DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5594--------------------------------------------------
True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
By: guest5 Date: April 16, 2021, 2:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
China: The ocean is not Japan's trash can
[quote]China opposes Japan's decision to release nuclear
wastewater from Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea. Here's a
statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jehqSNMRdE
#Post#: 5956--------------------------------------------------
True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 29, 2021, 10:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
More leftists are finally asking the question I have been asking
since the 90s:
HTML https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-do-some-green-activists-eat-meat/
[quote]It was clear in 2015 that the Paris Agreement on climate
change needed a rulebook to help countries meet their
obligations under the accord. When diplomats crowded Katowice,
Poland, last December to draft this rulebook, they ate like
kings. The menu sported beef with smoked bacon, pork and beef
dumplings, pork tenderloin, codfish in butter-wine sauce with
mussels, barbecue chicken, burgers and assorted cheeses.
Amnesty International’s yearly conference is the same story.
Aspiring defenders of humanity celebrate with ornate meat dishes
on silver platters. I attended a workshop at this year’s
conference titled “Humanity at Risk.” To Amnesty, climate change
is a human rights issue since it creates food and water
shortages and threatens vulnerable communities. One expert spoke
about the importance of clean energy and transportation. But
when asked about the impact of animal [s]agriculture[/s], she
deflected the question, calling diet a “personal choice” and
therefore not a focus of her work.
In school, too, I have listened to one climate change
presentation after another. All manage to ignore that 14.5
percent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from animal
agriculture. That includes direct emissions from livestock, feed
production and processing, and manure processing and disposal.
This quantity exceeds all combined emissions from transport.
They also ignore that about a third of all our freshwater
consumption is through animal agriculture, and that plant-based
foods are dozens of times more water-efficient. They ignore that
beef is the single largest driver of deforestation worldwide,
followed by soy, half of which we feed to livestock. They ignore
the toxic runoff from these farms, its creation of vast ocean
dead zones and the desertification of once-fertile land.
They offer recommendations for daily activities: take shorter
showers, use alternate forms of transport, eat local foods to
avoid shipping. They ignore that a 10-minute shower takes about
20 gallons of water, whereas a single egg takes over 50 gallons
to produce. A pound of chicken takes about 500 gallons. A gallon
of milk 900. A pound of beef 1,800. You could shower for seven
hours straight and use less water than it takes to make a single
eight-ounce burger—without cheese.
They lament humanity’s progress on climate goals, America’s
withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the destructive power of
corporations and their cargo ships. They do not mention, though,
that the average American eats 200 pounds of meat per year, four
times the world average, and that 97 percent of Americans
consume animal products regularly. They ignore the worldwide
consequences of feeding, raising and slaughtering 56 billion
animals per year, not counting trillions of fish. And they
ignore the fact that the global demand for meat and milk will
keep rising, increasing 73 percent and 58 percent by 2050.
I want to ask the diplomats who drafted the Paris Agreement
rulebook if they understood the irony. Over that 12-day
conference, the food court had a carbon footprint of 4,500
metric tons, roughly that of burning half a million gallons of
gasoline.
I wanted to ask Amnesty’s climate expert, too, what battle are
you fighting? If food scarcity is a human rights issue, why
ignore that we lose 97 percent of the protein we feed cows, and
that milk and eggs are hardly better at 70 percent of protein
wasted? Food waste and emissions aside, high-protein plants like
legumes improve soil health for sustained food production, and
are adaptable to varying climates.
Models show that if the U.S. transitioned to a legume-based
diet, it could healthily feed 190 million more people using the
same land area. And if Amnesty fights for quality of life
improvements elsewhere, why also not mention the fecal miasma
that envelopes towns near pork and beef farms, as farmers
dispose of animal waste in mist?
For a climate activist, ignoring livestock is like trying to
contain a fire without permitting yourself the use of water. The
same goes for environment lovers. If you say you care for the
environment, one should expect to find you among the 3 percent
of Americans that have boycotted animal agriculture, right?
No? Why not?
...
In fact, when I mention the climate impact of meat, I often hear
a sharp response. “I’ve heard all the vegan facts,” as if I were
beating a dead horse. Shortly thereafter, as every vegan has
probably heard, come the words, “I could never be vegan.” Or
even worse, “I just don’t care.”
...
Somewhere in our reasoning about climate change, logic ends.
Sure, it is deeply cultural. We are taught from youth that meat
makes the dish. But at a certain point, it just becomes ironic.
It is ironic that world leaders, questing to save humanity from
climate disaster, indulge in beef tenderloin. It is ironic that
a climate expert would refuse to acknowledge a leading cause of
climate change. It is ironic that when thousands of experts do
expose the destruction caused by livestock, no one cares. It is
ironic that environmental engineers at my school recoil from
vegan baked goods. It is ironic that our dining hall is armed
with posters on sustainability and food waste yet serves meat
six days a week.
...
If you do decide to avoid meat, you will have made progress in
logical consistency. You will be able to back your claims of
environmental awareness with a level of action. You might even
understand that people don’t go vegan to “feign moral
superiority.”[/quote]
#Post#: 6150--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 4, 2021, 11:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-biden-shouldve-gone-after-beef-20210503-mg3wuufxf5d4janzrlkykffzle-story.html
[quote]No, despite what Fox News, Donald Trump Jr. and some
Republican members of Congress have claimed in recent days,
President Biden is not actually planning to pass a law to make
Americans reduce their red meat consumption by 90% in order to
save the planet.
It’s too bad though. He really should.
The false claim stemmed from a very real study conducted last
year by the University of Michigan and Tulane University. The
research found that if beef consumption was reduced by 90% in
the U.S., along with a 50% reduction in other animal products,
more than 2 billion tons of greenhouse gas pollution would be
saved from the atmosphere.
“That’s roughly equivalent to taking nearly half the world’s
cars off the roads for a year,” reads a statement released by
NGO The Center for Biological Diversity.
...
A 2018 report published in the journal Nature also included a
call to Western countries to reduce beef and pork consumption by
90%, poultry and milk by 60%, and to replace that with four to
six times more beans and similar plant-based products, in order
to keep current food systems within environmental
limits.[/quote]
Better yet, they are tagging on the ethical arguments also:
[quote]Perhaps learning that reducing beef consumption by 90% in
the U.S. could not only help save the planet but also save the
lives of approximately 30 million cows, cows bound to have a
captive bolt put through their skull before being strung
upside-down and stabbed in the throat could do the
trick?[/quote]
#Post#: 6940--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: June 5, 2021, 10:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I told you so:
HTML http://blog.gorozen.com/blog/exploring-lithium-ion-electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint
[quote]Jefferies published a research note entitled “Are EVs as
‘Green’ as They Appear?” in which they conclude an electric
vehicle must be driven 200,000 km (or 124,000 miles) before its
“whole of life” carbon emissions equals that of an internal
combustion engine.
Their analysis is very similar to ours and details the
tremendous amount of energy (and by extension CO2) needed to
manufacture a lithium-ion battery. Moreover, they point out that
a typical EV is on average 50% heavier than a similar internal
combustion engine, requiring more steel and aluminum in the
frame. They conclude the “embedded carbon” in an EV (i.e., when
it rolls off the lot) is therefore 20–50% more than an internal
combustion engine.
Our analysis suggests a modern lithium-ion battery has
approximately 135,000 miles of range before it degrades to the
point of becoming unusable. An extended-range Tesla Model 3 has
an 82 kWh battery and consumes approximately 29 kWh per 100
miles. Assuming each charge cycle has a ~95% round-trip
efficiency and a battery can achieve 500 cycles before starting
to degrade, we conclude a Model 3 can drive 134,310 miles before
dramatically losing range. Incidentally, Tesla’s Model 3
warranty covers the battery for the lesser of eight years or
120,000 miles and does not apply until the battery has degraded
by at least 30%. If the Jefferies analysis is correct (and we
believe it is), then an EV will reach carbon-emission parity
with an internal-combustion vehicle just as its battery requires
replacement. This will come as a huge disappointment for those
believing that EV adoption will have significant impacts on CO2
reduction.
On March 22nd, The Wall Street Journal published a similar
report entitled “Are Electric Cars Really Better for the
Environment?” The authors agree the embedded carbon in an EV is
much greater at the point of manufacturing but argue it would
only take 20,000 miles to “break-even” with an internal
combustion engine. By 120,000 miles they argue an EV would have
emitted 45% less carbon than an ICE and that by 200,000 miles
the EV would be 54% cleaner. While this report accurately
identifies the large embedded carbon in the manufacturing
process, we believe it makes two errors. First, it compares a
Tesla Model 3 (a sedan) with a Toyota Rav4 (an SUV). An
entry-level Honda Civic, which we believe is a more appropriate
comparison, would improve the ICE fuel efficiency by 20%. Next,
after consulting the footnotes, The Wall Street Journal article
assumes 80 kg of CO2 emission per of battery. This estimate
appears to come from a 2019 Swedish Energy Agency report in
which they reduce their carbon intensity by half compared with
the year prior. The motivation for lowering their estimates was
the use of “close to 100 percent fossil free energy [...] which
is not common yet, but likely will be in the future.” In other
words, the cost and carbon-intensity of lithium-ion batteries is
predicated on renewable energy which itself requires cheap and
carbon-efficient lithium-ion batteries. Even if The Wall Street
Journal figures are accurate, we believe most investors still do
not appreciate how little the magnitude of potential carbon
savings from lithium-ion EVs is.
Assuming a 130,000-mile battery life, an EV would emit between
40–50% less carbon than a comparable ICE according to The Wall
Street Journal’s very generous figures. All transportation makes
up approximately 25% of global CO2 emissions and passenger use
is less than half of that at 10.8%. Using The Wall Street
Journal’s figures, if every passenger car was switched to an EV
tomorrow, global CO2 would likely fall by 5%. Using the
Jefferies data (which is consistent with our data), the
difference would be negligible — there would be no reduction in
CO2 output.[/quote]
We need to stop using private cars completely, not merely change
the engine and then act like this:
HTML https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i1S2A_EXB8kg/v1/1000x-1.jpg
The same civilization invented both the internal combustion
engine and the Tesla. Anyone who thinks a problem created by one
civilization can be solved by the same civilization is
delusional. WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
#Post#: 7001--------------------------------------------------
Fareed: Meat is making the planet sick. Here's how
By: guest5 Date: June 8, 2021, 10:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Fareed: Meat is making the planet sick. Here's how
[quote]CNN's Fareed Zakaria speaks with Ezra Klein about how
eating animal products from industrial agriculture can help save
the planet by reducing unnatural greenhouse gases and protecting
habitable land.
#FareedZakaria #CNNBusiness #News[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS2KkYdRpXI&list=TLPQMDkwNjIwMjHjV91XFP-qLg&index=6
[quote]nsn
1 day ago
Thank god. Animals being treated so cruelly is horrific. We
should be ashamed. Factory farming is a stain on humanity.
[/quote]
#Post#: 7566--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 17, 2021, 3:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/15/food-strategy-for-england-calls-for-big-cut-in-meat-consumption
[quote]The report takes aim at overconsumption of meat. “Our
current appetite for meat is unsustainable,” it says. “85% of
farmland is used to feed livestock [and] we need some of that
land back.”
...
One major analysis concluded Europeans and North Americans need
to cut meat eating by 80% for their diet to be both climate
friendly and healthy. Another said a 90% cut in beef eating was
required to beat global heating. Avoiding meat and dairy
products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental
impact on the planet, according to some researchers.[/quote]
Note our enemies' reaction:
HTML http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2021/07/16/the-guardian-food-strategy-for-england-calls-for-big-cut-in-meat-consumption/
[quote]“Climate change” has to be the most retarded reason for
establishing a Talmudic Slave State. People that buy into this
are just poison.[/quote]
[quote]We Men of Christendom are God’s Elect, the World is ours
because our King is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and Meat-
and the fat of it! – is the gift of the Almighty for us and our
posterity, Amen.[/quote]
etc.
#Post#: 7709--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 24, 2021, 10:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/cats-dogs-pets-climate-environment-b1889517.html
[quote]Demand for pets has soared during coronavirus, with 3.2
million households in the UK getting a pet since the pandemic
started, according to a survey by the Pet Food Manufacturers’
Association.
...
As lovable as they may be, cats and dogs come with a steep
carbon pawprint. This is mainly because of their diet, which
includes a lot of meat and animal products.
The meat consumption of cats and dogs in the US produces around
64 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the equivalent of a year’s
worth of driving from 13 million cars, according to a 2017 study
published in the journal PLOS One.
...
Meat production uses much more energy, land and water than
growing crops. Farming animals accounts for 14.5 per cent of
global greenhouse gas emissions and the production of red meat
accounts for 41 per cent of those emissions, according to the
United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
...
Dry pet food production emits 106 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide each year, more than countries such as Mozambique and
the Philippines, according to a 2020 study by researchers at the
University of Edinburgh. A country producing the same amount of
carbon emissions would be the world’s sixtieth highest emitter,
the researchers said.
...
The researchers analysed more than 280 types of dry pet food
sold in Europe and the US, regions which account for two-thirds
of sales, and found that half of the food is made from animal
and fish products.[/quote]
Hence:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/aryan-pet-food/
As I have mentioned numerous times before, it is fairly common
for cats and dogs in less Westernized countries even today to be
fed mostly cereals mixed with only a small quantity of meat.....
#Post#: 7773--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 29, 2021, 11:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Turanians are most to blame for global warming:
HTML https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/is-dairy-or-meat-worse-for-the-environment-b1891387.html
[quote]An analysis by the UN’s Food and Agricultural
Organization found meat and dairy accounts for 14.5% of the
world’s greenhouse gas emissions — the same as all cars, HGVs,
aircraft, and ships combined.
But vegetarians who eat cheese may be shocked to learn that the
cheddar they grill for toasties is more damaging to the
environment than a bacon sandwich.
Lamb and beef cause the most greenhouse gas emissions by far,
according to a life-cycle analysis carried out by the US
non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG),
But cheese ranks third, generating 13.5 kilos (29.7 lbs) of CO2e
(carbon dioxide equivalent, a standard unit for measuring carbon
footprint) per kilo eaten. It is worse for the environment than
the production of pork, salmon, turkey, and chicken. …”
[/quote]
#Post#: 8670--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
By: Zea_mays Date: September 9, 2021, 3:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One of the few good things about Twitter is that it allows
people to immediately call out propaganda:
HTML https://i.redd.it/nc7mgsyipwl71.png
[img width=713
height=1280]
HTML https://i.redd.it/fb6rp1qndc431.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 8676--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism
By: SirGalahad Date: September 9, 2021, 9:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I actually hate this kind of rhetoric. All it does is shift the
blame. If every single one of us were morally upstanding, then
these corporations would immediately fall to ruin because nobody
would be buying what they're selling in the first place. They
quite literally only have as much power as we individually give
them. What these people are basically saying is "Don't make this
fundamental change to your lifestyle that's immediately
applicable and at the very least makes a minute difference!
Screech about dismantling entire corporations (while doing
absolutely nothing on the individual level), because that's far
easier and TOTALLY not out of our scope at this point!" The
corrupt businessmen and the people who support them deserve each
other.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page