Worth remembering Russia is now reliant on Iran for a huge number of drones, and Russia/Iran also share views (though neither have been involved as yet, with Russia's absence for an obvious reason) on Azerbaijan/Armenia.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Don't forget the cheaper cuts - stews and mince.
Good point...thinking back we probably did exceed twice a week as my mother would batch cook things like stew (albeit it was more stuffed with vegetables than anything else as they were cheap).
Russia is clearly behind this. No ally of HAMAS except of Russia has experience of using bomb-dropping drones against modern battle tanks. Only Russia could train HAMAS in this: [Video of drone dropping bomb on Israeli tank]
Huh that has to be a joke right? Israel and Russia have very close diplomatic ties, loads of Russian Jews in Israel, remember start of Ukraine war, Israel were the ones sent to try and negotiate and wouldn't condemn what Russia were doing.
Iran is the obvious backer of these things.
Russia and Iran have very close ties. Someone taught them how to do this. Iran has no experience. Russia, a lot, particularly on the receiving end.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
Russia is clearly behind this. No ally of HAMAS except of Russia has experience of using bomb-dropping drones against modern battle tanks. Only Russia could train HAMAS in this: [Video of drone dropping bomb on Israeli tank]
Huh that has to be a joke right? Israel and Russia have very close diplomatic ties, loads of Russian Jews in Israel, remember start of Ukraine war, Israel were the ones sent to try and negotiate and wouldn't condemn what Russia were doing.
Iran is the obvious backer of these things.
Russia and Iran have very close ties. Someone taught them how to do this. Iran has no experience. Russia, a lot, particularly on the receiving end.
What do you mean Iran has no experience? They are the ones making the drones for Russia, as Russia couldn't do it for themselves. They also have backed all sorts of proxy wars around the world.
The Turks make the ones for Ukraine, Iran has a big domestic drone industry which they now sell to Russia.
Israel and Russia are shockingly close diplomatically, despite Putin / Ukraine war.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Don't forget the cheaper cuts - stews and mince.
Good point...thinking back we probably did exceed twice a week as my mother would batch cook things like stew (albeit it was more stuffed with vegetables than anything else as they were cheap).
We often had stew with plenty of root vegetables, and mince with peas or carrots. Still do, actually.
There're some fairly awful piccies doing the rounds. A morning to avoid Twitter.
Reports of armed Palestinian ganga roaming Israeli towns near Gaza, gunning down everyone they see.
Unfortunately the way they have been treating people it is not surprising. If you keep kicking your dog at some point it will bite back.
True . The Palestinians have been kept in disgusting conditions , effectively a prison camp. Their land being stolen daily to make way for illegal settlements. It’s awful to see this violence but no surprise .
Well, I find it a surprise. Indiscriminate slaughter of civilians? Yes, shocking and surprising.
Killing every Israeli is Hamas' stated goal. That they attempt to do so given an opportunity is not a surprise.
That they got the opportunity *is* a surprise, given the efficiency of Israel's intelligence services and armed forces. It should be a career ending surprise for Netanyahu and his government. Which is why we should again not be surprised to see something similar done in Gaza when (and unless Hamas has been armed to a very high standard in secret, I am pretty sure it will be when) the IDF move in.
For all the faults of the political leadership, the IDF is a modern, well trained and disciplined military force.
Yes they will have no hesitation about collateral damage, including civilian casualties, if they believe that the military objective is significant enough.
But I don’t think you can equate that to “indiscriminate slaughter” in the way we have seen with today’s outrage
What difference do you claim between killing innocent civilian's versus your "indiscriminate slaughter", why is only one an outrage.
Hamas targets civilians
The IDF has a different tolerance than us for civilian casualties in a military operation.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Or deer propaganda.
Ok, fuck off with the venison gags now please.
I was really struggling that weekend and it was well over a year ago.
It'll be nothing compared to what the Gaza strip gets in return.
Israel’s long term policy with Gaza has pretty obviously always been to make it uninhabitable. Issues with the water supply were thought to make that likely by 2020 but obviously that date wasn’t accurate.
I am just wondering if this latest attack might lead Israel to take a more direct approach a la Azerbaijan and Artsekh. In which case, if I were the Egyptian government I would be really worried right now.
Was this attack by Hamas provoked by anything? Or are they just taking advantage of the Jewish holidays?
If it came as a surprise to the Israelis - and it clearly did - it seems unlikely they had been doing anything (more than the usual) to provoke Hamas.
There’s just been a news item about this particular issue. Mrs C asked me “which side are we on?” I had to say that I didn’t know; both as bad as each other, perhaps. At the beginning, back in the 40’s and 50’s, one could, reasonably, have sympathy for the Israelis, but now???
I’m sorry but WTAF?
These are innocent civilians who have been attacked by terrorists.
Are you really unable to separate that from the actions of the Israeli government?
You think the Israeli's doing the same thing in Gaza is any different. Two cheeks of the same arse at the top , civilians have little say in it, though they must vote for these clowns.
The difference is intention.
Hamas is attacking civilians because (a) they want to cause terror; and (b) they want to exterminate all Hews
Israel attacks military targets. They are much more tolerant of civilian casualties than we would be. The excessive loss of life and damage is rightly condemned.
But they are not equivalent to each other
Said a diehard Israeli supporter. You cannot excuse either side killing civilians or you are part of the problem. They are both in the wrong and neihter side has ever tried to resolve the issue except by killing.
"I want them to deliver the high speed rail they promised to the North" - Angela Raynor
Has she spoken to Starmer?
I don't see the two points are incompatible.
Starmer is saying HS2 will be forever unaffordable if Rishi scorches the earth and resells the already procured land to developers etc. Rayner I think is saying "Rishi, don't salt the earth, just build HS2"
Sunak has little over a year before he faces the electorate and if Starmer really was committed to the Birmingham - Manchester link he only needs to state Labour will build the line and warn against any developments in the meantime
I really do believe Starmer is quietly pleased as he can attack Sunak's decision while saying he is the one who will see that all the savings will be spent in the north as proposed
I don't think you understand that there is not a piggy bank full of £36b in cash to spend on Northern infrastructure projects. Canning HS2 allows an accounting sleight of hand which in reality doesn't exist. Hence the majority of projects proposed by Rishi have either already been delivered some as long ago as 2014, are already in the pipeline or will never be built.
Then why doesn't Starmer commit to the project in full at Liverpool as he is heading into no 10 in the next year ?
Because, as you already know, the government is salting the earth by selling off the property.
It's like me coming around your house, setting your car on fire, then loudly wondering why you aren't committing to driving it to the supermarket this afternoon.
Starmer unequivocal stance that he will build HS2 with a warning to all developments that he will compulsory purchase any resales without compensation would inhibit any action the government may take in the next year
Not legally. It might have the effect of dicking around with the price of properties, but it doesn't inhibit the actual sale.
I think they would have a legal case if he went ahead with it (the cost of capital at the very least)
But if it hasn't been sold by the government, there are no buyer4s to have a legal case, surely?
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
It's not science denial and I bet I know far more about science and engineering than you.
It's propaganda. It's not the issue. Fossil fuels are the issue.
If we didn't burn them we wouldn't have a problem and even be discussing this.
Russia is clearly behind this. No ally of HAMAS except of Russia has experience of using bomb-dropping drones against modern battle tanks. Only Russia could train HAMAS in this: [Video of drone dropping bomb on Israeli tank]
Huh that has to be a joke right? Israel and Russia have very close diplomatic ties, loads of Russian Jews in Israel, remember start of Ukraine war, Israel were the ones sent to try and negotiate and wouldn't condemn what Russia were doing.
Iran is the obvious backer of these things.
Russia and Iran have very close ties. Someone taught them how to do this. Iran has no experience. Russia, a lot, particularly on the receiving end.
What do you mean Iran has no experience?
Experience of dropping munitions from drones. I agree Iran taught Hamas. Who taught Iran?
It'd be better if Gaza was incorporated into Israel proper and the Palestinians simply made minority citizens of it.
Gaza Strip is a pointless fetid wasteland. A giant hovel.
It doesn't have to be - you can quite rightly argue Hamas have been largely responsible for the destitution and destruction of their own people.
I'd also argue the various economic restrictions placed on Gaza by Israel and Egypt haven't helped.
What's needed, as I argued earlier, and which I think you'd support, is a good old dose of capitalism. Economic investment, ideally from the oil rich Saudi and UAE side but it can come from China or elsewhere. Get the infrastructure repaired, get the buildings repaired, build schools and factories and get people back to school and work.
Invest billions - still cheaper than the endless cycle of death and destruction.
It worked in Northern Ireland and has worked in Iraq - it would work in Gaza.
Yes, open the borders and you might see an initial surge of refugees - take care of them but encourage them to return. It just needs money - there's plenty of it not far away. It would weaken Hamas politically and force them to a less radical and violent path and as a by-product, instead of spending huge parts of their GDP on defence, Israel might be able to start spending on other things.
Yes, Gaza is basically a giant refugee camp and it doesn't work as a statelet. None of its neighbours are a fan and it isn't viable.
It'll be nothing compared to what the Gaza strip gets in return.
Israel’s long term policy with Gaza has pretty obviously always been to make it uninhabitable. Issues with the water supply were thought to make that likely by 2020 but obviously that date wasn’t accurate.
I am just wondering if this latest attack might lead Israel to take a more direct approach a la Azerbaijan and Artsekh. In which case, if I were the Egyptian government I would be really worried right now.
Was this attack by Hamas provoked by anything? Or are they just taking advantage of the Jewish holidays?
If it came as a surprise to the Israelis - and it clearly did - it seems unlikely they had been doing anything (more than the usual) to provoke Hamas.
There’s just been a news item about this particular issue. Mrs C asked me “which side are we on?” I had to say that I didn’t know; both as bad as each other, perhaps. At the beginning, back in the 40’s and 50’s, one could, reasonably, have sympathy for the Israelis, but now???
I’m sorry but WTAF?
These are innocent civilians who have been attacked by terrorists.
Are you really unable to separate that from the actions of the Israeli government?
You think the Israeli's doing the same thing in Gaza is any different. Two cheeks of the same arse at the top , civilians have little say in it, though they must vote for these clowns.
The difference is intention.
Hamas is attacking civilians because (a) they want to cause terror; and (b) they want to exterminate all Hews
Israel attacks military targets. They are much more tolerant of civilian casualties than we would be. The excessive loss of life and damage is rightly condemned.
The problem we have with infrastructure in this country isn't the delivery or even necessarily the funding.
It's the process. The root cause being a lack of political courage - to make brave decisions and lead - and then consistency in the follow-through:
"Failing to build things we need is a sure-fire way to get poorer. It gradually strangles an economy, making it harder and harder to live, work and innovate. Yet we seem to have become world leaders in how to not build things. The costs for our infrastructure projects are markedly above those of other countries. The planning and legal processes take longer. The outcomes are less certain.
There are plenty of technical reasons why this is happening, not least a lack of training to produce skilled planners or workers, and fiscal rules that push governments to plan in five-year cycles instead of the 10 to 20 years required. But there is a political and moral reason too. Governments have become incapable of accepting that serving the national interest sometimes involves doing things that are unfair — often deeply unfair — to certain, highly visible, organised groups
The failure to accept this means they instead preside over a much greater, more terrible unfairness: the inexorable decline of British competitiveness. Building more runways or huge pylons or wider roads damages the quality of life of those who live near them. These are unpalatable facts. But somehow we have allowed these facts to overwhelm the greater, pressing national need to modernise the country.
The government avoids grappling directly with these issues by effectively outsourcing policy to the courts, which are then charged with sorting out, over years, which of the various contradictory sets of environmental, human rights or economic policies ought to have priority in each particular case."
I’d like to think the Starmer government will get to grips with this. He will surely have the majority to do it; it should be top of his to-do list. Fix the planning system so we can build things
This government could have been trumpeting first zero-carbon power from Swansea tidal lagoon, had Hinkley C-sized Cardiff - 3.2 GW - well under construction and five + more similar nuclear plant sized lagoons out through planning with earth being broken before going to the voters. With all but a tiny amount of seed corn money coming from the private sector. (The amount required equated to three years at 75 yards of HS2 track per year....)
As someone who comes from a sector that built small towns on stilts in the middle of the North Sea, each tasked with being capable of withstanding a once in a hundred-year wave, it is very obviously Government that can't build things. (And if the budget overrun exceeded 10%, you'd get booted out as operator and replaced.)
Tbf it was Tezzie May who foolishly canned your project. And it was a short sighted and ridiculous justification for so doing. This is Rishi's argument for change. All that went before was rubbish so let's look forward and issue petrochemical and gas extraction licences to secure our energy future.
I don't suppose there was too much opportunity for grift with your project. Best to stick up another foreign operated nuclear power plant, trebles all round.
If Rishi REALLY is looking at things on a value for money basis, hard to see Sizewell C ever happening....
Hinkley C - life of project costs now £50bn. To produce 3.26 GW of energy. Lasts 60 years (tops) so to compare with say a Cardiff tidal lagoon - producing 3.2 GW of energy for 120 years minimum - you will need a Hinkley D. Let's be generous and say the life of project costs in 60 years for Hinkley D are £75bn.
Nuclear option - 120 years producing 3.26 GW of energy - £125 bn.
Tidal option - 120 years producing 3.20 GW of energy - £10bn (plus say a pessimistic £10bn for a couple of sets of replacement turbines in that 120 years - £20 bn
That extra 60 MW of production is costing the UK tax payer and bill payer £105 billion...
Happy to talk, RIshi.
If Sir Keir picks up the tidal opportunity I'll change a habit of a lifetime and vote Labour.
Hang on, I forgot, I vote Labour anyway to keep out the Nats.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It's all part of the same problem, all adds to it. Apart from a small difference in the C-14 ratio, the CO2 doesn't care whether it comes from coal or a cow's bum.
Also, remember the energy costs of intensive agriculture, the deforestation to create ranches, the transport of beef across the world (so espoused by our brexiters).
The website gives the figures, which look rouhgly about right.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Or deer propaganda.
Ok, fuck off with the venison gags now please.
I was really struggling that weekend and it was well over a year ago.
Tired of it.
It wasn’t a dig at you, it was a pun on sheer/deer and that deer might want to put out propaganda to stop people eating them - I would have written it whoever had posted what you posted. Obviously having to explain it shows it wasn’t funny but there you go..
Keir Starmer's unequivocal response to the Hamas attack on Israel underlines how different the Labour party of today is from the Labour party of 2015-19.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It’s not pointless Puritanism. I really enjoy a good ribeye steak (had one last night). But I’ve actually discovered I enjoy it more as a rare treat - once a fortnight or so. I eat some lamb. When I go out I might have red meat in a restaurant but generally not
I honestly prefer it. I like eating healthily and I make sure it tastes good. I love fish - I buy sustainable
I am persuaded that there is an environmental cost to red meat, but even if there isn’t I like my diet and generally feel pretty fit and healthy (ins’allah) despite a vast intake of red wine
The problem we have with infrastructure in this country isn't the delivery or even necessarily the funding.
It's the process. The root cause being a lack of political courage - to make brave decisions and lead - and then consistency in the follow-through:
"Failing to build things we need is a sure-fire way to get poorer. It gradually strangles an economy, making it harder and harder to live, work and innovate. Yet we seem to have become world leaders in how to not build things. The costs for our infrastructure projects are markedly above those of other countries. The planning and legal processes take longer. The outcomes are less certain.
There are plenty of technical reasons why this is happening, not least a lack of training to produce skilled planners or workers, and fiscal rules that push governments to plan in five-year cycles instead of the 10 to 20 years required. But there is a political and moral reason too. Governments have become incapable of accepting that serving the national interest sometimes involves doing things that are unfair — often deeply unfair — to certain, highly visible, organised groups
The failure to accept this means they instead preside over a much greater, more terrible unfairness: the inexorable decline of British competitiveness. Building more runways or huge pylons or wider roads damages the quality of life of those who live near them. These are unpalatable facts. But somehow we have allowed these facts to overwhelm the greater, pressing national need to modernise the country.
The government avoids grappling directly with these issues by effectively outsourcing policy to the courts, which are then charged with sorting out, over years, which of the various contradictory sets of environmental, human rights or economic policies ought to have priority in each particular case."
The 'problem' if you really want to call it that is that we thankfully live under a system of Common Law rather than Napoleonic law. In France the legal assumption is the State can take your property and the matter of compensation is a political one. In England rights and the assumptions of rights rest with the individual not with the State. Hence the reason all these decisions can now and will always be challenged in the courts.
Unless of course you want to abandon our legal system and adopt Napoleonic law?
I think you could make an argument that there should be only one case / judicial review - an omnibus edition if you like
Part of the problem is the great crested newt people try… and lose. Then the pollution people have a go… then the noise people… and did anyone think of the children?
Each time you have court delays and fact finding, etc etc
If you just said this is the date - use it or lose it - then that would, I think, be a reasonable compromise between protecting people’s rights and expediting the process
People look to France and ask why they can do things so much cheaper and quicker.
Well to start with their population density is a hell of a lot less than ours.
When they built the TGV Med in the early 2000s they needed to buy 285 properties over a distance of 406km of track. Less than 1 property per km. (actually 0.7)
Up until they were cancelled the second two phases of HS2 had bought almost 1000 properties over a distance of 142km of track. 7 properties per km. That is 10 times as many properties per km.
The other point is that the actual decision making on the route is far more devolved in France. There are 4 stages.
The Central Government decides the main trends and route options, by publishing a strategic scheme of the new infrastructure projects.
On a regional scale, preliminary studies isolate a study zone 10km to 20km wide, in cooperation with the regional elected representatives. Then this study zone is to a zone 1km wide.
On a local scale, the APS (Avant-Projet Sommaire or Preliminary Draft) is established in collaboration with the mayors concerned with the various alternatives within 1km zone.
A public enquiry is then held where the local population can decide on where, within that 300m perimieter the actual lie should run (within the technical constraints set out to make the whole thing work).
The counterpoint to the Napoleonic Law theory is that Japan managed to build its Shinkansens in a country with pretty high population density, very property-owner-friendly provisions for compulsory purchase (to the point where to this day the planes have to taxi around a little farm within the boundaries of the Narita airport) and a post-war land reform that sold off the entire country in tiny little parcels to turn all the peasants who farmed it into little capitalists.
I think the trick to it is: 1) They have a reasonably long-term view whereas British management is famously the opposite 2) They weren't bothered about landscape issues, for instance much of the Tohoku Line is built on stilts above the existing line, which looks really cool to me but it really sticks out visually 3) They've been historically good at buying off sources of local opposition, for instance by making sure every prefecture gets a station even if there isn't much of an economic rationale for it. They cocked this up on the latest maglev line and refused to put a station in Shizuoka, which the line is just passing underneath, and the prefectural governor is blocking it on the grounds that he's worried the water will leak into the tunnel out of their river
Russia is clearly behind this. No ally of HAMAS except of Russia has experience of using bomb-dropping drones against modern battle tanks. Only Russia could train HAMAS in this: [Video of drone dropping bomb on Israeli tank]
Huh that has to be a joke right? Israel and Russia have very close diplomatic ties, loads of Russian Jews in Israel, remember start of Ukraine war, Israel were the ones sent to try and negotiate and wouldn't condemn what Russia were doing.
Iran is the obvious backer of these things.
Russia and Iran have very close ties. Someone taught them how to do this. Iran has no experience. Russia, a lot, particularly on the receiving end.
What do you mean Iran has no experience?
Experience of dropping munitions from drones. I agree Iran taught Hamas. Who taught Iran?
Iran have had a drone program for 40 years, the Russians had to go to Iran to get their expertise as they realised their tech was absolute shit. Iranian drones have been used in attacks on Saudi oilfields, from Gaza into Israel, etc.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time.
Denialists should be put in the women have penises category.
Ever had a look atg the embryonic development of the hominine genitalia? It might surprise you.
As for 'eating meat since the dawn of time', that's a bit like saying chimps eat meat - but also a great deal of plant material. An omnivore does not an obligate carnivore make.
Russia is clearly behind this. No ally of HAMAS except of Russia has experience of using bomb-dropping drones against modern battle tanks. Only Russia could train HAMAS in this: [Video of drone dropping bomb on Israeli tank]
Huh that has to be a joke right? Israel and Russia have very close diplomatic ties, loads of Russian Jews in Israel, remember start of Ukraine war, Israel were the ones sent to try and negotiate and wouldn't condemn what Russia were doing.
Iran is the obvious backer of these things.
Russia and Iran have very close ties. Someone taught them how to do this. Iran has no experience. Russia, a lot, particularly on the receiving end.
What do you mean Iran has no experience?
Experience of dropping munitions from drones. I agree Iran taught Hamas. Who taught Iran?
Iran have had a drone program for 40 years, the Russians had to go to Iran to get their expertise as they realised their tech was absolute shit. Iranian drones have been used in attacks on Saudi oilfields, from Gaza into Israel, etc.
People have been talking about this big Iranian drone factory for ages.
There're some fairly awful piccies doing the rounds. A morning to avoid Twitter.
Reports of armed Palestinian ganga roaming Israeli towns near Gaza, gunning down everyone they see.
Unfortunately the way they have been treating people it is not surprising. If you keep kicking your dog at some point it will bite back.
True . The Palestinians have been kept in disgusting conditions , effectively a prison camp. Their land being stolen daily to make way for illegal settlements. It’s awful to see this violence but no surprise .
Well, I find it a surprise. Indiscriminate slaughter of civilians? Yes, shocking and surprising.
Killing every Israeli is Hamas' stated goal. That they attempt to do so given an opportunity is not a surprise.
That they got the opportunity *is* a surprise, given the efficiency of Israel's intelligence services and armed forces. It should be a career ending surprise for Netanyahu and his government. Which is why we should again not be surprised to see something similar done in Gaza when (and unless Hamas has been armed to a very high standard in secret, I am pretty sure it will be when) the IDF move in.
For all the faults of the political leadership, the IDF is a modern, well trained and disciplined military force.
Yes they will have no hesitation about collateral damage, including civilian casualties, if they believe that the military objective is significant enough.
But I don’t think you can equate that to “indiscriminate slaughter” in the way we have seen with today’s outrage
Bluntly, I except to see the Israeli government at least attempt the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.
That may involve driving people away, rather than shooting them. I suppose from that point of view it is not strictly equivalent.
In light of Hizbollah's statement I wonder if we might see an Israeli attack on Lebanon as well.
Hizbollah was always going to attack. This has been planned from the beginning. If you think otherwise you are very naive my friend
Indeed? How do you know? What information are you privy to that Mossad clearly isn't?
If Hizbollah were to attack I would have thought they would refrain from telegraphing their intentions. The dream for them would be the entire IDF in the south and the northern border lightly held. Hardly like to happen now, is it?
Their statement is entirely about setting up a narrative. They have to attack because of the “outrageously heavy-handed” Israeli response
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Until I was approaching my teens meat was rationed.
In just one video of one attack I must have seen several dozen dead Israeli soldiers. It's a huge intelligence and security failure, and an attack against Israel on a scale not seen for decades. I expect that Israeli retribution will be much greater.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Or deer propaganda.
Ok, fuck off with the venison gags now please.
I was really struggling that weekend and it was well over a year ago.
Tired of it.
A venison gag - sounds tasty but probably wouldn’t last long 😜
Russia is clearly behind this. No ally of HAMAS except of Russia has experience of using bomb-dropping drones against modern battle tanks. Only Russia could train HAMAS in this: [Video of drone dropping bomb on Israeli tank]
Huh that has to be a joke right? Israel and Russia have very close diplomatic ties, loads of Russian Jews in Israel, remember start of Ukraine war, Israel were the ones sent to try and negotiate and wouldn't condemn what Russia were doing.
Iran is the obvious backer of these things.
Russia and Iran have very close ties. Someone taught them how to do this. Iran has no experience. Russia, a lot, particularly on the receiving end.
What do you mean Iran has no experience?
Experience of dropping munitions from drones. I agree Iran taught Hamas. Who taught Iran?
Iran have had a drone program for 40 years, the Russians had to go to Iran to get their expertise as they realised their tech was absolute shit. Iranian drones have been used in attacks on Saudi oilfields, from Gaza into Israel, etc.
People have been talking about this big Iranian drone factory for ages.
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Netanyahu is gonna lay down the wrath of Jehovah on Gaza. Thousands will die - was that the hamas plan? Why? Cui bono?
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Or deer propaganda.
Ok, fuck off with the venison gags now please.
I was really struggling that weekend and it was well over a year ago.
Tired of it.
A venison gag - sounds tasty but probably wouldn’t last long 😜
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time.
Denialists should be put in the women have penises category.
Ever had a look atg the embryonic development of the hominine genitalia? It might surprise you.
As for 'eating meat since the dawn of time', that's a bit like saying chimps eat meat - but also a great deal of plant material. An omnivore does not an obligate carnivore make.
The current spate of bear attacks in Canada is being blamed on a poor berry season.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Or deer propaganda.
Ok, fuck off with the venison gags now please.
I was really struggling that weekend and it was well over a year ago.
Tired of it.
A venison gag - sounds tasty but probably wouldn’t last long 😜
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Netanyahu is gonna lay down the wrath of Jehovah on Gaza. Thousands will die - was that the hamas plan? Why? Cui bono?
If it causes mass unrest across the Arab world, Iran.
If it causes even more unrest in Iran as well, nobody at all.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Or deer propaganda.
Ok, fuck off with the venison gags now please.
I was really struggling that weekend and it was well over a year ago.
Tired of it.
A venison gag - sounds tasty but probably wouldn’t last long 😜
Venison seems a little on the deer side to me.
I tried to buy venison in bulk once.
I was offered four half carcasses, but when I added them up it was just two deer.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It's all part of the same problem, all adds to it. Apart from a small difference in the C-14 ratio, the CO2 doesn't care whether it comes from coal or a cow's bum.
Also, remember the energy costs of intensive agriculture, the deforestation to create ranches, the transport of beef across the world (so espoused by our brexiters).
The website gives the figures, which look rouhgly about right.
No, it does make a big difference, because the CO2 from the methane emitted by cattle is part of the carbon cycle. It's absorbed by the grass when it grows, eaten by livestock, emitted. The net change in the atmosphere is zero. (There's a small effect because the carbon is methane for a few years)
Fossil fuel burning is adding carbon that has been safely underground for hundreds of millions of years. It's completely different and the thing that we should focus on.
In just one video of one attack I must have seen several dozen dead Israeli soldiers. It's a huge intelligence and security failure, and an attack against Israel on a scale not seen for decades. I expect that Israeli retribution will be much greater.
It is properly worth noting that in Israeli government are some of the most hard line individuals for a long time e.g. Itamar Ben-Gvir
Al Jazeera shows the videos the likes of Sky News are avoiding.
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Netanyahu is gonna lay down the wrath of Jehovah on Gaza. Thousands will die - was that the hamas plan? Why? Cui bono?
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Don't forget the cheaper cuts - stews and mince.
I've just put on my first proper Autumnal slow cooker casserole of the year. Chicken thighs, Cumberland sausages, chunky veg and butter beans. With a splash of white wine as I'm a decadent hedonist.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It might not be the biggest sector of greenhouse emissions, but for some people it's one of the easiest things you can do. Eating meat two days a week instead of five is achievable, healthier, and beneficial. And you don't need to make it into a culture war. It's not about guilt or suffering, it's just something that you could do if you care about trying to reduce environmental pollution. Up to you.
Also venison is REALLY delicious
Here’s a fabulous recipe. I cook it regularly. It’s as good as any beef dish
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
There are between 1 and 1.5 billion cattle in the world, so it isn't a trivial number.
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Netanyahu is gonna lay down the wrath of Jehovah on Gaza. Thousands will die - was that the hamas plan? Why? Cui bono?
They hope (know?) Netanyahu will overreact which in the long run is good propaganda for them. Even with these killings they can still portray themselves as the underdogs fighting a war of liberation and every Israeli response can be crafted in that light. They don't actually care about how many of their own civilians die. They don't even really care about how many Israelis they kill. What they want is the response.
It is a tactic that has been used by guerilla forces throughout the twentieth century.
Netanyahu of course is stupid enough to do exactly what they want.
It'll be nothing compared to what the Gaza strip gets in return.
Israel’s long term policy with Gaza has pretty obviously always been to make it uninhabitable. Issues with the water supply were thought to make that likely by 2020 but obviously that date wasn’t accurate.
I am just wondering if this latest attack might lead Israel to take a more direct approach a la Azerbaijan and Artsekh. In which case, if I were the Egyptian government I would be really worried right now.
Was this attack by Hamas provoked by anything? Or are they just taking advantage of the Jewish holidays?
If it came as a surprise to the Israelis - and it clearly did - it seems unlikely they had been doing anything (more than the usual) to provoke Hamas.
There’s just been a news item about this particular issue. Mrs C asked me “which side are we on?” I had to say that I didn’t know; both as bad as each other, perhaps. At the beginning, back in the 40’s and 50’s, one could, reasonably, have sympathy for the Israelis, but now???
I’m sorry but WTAF?
These are innocent civilians who have been attacked by terrorists.
Are you really unable to separate that from the actions of the Israeli government?
You think the Israeli's doing the same thing in Gaza is any different. Two cheeks of the same arse at the top , civilians have little say in it, though they must vote for these clowns.
The difference is intention.
Hamas is attacking civilians because (a) they want to cause terror; and (b) they want to exterminate all Hews
Israel attacks military targets. They are much more tolerant of civilian casualties than we would be. The excessive loss of life and damage is rightly condemned.
But they are not equivalent to each other
Said a diehard Israeli supporter. You cannot excuse either side killing civilians or you are part of the problem. They are both in the wrong and neihter side has ever tried to resolve the issue except by killing.
It’s why we distinguish between murder and manslaughter. They are both wrong, but one is more wrong than the other.
I understand the Israeli mindset. But I support Benny Gantz rather than Likud. Negotiation will be the only way to resolve this, but neither side is in the frame of mind where that can be successful. There was a chance in Oslo but Arafat f*cked up big time. And so we need to wait for one side to “win” or for both sides to be exhausted.
I fear that @Leon may be correct on this occasion.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Starmer will be anxious that events in Israel don't spill over into trouble at the Labour Party Conference, especially if the scale of Israel's retaliation is excessive, as it often is. Could be a problem.
It'll be nothing compared to what the Gaza strip gets in return.
Israel’s long term policy with Gaza has pretty obviously always been to make it uninhabitable. Issues with the water supply were thought to make that likely by 2020 but obviously that date wasn’t accurate.
I am just wondering if this latest attack might lead Israel to take a more direct approach a la Azerbaijan and Artsekh. In which case, if I were the Egyptian government I would be really worried right now.
Was this attack by Hamas provoked by anything? Or are they just taking advantage of the Jewish holidays?
If it came as a surprise to the Israelis - and it clearly did - it seems unlikely they had been doing anything (more than the usual) to provoke Hamas.
There’s just been a news item about this particular issue. Mrs C asked me “which side are we on?” I had to say that I didn’t know; both as bad as each other, perhaps. At the beginning, back in the 40’s and 50’s, one could, reasonably, have sympathy for the Israelis, but now???
I’m sorry but WTAF?
These are innocent civilians who have been attacked by terrorists.
Are you really unable to separate that from the actions of the Israeli government?
You think the Israeli's doing the same thing in Gaza is any different. Two cheeks of the same arse at the top , civilians have little say in it, though they must vote for these clowns.
The difference is intention.
Hamas is attacking civilians because (a) they want to cause terror; and (b) they want to exterminate all Hews
Israel attacks military targets. They are much more tolerant of civilian casualties than we would be. The excessive loss of life and damage is rightly condemned.
But they are not equivalent to each other
Said a diehard Israeli supporter. You cannot excuse either side killing civilians or you are part of the problem. They are both in the wrong and neihter side has ever tried to resolve the issue except by killing.
It’s why we distinguish between murder and manslaughter. They are both wrong, but one is more wrong than the other.
I understand the Israeli mindset. But I support Benny Gantz rather than Likud. Negotiation will be the only way to resolve this, but neither side is in the frame of mind where that can be successful. There was a chance in Oslo but Arafat f*cked up big time. And so we need to wait for one side to “win” or for both sides to be exhausted.
I fear that @Leon may be correct on this occasion.
Have you ever read this book? If not, you may find it of interest and it says much the same thing you just have
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
There are between 1 and 1.5 billion cattle in the world, so it isn't a trivial number.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It might not be the biggest sector of greenhouse emissions, but for some people it's one of the easiest things you can do. Eating meat two days a week instead of five is achievable, healthier, and beneficial. And you don't need to make it into a culture war. It's not about guilt or suffering, it's just something that you could do if you care about trying to reduce environmental pollution. Up to you.
There are also huge savings to be made by committing suicide.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so, and I agree. But right now a lot of beef is produced by intensive methods and long distance transport and that is what counts in the current arithmetic in that website and more generally. (I don't even eat the stuff, and we get our lamb, mutton and venison locally .)
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Netanyahu is gonna lay down the wrath of Jehovah on Gaza. Thousands will die - was that the hamas plan? Why? Cui bono?
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
There are between 1 and 1.5 billion cattle in the world, so it isn't a trivial number.
There are 8 billion humans - lots of farts
Yes, but we are not ruminants, so much less methane.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
There are between 1 and 1.5 billion cattle in the world, so it isn't a trivial number.
There are 8 billion humans - lots of farts
Sure, but different digestive systems. HUmans don't have the same level of symbiotic microbes breaking down cellulose in complex ruminant multiple stomachs.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Or deer propaganda.
Ok, fuck off with the venison gags now please.
I was really struggling that weekend and it was well over a year ago.
Tired of it.
It wasn’t a dig at you, it was a pun on sheer/deer and that deer might want to put out propaganda to stop people eating them - I would have written it whoever had posted what you posted. Obviously having to explain it shows it wasn’t funny but there you go..
Apologies if so.
I've seen a lot of it recently and it grates a bit.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
There are between 1 and 1.5 billion cattle in the world, so it isn't a trivial number.
There are 8 billion humans - lots of farts
Sure, but different digestive systems. HUmans don't have the same level of symbiotic microbes breaking down cellulose in complex ruminant multiple stomachs.
Compared with say pre-industrial times, there are many, many more human farts nowadays
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
In just one video of one attack I must have seen several dozen dead Israeli soldiers. It's a huge intelligence and security failure, and an attack against Israel on a scale not seen for decades. I expect that Israeli retribution will be much greater.
It is properly worth noting that in Israeli government are some of the most hard line individuals for a long time e.g. Itamar Ben-Gvir
Al Jazeera shows the videos the likes of Sky News are avoiding.
I wasn't particularly looking for videos but it was the first thing I saw on the main Reddit thread. If the whole attack is similar the current Israeli government will go nuts.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Very different, yes, and then offsetting measures can make the difference to net zero from there.
I'll be sticking with meat 7 days a week like I currently do. Might sometimes be 6 if a meal I fancy coincidentally is meat-free, but at 3 meals a day the odds of all 3 being vegetarian is pretty slim pickings.
In just one video of one attack I must have seen several dozen dead Israeli soldiers. It's a huge intelligence and security failure, and an attack against Israel on a scale not seen for decades. I expect that Israeli retribution will be much greater.
It is properly worth noting that in Israeli government are some of the most hard line individuals for a long time e.g. Itamar Ben-Gvir
Al Jazeera shows the videos the likes of Sky News are avoiding.
Yes. There are people in the new Netanyahu government who are borderline Nazis and have actually proposed “final solutions” to the Gaza problem. Basically: get rid of the Gazans, one way or another
With the world distracted by Ukraine, and the UAE and Saudi neutralised if not allied, Netanyahu might see this as a rare chance for an apocalyptic “answer” to the problem
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
It'll be nothing compared to what the Gaza strip gets in return.
Israel’s long term policy with Gaza has pretty obviously always been to make it uninhabitable. Issues with the water supply were thought to make that likely by 2020 but obviously that date wasn’t accurate.
I am just wondering if this latest attack might lead Israel to take a more direct approach a la Azerbaijan and Artsekh. In which case, if I were the Egyptian government I would be really worried right now.
Was this attack by Hamas provoked by anything? Or are they just taking advantage of the Jewish holidays?
If it came as a surprise to the Israelis - and it clearly did - it seems unlikely they had been doing anything (more than the usual) to provoke Hamas.
There’s just been a news item about this particular issue. Mrs C asked me “which side are we on?” I had to say that I didn’t know; both as bad as each other, perhaps. At the beginning, back in the 40’s and 50’s, one could, reasonably, have sympathy for the Israelis, but now???
I’m sorry but WTAF?
These are innocent civilians who have been attacked by terrorists.
Are you really unable to separate that from the actions of the Israeli government?
You think the Israeli's doing the same thing in Gaza is any different. Two cheeks of the same arse at the top , civilians have little say in it, though they must vote for these clowns.
The difference is intention.
Hamas is attacking civilians because (a) they want to cause terror; and (b) they want to exterminate all Hews
Israel attacks military targets. They are much more tolerant of civilian casualties than we would be. The excessive loss of life and damage is rightly condemned.
But they are not equivalent to each other
Said a diehard Israeli supporter. You cannot excuse either side killing civilians or you are part of the problem. They are both in the wrong and neihter side has ever tried to resolve the issue except by killing.
It’s why we distinguish between murder and manslaughter. They are both wrong, but one is more wrong than the other.
I understand the Israeli mindset. But I support Benny Gantz rather than Likud. Negotiation will be the only way to resolve this, but neither side is in the frame of mind where that can be successful. There was a chance in Oslo but Arafat f*cked up big time. And so we need to wait for one side to “win” or for both sides to be exhausted.
I fear that @Leon may be correct on this occasion.
Have you ever read this book? If not, you may find it of interest and it says much the same thing you just have
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
There are between 1 and 1.5 billion cattle in the world, so it isn't a trivial number.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time.
Denialists should be put in the women have penises category.
Ever had a look atg the embryonic development of the hominine genitalia? It might surprise you.
As for 'eating meat since the dawn of time', that's a bit like saying chimps eat meat - but also a great deal of plant material. An omnivore does not an obligate carnivore make.
The current spate of bear attacks in Canada is being blamed on a poor berry season.
Thanks, didn't know that. Obviously meat is seen as a poor substitute for nice berries.
The problem we have with infrastructure in this country isn't the delivery or even necessarily the funding.
It's the process. The root cause being a lack of political courage - to make brave decisions and lead - and then consistency in the follow-through:
"Failing to build things we need is a sure-fire way to get poorer. It gradually strangles an economy, making it harder and harder to live, work and innovate. Yet we seem to have become world leaders in how to not build things. The costs for our infrastructure projects are markedly above those of other countries. The planning and legal processes take longer. The outcomes are less certain.
There are plenty of technical reasons why this is happening, not least a lack of training to produce skilled planners or workers, and fiscal rules that push governments to plan in five-year cycles instead of the 10 to 20 years required. But there is a political and moral reason too. Governments have become incapable of accepting that serving the national interest sometimes involves doing things that are unfair — often deeply unfair — to certain, highly visible, organised groups
The failure to accept this means they instead preside over a much greater, more terrible unfairness: the inexorable decline of British competitiveness. Building more runways or huge pylons or wider roads damages the quality of life of those who live near them. These are unpalatable facts. But somehow we have allowed these facts to overwhelm the greater, pressing national need to modernise the country.
The government avoids grappling directly with these issues by effectively outsourcing policy to the courts, which are then charged with sorting out, over years, which of the various contradictory sets of environmental, human rights or economic policies ought to have priority in each particular case."
The 'problem' if you really want to call it that is that we thankfully live under a system of Common Law rather than Napoleonic law. In France the legal assumption is the State can take your property and the matter of compensation is a political one. In England rights and the assumptions of rights rest with the individual not with the State. Hence the reason all these decisions can now and will always be challenged in the courts.
Unless of course you want to abandon our legal system and adopt Napoleonic law?
I think you could make an argument that there should be only one case / judicial review - an omnibus edition if you like
Part of the problem is the great crested newt people try… and lose. Then the pollution people have a go… then the noise people… and did anyone think of the children?
Each time you have court delays and fact finding, etc etc
If you just said this is the date - use it or lose it - then that would, I think, be a reasonable compromise between protecting people’s rights and expediting the process
People look to France and ask why they can do things so much cheaper and quicker.
Well to start with their population density is a hell of a lot less than ours.
When they built the TGV Med in the early 2000s they needed to buy 285 properties over a distance of 406km of track. Less than 1 property per km. (actually 0.7)
Up until they were cancelled the second two phases of HS2 had bought almost 1000 properties over a distance of 142km of track. 7 properties per km. That is 10 times as many properties per km.
The other point is that the actual decision making on the route is far more devolved in France. There are 4 stages.
The Central Government decides the main trends and route options, by publishing a strategic scheme of the new infrastructure projects.
On a regional scale, preliminary studies isolate a study zone 10km to 20km wide, in cooperation with the regional elected representatives. Then this study zone is to a zone 1km wide.
On a local scale, the APS (Avant-Projet Sommaire or Preliminary Draft) is established in collaboration with the mayors concerned with the various alternatives within 1km zone.
A public enquiry is then held where the local population can decide on where, within that 300m perimieter the actual lie should run (within the technical constraints set out to make the whole thing work).
And even with that lower population density, they have over double the number of people living in apartments.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It might not be the biggest sector of greenhouse emissions, but for some people it's one of the easiest things you can do. Eating meat two days a week instead of five is achievable, healthier, and beneficial. And you don't need to make it into a culture war. It's not about guilt or suffering, it's just something that you could do if you care about trying to reduce environmental pollution. Up to you.
Also venison is REALLY delicious
Here’s a fabulous recipe. I cook it regularly. It’s as good as any beef dish
I don't know about you but I can't cook beef. It never turns out well. I like it in a restaurant but I never make it myself. Lamb seems easier. Moroccan stew, slow cooked, delightful.
Agreed. Beef - steak apart (I do a nifty steak) - is tricky. Lamb is easier
I actually get a moral buzz out of cooking venison. It’s like the feeling you get when you successfully make a nice meal out of leftovers, or whatever is in the fridge
We have too many deer in the UK. Eat them in a red wine gravy and save the saplings, yummmm
In just one video of one attack I must have seen several dozen dead Israeli soldiers. It's a huge intelligence and security failure, and an attack against Israel on a scale not seen for decades. I expect that Israeli retribution will be much greater.
It is properly worth noting that in Israeli government are some of the most hard line individuals for a long time e.g. Itamar Ben-Gvir
Al Jazeera shows the videos the likes of Sky News are avoiding.
Yes. There are people in the new Netanyahu government who are borderline Nazis and have actually proposed “final solutions” to the Gaza problem. Basically: get rid of the Gazans, one way or another
With the world distracted by Ukraine, and the UAE and Saudi neutralised if not allied, Netanyahu might see this as a rare chance for an apocalyptic “answer” to the problem
You’re risking people saying that one can’t be a Jew and a Nazi.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
It didn't ask if youy bought intensively reared meat, either. Just averages the current production figures. And bear in mind that a lot of supermarket p[ackaging is decidedly deceptivce.
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Don't forget the cheaper cuts - stews and mince.
Yes , that and chicken was what we had mainly when I was a boy , some lamb. Always 1 day with soup & pudding. Don't need to be rich to eat well.
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time.
Denialists should be put in the women have penises category.
Ever had a look atg the embryonic development of the hominine genitalia? It might surprise you.
As for 'eating meat since the dawn of time', that's a bit like saying chimps eat meat - but also a great deal of plant material. An omnivore does not an obligate carnivore make.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It might not be the biggest sector of greenhouse emissions, but for some people it's one of the easiest things you can do. Eating meat two days a week instead of five is achievable, healthier, and beneficial. And you don't need to make it into a culture war. It's not about guilt or suffering, it's just something that you could do if you care about trying to reduce environmental pollution. Up to you.
That's using CO2-equivalents. The way those are done is by calculating something called a global warming potential - basically the amount of warming created over a given timeframe.
The reason this is complicated is that a fraction of carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel combustion will stay in the atmosphere almost forever. At least many tens of thousands of years. But methane in the atmosphere is converted into carbon dioxide over a period of an average of ~8 years. So the relative impact on the climate depends on the timescale you use.
If you use a short timescale then you exaggerate the importance of methane, because it creates a temporary, relatively strong, warming effect. The longer timescale you use, the less important methane emissions become. In terms of long-term sea-level rise, methane emissions are almost irrelevant.
This also matters in terms of priorities. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. The longer you delay cutting CO2 emissions then the worse the problem you have created, because removing the accumulated emissions is difficult, perhaps impossible at scale. With methane, if you stabilise emissions then, all other things being equal, the level of methane in the atmosphere stabilises. If you cut methane emissions, then you would expect the level of methane in the atmosphere to fall. It's like the difference between running a bath with the plug in, or the plug out.
So the way in which some people have emphasised the role of methane has, in my view, been really damaging as it has distracted from the more important task of cutting and stopping fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.
"I want them to deliver the high speed rail they promised to the North" - Angela Raynor
Has she spoken to Starmer?
I don't see the two points are incompatible.
Starmer is saying HS2 will be forever unaffordable if Rishi scorches the earth and resells the already procured land to developers etc. Rayner I think is saying "Rishi, don't salt the earth, just build HS2"
Sunak has little over a year before he faces the electorate and if Starmer really was committed to the Birmingham - Manchester link he only needs to state Labour will build the line and warn against any developments in the meantime
I really do believe Starmer is quietly pleased as he can attack Sunak's decision while saying he is the one who will see that all the savings will be spent in the north as proposed
You do insist on endlessly ramping the Tories.
There is no money being spent in the north So many of the schemes announced are a decade in the future Many of them are not schemes at all - simply a study (MNWQ etc) And ALL of them are subject to the usual funding formula - which they won't pass.
Incidentally, something else that might come out of today's Middle East kerfuffle that we have already seen on a lesser scale in Ukraine, is firing so many missiles (or drones) as to overwhelm even the best anti-missile defences, Iron Dome in this case.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It might not be the biggest sector of greenhouse emissions, but for some people it's one of the easiest things you can do. Eating meat two days a week instead of five is achievable, healthier, and beneficial. And you don't need to make it into a culture war. It's not about guilt or suffering, it's just something that you could do if you care about trying to reduce environmental pollution. Up to you.
Also venison is REALLY delicious
Here’s a fabulous recipe. I cook it regularly. It’s as good as any beef dish
I don't know about you but I can't cook beef. It never turns out well. I like it in a restaurant but I never make it myself. Lamb seems easier. Moroccan stew, slow cooked, delightful.
Brisket cooked for 3-4 hours is simple and just falls apart.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
It didn't ask if youy bought intensively reared meat, either. Just averages the current production figures. And bear in mind that a lot of supermarket p[ackaging is decidedly deceptivce.
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
Yes, I am. Its both better quality and cheaper, what's not to like? 👍
It did ask if you use gas an energy source for heating, or biogas, or other alternatives - it could have equally asked if you buy grass-fed beef, but that doesn't suit the agenda.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
though flattening Amazon rain forests to get palm oil or beefburgers is criminal.
Speaking of carbon footprints, EDF has sent me an electricity bill, as is their wont. About a fortnight after the last one. Are they trying to irritate me into signing up for direct debit?
It'll be nothing compared to what the Gaza strip gets in return.
Israel’s long term policy with Gaza has pretty obviously always been to make it uninhabitable. Issues with the water supply were thought to make that likely by 2020 but obviously that date wasn’t accurate.
I am just wondering if this latest attack might lead Israel to take a more direct approach a la Azerbaijan and Artsekh. In which case, if I were the Egyptian government I would be really worried right now.
Was this attack by Hamas provoked by anything? Or are they just taking advantage of the Jewish holidays?
If it came as a surprise to the Israelis - and it clearly did - it seems unlikely they had been doing anything (more than the usual) to provoke Hamas.
There’s just been a news item about this particular issue. Mrs C asked me “which side are we on?” I had to say that I didn’t know; both as bad as each other, perhaps. At the beginning, back in the 40’s and 50’s, one could, reasonably, have sympathy for the Israelis, but now???
I’m sorry but WTAF?
These are innocent civilians who have been attacked by terrorists.
Are you really unable to separate that from the actions of the Israeli government?
You think the Israeli's doing the same thing in Gaza is any different. Two cheeks of the same arse at the top , civilians have little say in it, though they must vote for these clowns.
The difference is intention.
Hamas is attacking civilians because (a) they want to cause terror; and (b) they want to exterminate all Hews
Israel attacks military targets. They are much more tolerant of civilian casualties than we would be. The excessive loss of life and damage is rightly condemned.
But they are not equivalent to each other
Said a diehard Israeli supporter. You cannot excuse either side killing civilians or you are part of the problem. They are both in the wrong and neihter side has ever tried to resolve the issue except by killing.
It’s why we distinguish between murder and manslaughter. They are both wrong, but one is more wrong than the other.
I understand the Israeli mindset. But I support Benny Gantz rather than Likud. Negotiation will be the only way to resolve this, but neither side is in the frame of mind where that can be successful. There was a chance in Oslo but Arafat f*cked up big time. And so we need to wait for one side to “win” or for both sides to be exhausted.
I fear that @Leon may be correct on this occasion.
Starmer will be anxious that events in Israel don't spill over into trouble at the Labour Party Conference, especially if the scale of Israel's retaliation is excessive, as it often is. Could be a problem.
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Cui bono?
Putin - diverts US attention (such as it is) from Ukraine. Iran - possibly slows/stymies rapprochement between Saudi/Israel/US
Which is why arguing the Russians have no dog in this fight is mypoic.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
It didn't ask if youy bought intensively reared meat, either. Just averages the current production figures. And bear in mind that a lot of supermarket p[ackaging is decidedly deceptivce.
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
Yes, I am. Its both better quality and cheaper, what's not to like? 👍
It did ask if you use gas an energy source for heating, or biogas, or other alternatives - it could have equally asked if you buy grass-fed beef, but that doesn't suit the agenda.
Not logical, that last bit ... think about it.
Also, a lot of cattle in the UKK get artificial feeds (grain based) at least some of the time. It's not like where you know you are using biogas or geological gas.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Don't forget the cheaper cuts - stews and mince.
Yes , that and chicken was what we had mainly when I was a boy , some lamb. Always 1 day with soup & pudding. Don't need to be rich to eat well.
For some reason chicken was very difficult to get hold of when I was young. It was a treat which we had at Christmas when one of my mother’s brothers, a farmer, sent a parcel including a chicken. That was during WWII, of course.
Russia is clearly behind this. No ally of HAMAS except of Russia has experience of using bomb-dropping drones against modern battle tanks. Only Russia could train HAMAS in this: [Video of drone dropping bomb on Israeli tank]
Huh that has to be a joke right? Israel and Russia have very close diplomatic ties, loads of Russian Jews in Israel, remember start of Ukraine war, Israel were the ones sent to try and negotiate and wouldn't condemn what Russia were doing.
Iran is the obvious backer of these things.
Russia and Iran have very close ties. Someone taught them how to do this. Iran has no experience. Russia, a lot, particularly on the receiving end.
What do you mean Iran has no experience?
Experience of dropping munitions from drones. I agree Iran taught Hamas. Who taught Iran?
Iran builds drones. Iran sells drones (and has recently licensed their manufacture) to Russia.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
It didn't ask if youy bought intensively reared meat, either. Just averages the current production figures. And bear in mind that a lot of supermarket p[ackaging is decidedly deceptivce.
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
Yes, I am. Its both better quality and cheaper, what's not to like? 👍
It did ask if you use gas an energy source for heating, or biogas, or other alternatives - it could have equally asked if you buy grass-fed beef, but that doesn't suit the agenda.
Unless certified by an organisation like this, "grass fed beef" can mean merely that the cattle have access to grass, rather than that being the 100% of their diet.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Very different, yes, and then offsetting measures can make the difference to net zero from there.
I'll be sticking with meat 7 days a week like I currently do. Might sometimes be 6 if a meal I fancy coincidentally is meat-free, but at 3 meals a day the odds of all 3 being vegetarian is pretty slim pickings.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
It didn't ask if youy bought intensively reared meat, either. Just averages the current production figures. And bear in mind that a lot of supermarket p[ackaging is decidedly deceptivce.
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
Yes, I am. Its both better quality and cheaper, what's not to like? 👍
It did ask if you use gas an energy source for heating, or biogas, or other alternatives - it could have equally asked if you buy grass-fed beef, but that doesn't suit the agenda.
Typical, preach bollox but don't practice it. WTF can bringing intensively reared meat from Australian deserts do to help environment , you absolute weapon.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Very different, yes, and then offsetting measures can make the difference to net zero from there.
I'll be sticking with meat 7 days a week like I currently do. Might sometimes be 6 if a meal I fancy coincidentally is meat-free, but at 3 meals a day the odds of all 3 being vegetarian is pretty slim pickings.
Over the last ten years or so I've simply come across a lot of different foods and meals that I like a lot and that don't involve meat. I used to always eat salami in a lunchtime sandwich. I still really like salami, but I don't eat it every day anymore because I'm simply eating a greater variety of food.
Russia is clearly behind this. No ally of HAMAS except of Russia has experience of using bomb-dropping drones against modern battle tanks. Only Russia could train HAMAS in this: [Video of drone dropping bomb on Israeli tank]
Huh that has to be a joke right? Israel and Russia have very close diplomatic ties, loads of Russian Jews in Israel, remember start of Ukraine war, Israel were the ones sent to try and negotiate and wouldn't condemn what Russia were doing.
Iran is the obvious backer of these things.
Russia and Iran have very close ties. Someone taught them how to do this. Iran has no experience. Russia, a lot, particularly on the receiving end.
What do you mean Iran has no experience?
Experience of dropping munitions from drones. I agree Iran taught Hamas. Who taught Iran?
Iran builds drones. Iran sells drones (and has recently licensed their manufacture) to Russia.
All of that is true. But what evidence is there for Iran having experience of dropping munitions from drones?
Russia is clearly behind this. No ally of HAMAS except of Russia has experience of using bomb-dropping drones against modern battle tanks. Only Russia could train HAMAS in this: [Video of drone dropping bomb on Israeli tank]
Huh that has to be a joke right? Israel and Russia have very close diplomatic ties, loads of Russian Jews in Israel, remember start of Ukraine war, Israel were the ones sent to try and negotiate and wouldn't condemn what Russia were doing.
Iran is the obvious backer of these things.
Russia and Iran have very close ties. Someone taught them how to do this. Iran has no experience. Russia, a lot, particularly on the receiving end.
What do you mean Iran has no experience?
Experience of dropping munitions from drones. I agree Iran taught Hamas. Who taught Iran?
Iran builds drones. Iran sells drones (and has recently licensed their manufacture) to Russia.
Iranians are bright people. Have been for millennia. Just weird they’ve got such a nasty government.
Comments
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
The Turks make the ones for Ukraine, Iran has a big domestic drone industry which they now sell to Russia.
Israel and Russia are shockingly close diplomatically, despite Putin / Ukraine war.
The IDF has a different tolerance than us for civilian casualties in a military operation.
To be clear, both should be condemned.
But they are not equivalent
I was really struggling that weekend and it was well over a year ago.
Tired of it.
It's propaganda. It's not the issue. Fossil fuels are the issue.
If we didn't burn them we wouldn't have a problem and even be discussing this.
That has to change.
Hang on, I forgot, I vote Labour anyway to keep out the Nats.
Also, remember the energy costs of intensive agriculture, the deforestation to create ranches, the transport of beef across the world (so espoused by our brexiters).
The website gives the figures, which look rouhgly about right.
Denialists should be put in the women have penises category.
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1710597030580568360?s=20
I honestly prefer it. I like eating healthily and I make sure it tastes good. I love fish - I buy sustainable
I am persuaded that there is an environmental cost to red meat, but even if there isn’t I like my diet and generally feel pretty fit and healthy (ins’allah) despite a vast intake of red wine
https://www.slowboring.com/p/amtrak-should-build-a-good-train
The counterpoint to the Napoleonic Law theory is that Japan managed to build its Shinkansens in a country with pretty high population density, very property-owner-friendly provisions for compulsory purchase (to the point where to this day the planes have to taxi around a little farm within the boundaries of the Narita airport) and a post-war land reform that sold off the entire country in tiny little parcels to turn all the peasants who farmed it into little capitalists.
I think the trick to it is:
1) They have a reasonably long-term view whereas British management is famously the opposite
2) They weren't bothered about landscape issues, for instance much of the Tohoku Line is built on stilts above the existing line, which looks really cool to me but it really sticks out visually
3) They've been historically good at buying off sources of local opposition, for instance by making sure every prefecture gets a station even if there isn't much of an economic rationale for it. They cocked this up on the latest maglev line and refused to put a station in Shizuoka, which the line is just passing underneath, and the prefectural governor is blocking it on the grounds that he's worried the water will leak into the tunnel out of their river
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
As for 'eating meat since the dawn of time', that's a bit like saying chimps eat meat - but also a great deal of plant material. An omnivore does not an obligate carnivore make.
Netanyahu is gonna lay down the wrath of Jehovah on Gaza. Thousands will die - was that the hamas plan? Why? Cui bono?
If it causes even more unrest in Iran as well, nobody at all.
I was offered four half carcasses, but when I added them up it was just two deer.
Fossil fuel burning is adding carbon that has been safely underground for hundreds of millions of years. It's completely different and the thing that we should focus on.
Al Jazeera shows the videos the likes of Sky News are avoiding.
Edit: cabbage added a bit later too. Autumn ftw!
Here’s a fabulous recipe. I cook it regularly. It’s as good as any beef dish
https://www.mindfulchef.com/healthy-recipes/venison-steak-sauteed-leeks-and-mash
And I can't afford to change my car yet, and I won't stop eating beef, so its not changing either.
https://cairncrestfarm.com/blog/how-many-cows-are-there-in-the-world/
Though I did find this interesting. Feeding seaweed to cattle halves methane production.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/06/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-can-cut-methane-emissions-says-swedish-report
Traditional rice growing also produces a lot of methane, possibly more than the world's cattle, but that too may be modified.
https://www.dw.com/en/how-to-stop-rice-fields-producing-so-much-methane/a-65331307
It's like a warm summer day in Leicester. It's a bit weird and climate change is becoming more obvious.
It is a tactic that has been used by guerilla forces throughout the twentieth century.
Netanyahu of course is stupid enough to do exactly what they want.
More than 500 injured - Israel health ministry
Israel's health ministry says at least 545 people have been injured in the Palestinian attacks, according to the Reuters news agency.
At least 22 Israelis have died in the unprecedented attacks, according to emergency services.
I understand the Israeli mindset. But I support Benny Gantz rather than Likud. Negotiation will be the only way to resolve this, but neither side is in the frame of mind where that can be successful. There was a chance in Oslo but Arafat f*cked up big time. And so we need to wait for one side to “win” or for both sides to be exhausted.
I fear that @Leon may be correct on this occasion.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Two-State-Delusion-Israel-Palestine-Narratives/dp/0670025054?nodl=1&dplnkId=c11d136d-9284-435b-8ecf-920624cea893
That won't be happening either.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-rockets-airstrikes-tel-aviv-11fb98655c256d54ecb5329284fc37d2
I've seen a lot of it recently and it grates a bit.
Nothing else.
Mid Beds. Wonder what the story is behind this?
I'll be sticking with meat 7 days a week like I currently do. Might sometimes be 6 if a meal I fancy coincidentally is meat-free, but at 3 meals a day the odds of all 3 being vegetarian is pretty slim pickings.
With the world distracted by Ukraine, and the UAE and Saudi neutralised if not allied, Netanyahu might see this as a rare chance for an apocalyptic “answer” to the problem
More focused on Chinese espionage at the moment
This has nothing to do with climate change. I've never denied it in my life - and indeed fight Thatcher's corner in it in the Tory party.
Because I am a scientist and an engineer.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
I actually get a moral buzz out of cooking venison. It’s like the feeling you get when you successfully make a nice meal out of leftovers, or whatever is in the fridge
We have too many deer in the UK. Eat them in a red wine gravy and save the saplings, yummmm
https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?lang=en-GB&tab=3
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
Every balanced meal has some meat, some veg etc
Its not purely one of the other.
The reason this is complicated is that a fraction of carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel combustion will stay in the atmosphere almost forever. At least many tens of thousands of years. But methane in the atmosphere is converted into carbon dioxide over a period of an average of ~8 years. So the relative impact on the climate depends on the timescale you use.
If you use a short timescale then you exaggerate the importance of methane, because it creates a temporary, relatively strong, warming effect. The longer timescale you use, the less important methane emissions become. In terms of long-term sea-level rise, methane emissions are almost irrelevant.
This also matters in terms of priorities. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. The longer you delay cutting CO2 emissions then the worse the problem you have created, because removing the accumulated emissions is difficult, perhaps impossible at scale. With methane, if you stabilise emissions then, all other things being equal, the level of methane in the atmosphere stabilises. If you cut methane emissions, then you would expect the level of methane in the atmosphere to fall. It's like the difference between running a bath with the plug in, or the plug out.
So the way in which some people have emphasised the role of methane has, in my view, been really damaging as it has distracted from the more important task of cutting and stopping fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.
There is no money being spent in the north
So many of the schemes announced are a decade in the future
Many of them are not schemes at all - simply a study (MNWQ etc)
And ALL of them are subject to the usual funding formula - which they won't pass.
Its A Lie. Spouted my idiots. Aimed at morons.
Why are you ramping it?
It did ask if you use gas an energy source for heating, or biogas, or other alternatives - it could have equally asked if you buy grass-fed beef, but that doesn't suit the agenda.
https://twitter.com/gabrielmilland/status/1710565793556001108?t=7UCLXm81vITHFbAQWMSw_w&s=19
Iran - possibly slows/stymies rapprochement between Saudi/Israel/US
Which is why arguing the Russians have no dog in this fight is mypoic.
Who loses? Some Israelis, Gazans, big time.
Also, a lot of cattle in the UKK get artificial feeds (grain based) at least some of the time. It's not like where you know you are using biogas or geological gas.
That was during WWII, of course.
https://agreenerworld.org.uk/certifications/certified-grass-fed/faq/#:~:text=“Grassfed” (or grass-,food that matches your expectations.
@NickPalmer can no doubt confirm through his work.
Just weird they’ve got such a nasty government.
Though there are concerns as to how genuine a lot of these offsets are genuine.