3 ms·

I don't understand. "we are are deeply intertwined, all terrestrials, all earth bound"? What does that have to do with my comment? What do you disagree with in

I don't understand. "we are are deeply intertwined, all terrestrials, all earth bound"? What does that have to do with my comment? What do you disagree with in what I wrote above? That anthropogenic climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels? That it's the fossil fuel industry that is responsible for that? What?

LesZedCB 5y ago
food, land use and agriculture makes up 24% emissions. energy use is 25%. see the graphic I linked. to say "we should be primarily focused on energy" is ignoring an equally large factor. fossil fuels enabled the food and agriculture industry to grow in the climate destroying behemoth it is now. we need to restructure our diet and address food waste and production. we are all earthbound means that we all need to act, individual and corporation alike, because all our fates are tied to the reaction of the earth.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
  The graphic you linked (https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Drawdown_Graphic_Framework01.pdf https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Drawdown_Graph...) shows the potential reductions from following the "Drawdown Framework", not actual emissions. That graphic also doesn't list any numbers. The numbers you quote, 24% and 25% come from a different graphic, titled "Emission Sources & Natural Sinks", found in the main page of the Drawdown Framework website, here: https://www.drawdown.org/sites/default/files/rainbow_forpress.png https://www.drawdown.org/sites/default/files/rainbow_forpres... In that graphic, 24% is listed as the proportion of CO₂ emissions from "Food, agriculture and land use" and 25% is from "Electricity production". The graphic also lists 21% for "Industry", 14% for "Transportation", 6% for "Buildings", and 10% for "Other Energy-Related Emissions". I think you took the figure for "Electricity production" to stand for the emissions from burning fossil fuels for all power production, which is not right. Industry, transportation, heating buildings etc all need power that is generated by burning fossil fuels. So it's not 25% but 76% that goes to generating power. The ourworldindata.org chart I linked lists pretty much the same figure and breaks it down in the same categories, also. The dradown.org graphic shows that 59% of the CO₂ released remains in the atmosphere, which is roughly consistent with the amount attributed to power production from burning fossil fuels. The rest of the CO₂ is bound in carbon sinks in the environment. The arcs of the graph that end in the legend "Current sinks" add up to 24 + 17 = 41%, which is plenty to cover our food production needs (given the 24% figure listed in the same graphic for all food production). That's what I say above in my comment: climate change is caused by excess carbon released into the environment by the burning of fossil fuels, not by farming. The environment can handle farming, even at the industrial scales we practice it today (which I agree is excessive and needs urgent reform). What the environment can't cope with is burning fossil fuels that release in days carbon stored over millions of years. Given all of the above, do you still disagree with my initial comment? If so, can you explain how you disagree?
  - LesZedCB 5y ago
    I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes. if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. but that won't happen and we need a broad approach. diet maintenance and it's downstream effects is a clear, easy goal that individuals can take on. meanwhile governments can tackle whatever industrial legal changes need to happen. negating diet and food waste as a meaningful goal is harmful at best, and deliberate sabotage at worst. you said [emphasis mine] > If you're concerned about climate change and you want to raise the alarm, then raise the alarm about the continued burning of fossil fuels and the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry. Misinformation that seems to be very successfully co-opting the animal rights movement, I might add. You want to be "on the right side of history" as you say in another comment? Don't side with the fossil fuel industry by directing attention away from their role in climate change. my disagreement is that the fossil fuel industry somehow coopted the animal rights movement. certainly capital has embraced the plant-based diet as demand has risen, but to say that was driven by fossil fuels is absolutely bonkers to me. we can do both. be loud about fossil fuels (we are. at least, some of us are), and also embrace a low waste, plant based (or low meat/no beef, I don't care) diet. I wear a mask, get vaxxed, and I vote for leaders who affirm public health.
    - cheese_goddess 5y ago
      > I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes. Thanks for making it clear. > if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. That's not right. Burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change. To stop burning fossil fuels is not to "make up" for agriculture emissions, it's to remove the cause of climate change. Agriculture is not causing climate change, burning fossil fuels causes climate change. The emissions from agriculture are only of concern because of the climate change that is already underway caused by the emissions from burning fossil fuels. Without the emissions from burning fossil fuels there would be no climate change and there would be nothing to "make up" for because emissions from agriculture alone are not capable of causing climate change (again, because the environment can deal with them). You say that "diet maintenance" is a "clear, easy goal that individuals can take on". It's much more than that. It's a fine excuse for people to not do anything substantial to help stop climate change. They eat a bean burger once a week and then go home happy that they did their bit for the environment, because their favorite influencer told them so. And they do nothing to challenge the fuel industry that keeps doing business as usual. Because their influencers don't tell them to. In order to stop climate change (we can't reverse it, but we can stop it developing further) people must understand its causes. Farming is not the cause. Burning fossil fuels is the cause. That's what we need to address. But I think there's a misunderstanding. I made a comment about the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry, and you seem to have taken it as a comment in a debate about individual vs collective action, to which I never intended to contribute. I agree that personal action is necessary to stop climate change. My point is that eating a vegan diet is not the right action because farming is not the cause of climate change. Burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change and the goal of any personal action must be to stop burning fossil fuels. > my disagreement is that the fossil fuel industry somehow coopted the animal rights movement. Maybe "co-opted" is a strong word, but the industry can't be very unhappy with the current state of affairs, where everybody's having a food fight on social media about what to eat and lets the industry off the hook. "Go vegan" is the popular message on social media because it's the easy answer. But, the answer to what? The hard question is how we reconfigure our civilisation to stop burning fossil fuels and causing climate change as a result. Going vegan doesn't begin to address that question. What you eat is irrelevant to how we generate power.

LesZedCB 5y ago

food, land use and agriculture makes up 24% emissions. energy use is 25%. see the graphic I linked. to say "we should be primarily focused on energy" is ignoring an equally large factor. fossil fuels enabled the food and agriculture industry to grow in the climate destroying behemoth it is now. we need to restructure our diet and address food waste and production. we are all earthbound means that we all need to act, individual and corporation alike, because all our fates are tied to the reaction of the earth.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cheese_goddess 5y ago
The graphic you linked (https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Drawdown_Graphic_Framework01.pdf https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Drawdown_Graph...) shows the potential reductions from following the "Drawdown Framework", not actual emissions. That graphic also doesn't list any numbers. The numbers you quote, 24% and 25% come from a different graphic, titled "Emission Sources & Natural Sinks", found in the main page of the Drawdown Framework website, here: https://www.drawdown.org/sites/default/files/rainbow_forpress.png https://www.drawdown.org/sites/default/files/rainbow_forpres... In that graphic, 24% is listed as the proportion of CO₂ emissions from "Food, agriculture and land use" and 25% is from "Electricity production". The graphic also lists 21% for "Industry", 14% for "Transportation", 6% for "Buildings", and 10% for "Other Energy-Related Emissions". I think you took the figure for "Electricity production" to stand for the emissions from burning fossil fuels for all power production, which is not right. Industry, transportation, heating buildings etc all need power that is generated by burning fossil fuels. So it's not 25% but 76% that goes to generating power. The ourworldindata.org chart I linked lists pretty much the same figure and breaks it down in the same categories, also. The dradown.org graphic shows that 59% of the CO₂ released remains in the atmosphere, which is roughly consistent with the amount attributed to power production from burning fossil fuels. The rest of the CO₂ is bound in carbon sinks in the environment. The arcs of the graph that end in the legend "Current sinks" add up to 24 + 17 = 41%, which is plenty to cover our food production needs (given the 24% figure listed in the same graphic for all food production). That's what I say above in my comment: climate change is caused by excess carbon released into the environment by the burning of fossil fuels, not by farming. The environment can handle farming, even at the industrial scales we practice it today (which I agree is excessive and needs urgent reform). What the environment can't cope with is burning fossil fuels that release in days carbon stored over millions of years. Given all of the above, do you still disagree with my initial comment? If so, can you explain how you disagree?
- LesZedCB 5y ago
  I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes. if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. but that won't happen and we need a broad approach. diet maintenance and it's downstream effects is a clear, easy goal that individuals can take on. meanwhile governments can tackle whatever industrial legal changes need to happen. negating diet and food waste as a meaningful goal is harmful at best, and deliberate sabotage at worst. you said [emphasis mine] > If you're concerned about climate change and you want to raise the alarm, then raise the alarm about the continued burning of fossil fuels and the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry. Misinformation that seems to be very successfully co-opting the animal rights movement, I might add. You want to be "on the right side of history" as you say in another comment? Don't side with the fossil fuel industry by directing attention away from their role in climate change. my disagreement is that the fossil fuel industry somehow coopted the animal rights movement. certainly capital has embraced the plant-based diet as demand has risen, but to say that was driven by fossil fuels is absolutely bonkers to me. we can do both. be loud about fossil fuels (we are. at least, some of us are), and also embrace a low waste, plant based (or low meat/no beef, I don't care) diet. I wear a mask, get vaxxed, and I vote for leaders who affirm public health.
  - cheese_goddess 5y ago
    > I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes. Thanks for making it clear. > if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. That's not right. Burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change. To stop burning fossil fuels is not to "make up" for agriculture emissions, it's to remove the cause of climate change. Agriculture is not causing climate change, burning fossil fuels causes climate change. The emissions from agriculture are only of concern because of the climate change that is already underway caused by the emissions from burning fossil fuels. Without the emissions from burning fossil fuels there would be no climate change and there would be nothing to "make up" for because emissions from agriculture alone are not capable of causing climate change (again, because the environment can deal with them). You say that "diet maintenance" is a "clear, easy goal that individuals can take on". It's much more than that. It's a fine excuse for people to not do anything substantial to help stop climate change. They eat a bean burger once a week and then go home happy that they did their bit for the environment, because their favorite influencer told them so. And they do nothing to challenge the fuel industry that keeps doing business as usual. Because their influencers don't tell them to. In order to stop climate change (we can't reverse it, but we can stop it developing further) people must understand its causes. Farming is not the cause. Burning fossil fuels is the cause. That's what we need to address. But I think there's a misunderstanding. I made a comment about the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry, and you seem to have taken it as a comment in a debate about individual vs collective action, to which I never intended to contribute. I agree that personal action is necessary to stop climate change. My point is that eating a vegan diet is not the right action because farming is not the cause of climate change. Burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change and the goal of any personal action must be to stop burning fossil fuels. > my disagreement is that the fossil fuel industry somehow coopted the animal rights movement. Maybe "co-opted" is a strong word, but the industry can't be very unhappy with the current state of affairs, where everybody's having a food fight on social media about what to eat and lets the industry off the hook. "Go vegan" is the popular message on social media because it's the easy answer. But, the answer to what? The hard question is how we reconfigure our civilisation to stop burning fossil fuels and causing climate change as a result. Going vegan doesn't begin to address that question. What you eat is irrelevant to how we generate power.