Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Drowning in Plastic

  1. #11
    Master JohnK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    1,468
    Sheep and hence wool has it`s own problems https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/15/h...ntl/index.html
    The older I get the Faster I was

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Ilkley
    Posts
    379
    What course of action are you advocating JohnK?

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Ilkley
    Posts
    379
    JohnK, with regard to the CNN article you posted a link to above, which suggests sheep and beef farming should be cut to combat climate change, i thought this link might provide a reasoned and evidenced-based view on the subject. https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...omborg-2018-11

    It highlights how the arguments in the mainstream media and from mainstream commentators or lobbyists tend to be mis-leading and inaccurate. For example, "In a developed-country setting, the reality is that going entirely vegetarian for the rest of your life means reducing your emissions by about 2%."

    in terms of wool, i'm not convinced by an argument or proposition that it is a major environmental or ecological problem that should be tackled. for a start, it is an alternative to materials that contain plastic fibres (such as fleeces)!

  4. #14
    Senior Member stumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chilterns
    Posts
    715
    Whilst it would be comforting to think that my own meat eating is not responsible for any significant global warming, I would take ANYTHING Bjorn Lomborg says with a massive dose of salt! He is well known as a climate change naysayer hiding behind seemingly credible scientific credentials. However, much of what he publishes as "evidence" lies somewhere between misinterpretation and downright nonsense! For example:

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...e-and-poverty/

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Ilkley
    Posts
    16
    I once read a study that said that sheep wool dust is actually beneficial to the lungs - something to do with bacteria that is on it.

    Regardless, I would think that a natural material would be a healthier alternative to plastic fibres.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Ilkley
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpy View Post
    I would take ANYTHING Bjorn Lomborg says with a massive dose of salt! He is well known as a climate change naysayer hiding behind seemingly credible scientific credentials. However, much of what he publishes as "evidence" lies somewhere between misinterpretation and downright nonsense! For example:

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...e-and-poverty/
    The work he presents is the work of large teams of the world’s best economists and a number of Nobel laureates. People should not dismiss it because of their ideological pre-dispositions and their wish to believe that the climate is the only issue worth trying to solve - as opposed to other problems where eevery pound spent can achieve more good for the world e.g. poverty, infant mortality, child nutrition, affordable energy and healthcare for the developing world, education, immunisation, eradication of tuberculosis, etc etc.

  7. #17
    Senior Member stumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chilterns
    Posts
    715
    I wouldn't (and nor would most people who advocate needing to do something to stop catastrophic future climate change) suggest that is the only issue worth trying to solve. Solving these more immediate issues and taking steps to ensure a climatically stable future are not mutually exclusive by any means, even if the long term prognosis means their impact is of an ultimately lower scale.

    As individuals, the biggest contribution we can make to reducing the risk of climate change is stopping unnecessary air travel, eating a lot less meat, travelling in petrol/diesel cars a lot more responsibly and not wasting energy. None of this prevents us helping with other issues facing mankind. In fact, it's quite the reverse - people who care about their impact on the climate for the sake of future generations are also far more likely to want to help current generations. Yes, there is the fact that developing nations will need more energy, resources etc and that COULD have a negative effect on efforts elsewhere to reduce GHG emissions, but the developed works should be using it's technological know-how and economic muscle to ensure this development is done in an equitable but ultimately less harmful way than our own.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Over Haddon
    Posts
    163
    I wonder how those hundreds, possibly thousands, of delegates and press that are attending the summit in Poland got there.

    Shanks's Pony?
    Visibility good except in Hill Fog

  9. #19
    Master Wheeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Monmouth
    Posts
    6,219
    Embrace salt-moderated thorium reactors.
    Quadruple the price of meat whilst subsidising vegetable production.
    Develop hydrogen fuel cell technology for cars and homes.
    Make it mandatory for all public buildings and new homes to have solar panel roofs and ground source heat pumps.
    Make biodegradable plastic packaging mandatory
    I am Kuno....

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Ilkley
    Posts
    379
    Wheeze:

    That would be harsh amd unfair on the poorest. Why should the world's poorest be artificially priced out of eating meat while the world's richest can afford to?

    and to the extent any of those measures involved public funding (e.g. renewable energy technology mandated on public buildings) it would not be putting public resources to their most productive use (however you sensibly measure the desired outcomes with regard to soci-economic goals).

    And who will most feel the pain of the increased cost of packaging or lose the benefit of pakaging? The poorest.

    In my opinion it's not a good idea to aim for the 'green' option at all costs. A rounded cost/benefit assessment has to inform the debate otherwise the proposed solutions would do unintended harm in certain ways and/or fail to achieve as much good as could be achieved through better thought-out policies.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •