Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Becoming Vegan.  (Read 17285 times)

mostly_lurking

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Becoming Vegan.
« Reply #150 on: August 16, 2018, 11:50:28 AM »
One must take into account also the methane component
https://owlcation.com/stem/Meat-Methane-and-Global-Warming



SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Becoming Vegan.
« Reply #151 on: August 16, 2018, 04:41:54 PM »
One must take into account also the methane component
https://owlcation.com/stem/Meat-Methane-and-Global-Warming

Yes, but it's worse than this.   Somewhere on the board, AbruptSLR cited a paper that shows a big difference from what's stated in the reference here:
" Scientists have calculated that over the next century the global-warming potential of methane is 28 times higher than for carbon dioxide."

Yes, a given molecule of methane has about 28 times the GWP of a given molecule of CO2 over the course of a century.  It would be much higher except for the shorter lifetime of that methane molecule.

However the relative lifetime of a molecule of methane is an irrelevant factoid as long as levels of methane as a whole are stable or rising.   The immediate impact of that molecule is well over 100 times the impact of the CO2 molecule (I have yet to see a precise number).

As long as consumed methane in the atmosphere keep getting replaced by more methane molecules, the shorter lifetime is irrelevant.

So, we're even more screwed than this article conveys.

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Becoming Vegan.
« Reply #152 on: August 16, 2018, 05:18:00 PM »
One must take into account also the methane component
https://owlcation.com/stem/Meat-Methane-and-Global-Warming

Yes, but it's worse than this.   Somewhere on the board, AbruptSLR cited a paper that shows a big difference from what's stated in the reference here:
" Scientists have calculated that over the next century the global-warming potential of methane is 28 times higher than for carbon dioxide."

Yes, a given molecule of methane has about 28 times the GWP of a given molecule of CO2 over the course of a century.  It would be much higher except for the shorter lifetime of that methane molecule.

However the relative lifetime of a molecule of methane is an irrelevant factoid as long as levels of methane as a whole are stable or rising.   The immediate impact of that molecule is well over 100 times the impact of the CO2 molecule (I have yet to see a precise number).

As long as consumed methane in the atmosphere keep getting replaced by more methane molecules, the shorter lifetime is irrelevant.

So, we're even more screwed than this article conveys.

I'm nominating this for comment of the month.


I think it is fascinating that neither you nor I (nor anyone else I've ever asked) has a decent number for annual/immediate methane CO2 equivalent.  The 100 year timeline is almost always used, which drastically downplays (4x-6x?) the pertinent effect.

Considering the enormous overall attention paid to climate change and the lack of available data for current true CO2e, it is tempting to think it's some sort of conspiracy.  However, like many supposed conspiracy, I imagine it is an emergent property of human nature. Each and every facet  gets downplayed due to human's desire to be taken seriously. The genuine situation is catastrophic, but if an individual (no matter how clearly and concisely) explains the predicament, s/he will be judged negatively by those around her/him.

The effect of this is constant underestimation of the scale and rapidity of our impending downfall.  Temperatures are rising faster than people accept. Ice is melting faster than people accept. CO2e is higher than people accept. There is greater lag in the system than people accept. Lifestyles would need to change more than people accept. Less techno-magic-fixes are being discovered than people accept. Loss of wilderness habitat is greater than people accept. Toxic and plastic pollution is worse than people accept. It's totally systemic, and all together creates a situation where the only people who are close to correct about our situation are so far out of the mainstream that they are considered quacks.

Veganism (to stay topic germane) I don't really understand. Raising chickens for eggs and meat or goats for milk and meat makes sense to me. Hunting wild game makes sense. Biologically humans look like omnivores. A little meat and some regular animal products seem natural.  A vegetable that someone else grew in a huge mono-culture and then shipped to me, has to be worse than eating an egg from my foraging chickens. Veganism is obviously better than factory farm meat guzzling behavior, but I think it gets over hyped as an ideal.

big time oops

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Becoming Vegan.
« Reply #153 on: August 16, 2018, 05:44:42 PM »
Twitter user Clint Smith is looking to eat less meat.  He requested meal suggestions, which generated a lengthy thread with lots of ideas:

https://twitter.com/clintsmithiii/status/1029856051657670658
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Becoming Vegan.
« Reply #154 on: August 16, 2018, 06:10:11 PM »
Roundup Chemical in Your Cereal
Aug. 15, 2018 -- Lab tests of cereals and snack bars made with oats found that many are tainted with the weedkiller glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the widely used pesticide Roundup, which has been linked to cancer.

The tests were commissioned by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group after internal FDA emails surfaced last year showing chemists at the agency were testing wheat, corn, and oat foods for glyphosate and had found “a fair amount in all of them,” but had not yet released those results to the public. The emails were obtained by investigative journalists working for the nonprofit U.S. Right to Know.

Out of 61 food samples tested, 48 had some glyphosate in them. The most heavily contaminated were made with conventionally grown -- as opposed to organically grown -- oats.

The highest level detected, 1,300 parts per billion, was in a sample of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats. The lowest level, 10 parts per billion, came from a sample of Whole Foods conventional rolled oats scooped from a bulk bin.
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20180815/roundup-chemical-in-your-cereal-what-to-know

Also in the news:
https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/heavy-metals-in-baby-food/
Heavy Metals in Baby Food: What You Need to Know
Consumer Reports’ testing shows concerning levels of arsenic, cadmium, and lead in many popular baby and toddler foods.
Our tests had some troubling findings:

• Every product had measurable levels of at least one of these heavy metals: cadmium, inorganic arsenic, or lead.

• About two-thirds (68 percent) had worrisome levels of at least one heavy metal.

• Fifteen of the foods would pose potential health risks to a child regularly eating just one serving or less per day.

• Snacks and products containing rice and/or sweet potatoes were particularly likely to have high levels of heavy metals.

• Organic foods were as likely to contain heavy metals as conventional foods.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Becoming Vegan.
« Reply #155 on: August 16, 2018, 06:23:52 PM »
Roundup Chemical in Your Cereal

Thanks for this, Jack.  Without a clinical toxicologist at hand, it's hard to know how disturbing these reports really are.  At a sufficiently low dose (e.g., one molecule), any substance is harmless.  At a sufficiently high dose, any substance is lethal--even water and oxygen.

So "1,300 parts per billion" sounds alarming.  Maybe it is.  Certainly makes me think twice about Quaker Oats.  But maybe a far higher level is needed to affect human cells or gut bacteria. Dunno.  I'll try to look into it a bit.

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Becoming Vegan.
« Reply #156 on: August 16, 2018, 06:54:49 PM »
I think Monsanto lost a court case on Roundup last week. The jury awarded the plaintiff over 280 million and there are hundreds of other law suits pending. Monsanto has appealed the verdict and I expect the case will be reversed with the help of EPA and USDA.

"Monsanto’s EPA-Manipulating Tactics Revealed in $289 Million Case"
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/monsanto-cancer-710902/
Quote
Internal documents produced in court indicated Monsanto had reason to believe glyphosate was dangerous as early as 1983, when a study conducted by the company discovered a statistically-significant increased risk of cancer in mice who were treated with glyphosate. The EPA was alarmed by the finding, but Monsanto dismissed the results, saying it wasn’t definitive because a single mouse who was not exposed to the pesticide also developed a tumor. The agency wanted the study replicated, but Monsanto refused. “They fought over that one mouse’s kidney for years, spent millions of dollars on experts, instead of just doing the test again,” Litzenburg says. “The EPA even offered a compromise — let’s just do a kidney and liver test. Monsanto said ‘no.’ It’s amazing how often they’re able to say no to the EPA.”

The reason the company was able to say ‘no’ to the agency ostensibly charged with regulating its products, says Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, is because the pesticide companies quite literally bankroll the EPA’s pesticide office. Under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, pesticide manufacturers are required to pay registration fees, and those fees amount to about a third of the office’s operating budget.

The system was originally conceived as a way to make sure the companies who profit from the products pay for the costs associated with regulating those products, rather than the taxpayers. But, in Donley’s view, the plan has backfired spectacularly. “If industry is paying for 30-to-40 percent of the operating cost — the salaries — of the pesticide office, who are they working for?”
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Becoming Vegan.
« Reply #157 on: August 16, 2018, 07:15:29 PM »
On a related EPA issue:

"The Environmental Protection Agency is set to take a big step forward Thursday toward implementing a contentious “secret science” rule, a move that critics fear will undermine the scientific process in favor of cherry-picking research that supports specific outcomes.

The “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rulemaking, as it is formally titled, would require EPA’s scientific studies to be independently verified through a peer-reviewed process outside the agency. It wouldn't address any one issue or regulation, but rather would undergird the science behind much of what the agency does.

The rule would help the industry contain the cost of new regulation by giving them the ability to question the basis of new pollution standards, especially if the “public is likely to bear the cost of compliance” with those regulations, according to the EPA."

That should get rid of a lot of nuance law suits and maybe even reverse the CO2 endangerment law if things go as planed.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.