Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

[Funky_monks]

Funky_monks Nice to see you are making it simple enough for the townies to grasp

I generally have limited sympathy for farmer/landowners (as opposed to tennants or workers) who whinge, lots were born into extreme privilege.

However, of late, they do seem to keep having to explain themselves to Bob, works in an office but has read the odd newspaper....

"Why not just grow crops for human consumption?"

Gosh, if only farmers ( many of whom have been managing the same land for generations) had thought of that solution it was so obvious and under our noses the whole time! Thanks Bob, for pointing that out.....

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I literally explained that in my post.

You said: veg was not subsidised and meat was.

I explained how subs work and therefore that extensive beef and sheep attract subs, whilst generally pig does not and poultry certainly doesn't (chicken sheds are not big enough to quality for BPS).
Pig and poultry make up 80% of the meat eaten in the UK.

Extensive veg certainly attracts a lot of subsidy as do combinable crops (cereals oilseeds)

So, plant foods are very heavily subsidised unless intensive polytunnel stuff.

Of course the extensive livestock industry attracted more money gross on an area based payments system, much less land in the UK is croppable.
Agricultural land use in the UK:

View attachment 297097

The land subsidies are changing post Brexit though if they haven’t already. Whatever the wording it will protect the aristocracy though. I think they’re going for climate change reasons now. The Royals will still get their wedge.

 

[8ball]

The land subsidies are changing post Brexit though if they haven’t already. Whatever the wording it will protect the aristocracy though. I think they’re going for climate change reasons now. The Royals will still get their wedge.

But I thought Brenda’s little speech during the failed COP26 shindig was a selfless gesture of faith in an egalitarian future.

 

[Funky_monks]

The land subsidies are changing post Brexit though if they haven’t already. Whatever the wording it will protect the aristocracy though. I think they’re going for climate change reasons now. The Royals will still get their wedge.

See my two posts about ELMS (the new subs post BREXIT): Posts #808 and in more detail #768

I made a much more detailed post about them in one of the other threads on this subject - in theory they are for environmental and "public goods" (eg access), but in practice they are paving the way for the subsidy burden to be taken on by the private sector through carbon offsetting and environment banking schemes that use the concept of Natural Capital.

see: https://www.environmentbank.com/

 

[ddraig]

Well sourced, ethically farmed meat is great, over population is the worlds biggest problem, many vegans are insufferable. That's me done.

 

[Funky_monks]

An example of how "the" science around enteric methane is far from settled:
Rethinking methane from animal agriculture - CABI Agriculture and Bioscience

 

[8ball]

Well, exactly. We’ve dealt with that neo-Malthusian nonsense so many times I can’t be arsed with it any more.

Anyone fancy picking up the baton?

 

[Raheem]

At the very least, I'd say a plan b is needed, just in case COP27 isn't able to achieve a consensus for the selective culling of humans.

 

[butcher]

Well it is like a nasty spot you don't want to touch but keep having to have a probe at every now and again.

 

[8ball]

At the very least, I'd say a plan b is needed, just in case COP27 isn't able to achieve a consensus for the selective culling of humans.

There hasn’t been much of it (the neo-Malthusian bollocks) in the media lately.

I’m always disappointed to see it on here.

 

[editor]

You said: veg was not subsidised and meat was.

Could you provide that quote where I say that "veg is not subsidised"?

Thanks.

 

[editor]

An example of how "the" science around enteric methane is far from settled:
Rethinking methane from animal agriculture - CABI Agriculture and Bioscience

The vast scientific consensus does not support this view, but you're doing that conspiracy thing of declaring one study as somehow capable of overwriting everything else because it fits your confirmation bias.

 

[Funky_monks]

The vast scientific consensus does not support this view, but you're doing that conspiracy thing of declaring one study as somehow capable of overwriting everything else because it fits your confirmation bias.

If it does, you'd have reams of papers to quote beyond Poore and Nimeck, but, you don't. That is an example that arrived on my desk today - I've posted loads of others.

I think that maybe you think that an opinion piece in the Guardian is some how the same as a scientific journal article.

 

[editor]

If it does, you'd have reams of papers to quote beyond Poore and Nimeck, but, you don't. That is an example that arrived on my desk today - I've posted loads of others.

I think that maybe you think that an opinion piece in the Guardian is some how the same as a scientific journal article.

So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is not contributing to climate change in any way at all?
And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?

 

[Funky_monks]

This notion that fruit and veg is somehow really expensive and out of reach of many is one of the more ridiculous arguments in this thread. It's not hard to find street markets (and supermarkets) selling plenty of fruit and veg that is wildly affordable, even more so if you're going to compare it to beef/pork or whatever (and let's not forget plenty of animal produce is heavily subsidised).

I've had long spells on the dole as a vegetarian and never had problems finding decent veggie food to eat. I mean how cheap are potatoes, carrots, broccoli or loads of other vegetables?

There you go.

Veg is affordable but meat is heavily subsidised to become so.

If you were in any way not being disingenuous here, why mention that meat is subsidised and neglect to mention that veg is also heavily subsidised.

Indeed, if you ate only poultry and pork, your veg would be subsidised and your meat wouldn't.

Do you need any more straws to clutch or will you actually admit that you know categorically fuck all about how either food is produced or how subsidies work?

 

[Funky_monks]

So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is not contributing to climate change in any way at all?
And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?

I'm claiming that there isn't a scientific consensus around enteric methane, its one of the most contested things within my field currently.

You are confusing a few articles by two authors with a "consensus" because they have made it into the mainstream press.

You do understand that I was reading off a graph for the veg part, you, again have failed to read my posts. A clue: my opinion starts with the bit where I write "I think that" and, in that case, after I wrote those words, I then wrote: "I don't think we should give up eating veg" or words to that effect.

 

[editor]

I'm claiming that there isn't a scientific consensus around enteric methane, its one of the most contested things within my field currently.

You are confusing a few articles by two authors with a "consensus" because they have made it into the mainstream press.

You do understand that I was reading off a graph for the veg part, you, again have failed to read my posts. A clue: my opinion starts with the bit where I write "I think that" and, in that case, after I wrote those words, I then wrote: "I don't think we should give up eating veg" or words to that effect.

Can you just answer the questions please? They're really quite straightforward and don't need to be accompanied by a load of bluster and obfuscation.

And no matter how much you try and bluff your way out of it, your original statements were crystal clear. If you're now saying that you got it wrong or got carried away, maybe it would be easier just to say so.

And then you can answer this one:

Could you provide that quote where I say that "veg is not subsidised"?

Thanks.

 

[Funky_monks]

Can you just answer the questions please? They're really quite straightforward and don't need to be accompanied by a load of bluster and obfuscation.

And no matter how much you try and bluff your way out of it, your original statements were crystal clear. If you're now saying that you got it wrong or got carried away, maybe it would be easier just to say so.

And then you can answer this one:

I'm very clear - if you don't understand what I've written, I suggest you go back and read my posts again. Plenty have understood them.

It seems its only you, on this thread who has misunderstood me, even Jeff engages on points I've actually made as opposed to deliberately misunderstanding them, presumably for effect.

I have no idea where you get your staggering arrogance from - I wouldn't ever presume to lecture you on computer programming/web design (or whatever it is that you do for work). I read a lot of politics threads on here and never really contribute because I know that whilst I have ideas, I'm nothing like as well read as the people on those threads, people who seem to have dedicated their lives to political theory, so I read and try to learn. I've spent quite a lot of my time explaining agriculture to people who have no experience of it - as you may be aware, most of my family are from greater Manchester, also I do a hell of a lot of outreach work in schools and yet none (including primary school age children) have failed to grasp it quite as spectacularly as you have.

And yet, when it comes to something I've spent most of my adult life doing, and now lecture in that subject at university level, you, who reads the fucking Guardian and thinks it is somehow an infallable organ of truth which should not be questioned think that you have all the answers. It's fucking staggering.

 

[WouldBe]

So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is not contributing to climate change in any way at all?
And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?

What consensus?

Earlier in the thread you stated CO2 from livestock accounted for 35% of CO2.

I revised that down to 20%

On the news about COP26 they quoted 10.x%

From Jeff's pie chart it's only 5.8%

So which one is right? When there's nearly 30% difference between the top and bottom figures how can you be so certain that your right?

 

[8ball]

When there's nearly 30% difference between the top and bottom figures how can you be so certain that your right?

It’s down to whether it’s the highest or lowest, and which end you want it to be at.

 

[editor]

I'm very clear - if you don't understand what I've written, I suggest you go back and read my posts again. Plenty have understood them.

It seems its only you, on this thread who has misunderstood me, even Jeff engages on points I've actually made as opposed to deliberately misunderstanding them, presumably for effect.

I have no idea where you get your staggering arrogance from - I wouldn't ever presume to lecture you on computer programming/web design (or whatever it is that you do for work). I read a lot of politics threads on here and never really contribute because I know that whilst I have ideas, I'm nothing like as well read as the people on those threads, people who seem to have dedicated their lives to political theory, so I read and try to learn. I've spent quite a lot of my time explaining agriculture to people who have no experience of it - as you may be aware, most of my family are from greater Manchester, also I do a hell of a lot of outreach work in schools and yet none (including primary school age children) have failed to grasp it quite as spectacularly as you have.

And yet, when it comes to something I've spent most of my adult life doing, and now lecture in that subject at university level, you, who reads the fucking Guardian and thinks it is somehow an infallable organ of truth which should not be questioned think that you have all the answers. It's fucking staggering.

Why won't you answer the simple questions I asked?

They're directly related to your claims here and if you're such an (incredibly biased) expert then it should be really easy to give a straightforward and concise reply without fudging, prevaricating or trying to change the subject.

So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is not contributing to climate change in any way at all?
And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?

Could you provide that quote where I say that "veg is not subsidised"?

 

[editor]

What consensus?

Earlier in the thread you stated CO2 from livestock accounted for 35% of CO2.

I revised that down to 20%

On the news about COP26 they quoted 10.x%

From Jeff's pie chart it's only 5.8%

So which one is right? When there's nearly 30% difference between the top and bottom figures how can you be so certain that your right?

How about you read the question again. Slowly, if that helps.

Do you think it would be better for the environment if people gave up veg rather than beef?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I don’t think militant vegetarians do themselves many favours. Cowspiracy was riddled with bullshit.

 

[Funky_monks]

Why won't you answer the simple questions I asked?

They're directly related to your claims here and if you're such an (incredibly biased) expert then it should be really easy to give a straightforward and concise reply without fudging, prevaricating or trying to change the subject.

Ive answered them.

Read them, or don't. It's up to you. But your game of deliberately misunderstanding posts for effect is tedious, and is making you look like something of an idiot.

How do you know I'm "incredibly biased" - how long have you spent in the field of agriculture or agricultural science?

 

[Funky_monks]

How about you read the question again. Slowly, if that helps.

Do you think it would be better for the environment if people gave up veg rather than beef?

Yeah - I didn't say that, you've missed a very important "according to this graph" before the rest of "it would be better for the environment if people gave up veg than beef" a graph, I later I realised I posted in error (and said so).

Its odd that you are using that one straw to try and wrestle some sort of moral victory as opposed to the reams of stuff I have not posted in error. Its almost like you don't have a point.

 

[Funky_monks]

I don’t think militant vegetarians do themselves many favours. Cowspiracy was riddled with bullshit.

To be fair, most NETFLIX documentaries are.

 

[editor]

Ive answered them.

Read them, or don't. It's up to you. But your game of deliberately misunderstanding posts for effect is tedious, and is making you look like something of an idiot.

You haven't answered them at all you fucking liar.

Truth is, I'm utterly bored with your lies and bluster. The way you won't even consider cutting back on meat and keep making excuses for a disgusting industry that burns up resources and causes real suffering means I have absolutely zero respect for you, your position or your bizarre conspiracy theories,

But just like every thread before, you and a handful of pro-meat zealots have destroyed any prospect of an informed debate so I'll leave you to it. Funny thing is that in a way I wish you were right, and all this rising meat consumption and factory farms weren't disastrous for the planet like you claim. But I simply don't believe you.

But I'm out and I'm putting you on ignore. Bye.

 

[Funky_monks]

You haven't answered them at all you fucking liar.

Truth is, I'm utterly bored with your lies and bluster. The way you won't even consider cutting back on meat and keep making excuses for a disgusting industry that burns up resources and causes real suffering means I have absolutely zero respect for you, your position or your bizarre conspiracy theories,

But just like every thread before, you and a handful of pro-meat zealots have destroyed any prospect of an informed debate so I'll leave you to it. Funny thing is that in a way I wish you were right, and all this rising meat consumption and factory farms weren't disastrous for the planet like you claim. But I simply don;t believe you.

But I'm out and I'm putting you on ignore. Bye.

"I've realised I've made myself like an utter dick, so I'm going to throw my toys out of the pram, and stick my fingers in my ears"

 

[kabbes]

He has definitely answered those questions, I have to say. I’ve been reading what everybody says and I know what his answers have been. For the avoidance of doubt, they were:

“So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is not contributing to climate change in any way at all?”

— No. everything “contributes to climate change” in some way.

“And that it would be better for the environment for people to give up vegetables than beef?”

— Depends in both cases what, if anything, they replace these things with. However, probably not.

And, in both cases, he has been clear also to answer

— so what? The questions don’t serve as any kind of jump off point. If you want to address the massive problem of how people are to be fed, you have to go a lot deeper than “is this of zero contribution to climate change?” and “is the whole of the beef industry bigger or less of a contributor than the whole of the vegetable industry”

 

[WouldBe]

How about you read the question again. Slowly, if that helps.

Do you think it would be better for the environment if people gave up veg rather than beef?

Perhaps you should re-read your own post as you don't seem to be able to remember what you posted. I was replying to your first question.

So are you claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus believes that beef and meat/dairy production is not contributing to climate change in any way at all?