete with low-paid peasants from other countries who can only afford peasants’ diets.
Donna:
The narrow thinker unloading discrimination on others is you.
Trying to silence people who don’t agree with you is one of the hallmarks of a destructive cultist.
NOTE WELL – I have never voted for Pauline Hanson.
Mar 9th, 2007
The Feral Abacus
ken – well said! I suspect the anonymity of this medium is also part of the problem, as it offers the temptation of expressing the more anti-social aspects of our characters without fear of real consequence.
As for food choices, I’m not really concerned what people choose to eat. Not everyone feels that way – I was taken aback by the degree of antipathy shown towards vegetarians north of the border.
I do think that greater awareness of the environmental costs of food production is warranted. For most of society, production is out of sight and out of mind, but ultimately we are all affected in some way by the consequences.
I understand the point you are making re humans adapting, but I’m wary over the use of the word (which is being used a lot in the climate change debate). Adaptation is a central concept in evolutionary theory, and I suspect that the word is being introduced into public debate to provide some level of scientific authority to economic rationalist arguments. I’m much more comfortable with terms like ‘flexible’ or ‘versatile’ – same meaning without the extra connotations.
Mar 9th, 2007
The Feral Abacus
Coral – my comment to Donna about Pauline Hanson was meant to convey the message that community attitudes vary considerably across Australia. It wasn’t until I moved interstate that I began to appreciate the extent of those differences, and I’m not sure that they are widely understood. It was not intended as an expression of any opinion about your voting patterns.
You seem to be saying that ‘peasant’ diets are inferior. Not so! Less expensive, yes; tasty, yes; nutritious, yes; healthier than most Western diets, yes. And I think your assertion that Australians should eat meat frequently because the meat industry needs their support has the issues back to front. Rather, shouldn’t primary producers be supplying what their market wants?
You also assert that greenhouse emissions should be accounted on an areal basis rather than a per capita basis. Why? Do you wish to see all the dirty industries from across the globe to move to Australia? Because that is the inevitable outcome.
Mar 9th, 2007
CORAL
Feral:
I think Ken’s use of the word “adapt” is excellent. There is no point pussyfooting around an issue like global warming, no matter what its cause.
I am saying quite a lot more than that peasant diets are inferior, Feral. I don’t think you have understood my meaning very well.
The government is currently bringing in foreign workers and paying them half of what white workers receive – in one instance $35,000 as opposed to $70,000. The contractors using foreign labour are, of course, snapping up most of the contracts.
The government should take more control over who or what comes here, and how they are used/exploited, including the dirty industries you mention.
Yes, primary producers should be supplying what the market wants. If our government follows UN recommendations and cuts animal production by 50%, it will probably not bear a direct correlation with satisfying the market.
Not every omnivore wants to eat an entirely herbivorous diet for excellent reasons, but I have never been aware of any specific antipathy towards vegetarianism per se. I’m sorry you have been treated like that.
I think it’s some of the other ideas that sometimes go with vegetarianism to which people object.
For example, I have friends who are vegetarians for religious reasons, but who don’t push any kind of agenda in terms of research.
In short, they are not intellectual trans-species with a penchant to put animals before people at inappropriate times.
Mar 10th, 2007
Donna
Feral
‘I was taken aback by the degree of antipathy shown towards vegetarians north of the border.’
I live north of the border, and the Hansonite personality extends far and wide in this state, not just on issues such as diet choices, but on a plethora of cultural and social issues, and the people they impact on, such as vegetarians and ‘illegal’ refugees.
In Queensland, you don’t have to be an anonymous poster to get away with disrespectful attitudes towards other human beings. The entrenched culture is to impose redneck dogma, aka Coral.
Mar 10th, 2007
Donna
Coral
After pondering your ‘narrow thinker unloading discrimination on[to] others is you’ comment, I decided to revise your posts. This is what I read …
‘I suggest that everyone goes back to eating more red meat. It was the eating of red meat which caused the human brain to grow to a large size, and enable mankind to become a powerhouse of knowledge and abilities
…As a counsellor with a cult awareness network, I learned that people placed on a low protein/high carbohydrate diet were less likely to be able to think for themselves and more likely to be exploited…I should have known that vegetarians, animal liberationists, and other intellectual trans-species would be responsible for the myth of “man-made” global warming
…We don’t have them [canine teeth] so we can all become pseudo-cows – with shrunken brains to match our shrunken diets
…That’s right, we were meant to be omnivorous – not vegetarians, vegans or their various derivatives – for reasons previously stated.’
There’s more than one way to ‘silence’ people Coral, and by de-humanising people who don’t live their lives as you do is one such insidious way.
Another way to silence people is to claim expert status; therefore, your knowledge magically becomes *fact*.
Anyone can place a shingle above their front door and call themselves a ‘counsellor’. It’s not like you need a tertiary degree to carry that label.
Mar 10th, 2007
CORAL
Donna:
I have also said many other things which you have chosen to ignore. Picking bits and pieces out of what someone says is another hallmark of a destructive cultist.
I have never claimed to be an expert – but it seems you have awarded me that status in your own mind.
I’m sure the readers of this blog will be well aware of your numerous attempts (across various threads) to attack me personally.
Now that the Liberals and ALP are both interested in Julie Bishop’s education reforms, which include allowing School Principals to fire incompetent teachers, I’m not surprised that you are so worried about losing your job that you want to keep up your personal attacks on me and my character.
Mar 11th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Note to all – I’m really tired of puerile cheap shots clogging up the comment threads, and I know that a number of other readers are too.
I seek comments here to get an idea of what people think, to invite some critiques of my own thoughts and views and to hear different opinions I might not have considered.
I do not seek comments so I can plough through long strings of sniping between others.
I know it can be hard to criticise what someone says without being personally critical, and one or two incidental incidents is OK – but long strings of backward and forward jibes are not, especially when there is little else to the comment.
In future, I (and my moderating team) will be tougher on persistent comments which consist of little more than attacks on other commenters. I will be a bit less harsh on comments attacking me, because that goes with my job, but I want readers to feel they can leave a comment here without expecting full-on attacks from other readers – even though if they engage in attacks themselves, that might seem an understandable reaction.
This thread has run it’s course, so I will close the comments on it.
Mar 11th, 2007