I guess the nationalist and racist bull$h!+ is independent of the sport or circumstances

The EPA study also took into account direct and indirect land use changes in the GHG emissions, AFAIK. The intensification of cattle raising mentioned in that abstract as mitigation is already taking place.

What about cycling, though?

It is fiendishly complex. Does the EPA have political pressure applied to show that stated targets are plausible and/or being met? How does one factor in the the consumer choice of large "Flex Fuel" SUV versus a more economical choice that burns only fossil fuels. Guilt is assuaged by the "green" badge on the gas guzzler. What about the simple choice to drive more because of the belief that "technology" has this whole resource depletion and GHG thing under control. It is in the interests of politicians, automakers and both the fossil fuel and renewable energy sectors to espouse the "everything-is-gunna-work-out-fine-if-only-you-trust-us-and-keep-doing-what-we-recommend" mantra. I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, but money and power are strong motivators.

Since Frank got busted I've lost interest. I'm buying a Hummer.

Fast breeder uclear power is the only widespread practical way of producing high quality, reliable energy without GHGs at present. this is my biased view.

Sure, there are a few exceptions eg hydo-electric in BC but for the most part these alternatives are a drop in the ocean. The "every little helps" syndrome is effectively "pointless"

"Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" is a useful read, and although focussed on the UK is a useful start for other regions. Basic calculations without the embeded politics and prejudices that usually accompany any discussion on future energy use/provision. Doesn't necessarily agree with my biased view.

Cheers

Don

I've read the book you refer to. Useful, as you say. It really puts the GHG challenge into perspective. It really isn't about "every little bit helps". Bold, rational policy decisions and selfless actions are clearly required. So therefore, we are screwed.

Dear Winki,

I have watched this thread, paralyzed with sadness for you being argued down for not knowing the precise ins and outs of bio-fuel in Brazil and so on.

Who would?

I prefer the bolder outline: Does reducing the use of finite fuels make sense? Does reducing to a the absolute minimum the use of aviation and motor vehicles make sense? Does turning off one's Naim Audio when not in use make sense?

About three years ago I took my last aeroplane, and more than two years ago sold my old car, though it had done less than 5000 miles in the last three years ... We cannot help that others will not follow our idealism, and yes I agree - like Malthus - that we are doomed, and sorry to say, in less than one hundred years! Possibly less than fifty ....

ATB from George

PS: I think it is probably true that we agree more than I ever suspected.

"Sadness for being argued down"? I just did what I felt was a warranted correction to an accusation that wasn't fair in my mind.

If one makes a statement about something, it has to be because they know about it - not necessarily the ins and outs, but the original statement that the Amazon is being torn down for ethanol production in large scale or something to that effect was far from being just off in a few minor details. Lumping it together with Southeast Asia was unfair, at least for sure it's not in the same scale.

As for who would know about it: that would be anyone with an Internet connection these days, though speaking Portuguese certainly helps, unfortunately.

But I think you miss the bigger point.

On a nit-picking level; of course, you are probably totally correct! And paradoxically quite correctly within your rights to nit-pick to your hearts content!

Best wishes from George

Don't worry about me, George, I'm not sad for having been argued down. I quoted from a mistaken view. My bad. It seems I was fundamentally wrong, not just in the details. I was called on it, and I learnt something and that's good. I wasn't submitting a doctoral thesis but making (from failed memory) a comment/assertion on a forum. It provoked some discussion and entertained me for a while.

I am still of the opinion that bio-fuels are either already an environmental disaster, or certainly will be at a scale that makes any significant difference whatsoever to GHG net emissions.  They are arguably green-wash of the highest order, intended to make us feel better about continuing our rampant consumerism. Flex-fuel Cadillac Escalades anyone? With us (people) currently causing one of the largest mass-extinction of species in history (primarily due to permanent habitat destruction), any land use needs to be carefully considered if one values any sort of natural world and biodiversity.

I could not agree more. Honestly, not one jot more.

Land usage to sustain 7 Billion and rising humans, is already the great elephant in the room, and once we have every inch of ground growing food or fuel, we can be proud [or not] of having wiped all wilderness away, and removed most of the higher mammals from the earth let alone the multitudes of smaller insects and fish ... I call that Dystopia ...

A bloody tragedy unfolding today in front of our very eyes.

I think that humans are like maggots on a corpse having a feeding frenzy, but when the food is gone? Well that is the point really ....

ATB from George

Since we're talking energy efficiency: One of the most inefficient ways to get our own food is to raise livestock.

The amount of food it takes to get cattle to a state where we can harvest meat from them is insane !!

Some are of the view that becoming vegetarian is one of the best things you can do to reduce your environmental footprint.

I've gone from eating 3 times a day to only when going out to once in a few months. Pretty soon, I hope to be able to be 100% vegetarian.

Meat just doesn't taste good anymore when you imagine animals in the abattoir.

"

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?src=tp&pagewanted=all

Reminds me of a joke that is at least two millennia old: 

'Just when I'd taught my slave not to eat, he goes and dies on me.' 

Well I'm still in my early 30s so hopefully a lifetime to make up for all that meat eating.

Actually, my original and probably more appropriate response to the comment is: wtf?

I'm sure you could find some research that says if we were all in the northern hemisphere were to jump up and down at the same time the earth would fall of it's axis. 

Do not feed the troll. Do not feed the troll. Do not feed the troll.

What if it isn't a troll?? No! Has to be a troll.

Well, maybe ... just maybe...

Hmm...

So, just so I understand you:

a) Are you just making a statement. A statement, standing solely by itself, and not really implying anything?

b) Or, are you implying that since there is some research out there that can prove something that is false to be true indeed, ALL research must be false? That you don't really beleive in research because there is this one paper out there that proves something to be true that is indeed false

c) Or are you just implying that you're sceptical ?

d) Or, Do you just not choose to believe this article (if you've actually read it) because it would throw a wrench in your mental model of the world, and you wouldn't be able to live with yourself anymore?

I know, I know. I used to love meat too. Just admit the fact that you love your meat and potatoes and the planet go to hell, and let it be....

You don't need any research for this. How much food does a head of beef (see, distance yourself from the animal, call it a head of beef, not a cow, not a living breathing creature) need to eat before you take it from a calf to a full grown animal). How much edible meat is provided? Calories into the cow vs. calories derived from it. that's the waste ratio.

But here's the problem. We're not talking about saving the planet. The planet was fine before homonoids came along. It will be fine after we're gone. It's how long we want the planet to be hospitable for our kind that's the issue. So, no altruistic motives required. Just selfish ones. Are you going to leave the planet in a better shape for your son? Or in a worse shape? What about his children?

You know how it ended when someone said "peace for our time".

We need to strike a balance between abject misery/survival versus wanton gluttony/happiness.

I have three daughters; One is a carnivore (almost), one a vegitarian and one a vegan. They are all happy. But none of them would be happy if they were all forced to be vegans - for whatever reason, including survival.

Cheers

Don

It is not ncessarily the food type we eat that is the governing factor but how that food is produced.  Some of the habitats and species that we hold dear in the UK depend on management for livestock e.g. hay meadows.  However intensifying grassland production leads to several silage crops being taken and a concommitant reduction in wildlife value.  Similarly many upland habitats that are valued for wildlife and scenery also depend on low input pastoral agriculture.  We all have choices to make as to how we contribute to making the most of what we have.  I eat less meat than I did and take note of the source but I realise that this is not so easy for others and we (society) need to consider how we can address what some of us recognise is a real problem.