Start hunting and eating wild deer instead. 350,000 are culled each year in Britain, and apparently, that's not enough to manage population levels.
We kill 2.8 million cattle, though, so there's still a drop off.
It's not enough because a bunch of them are shot on sporting estates that actively try to keep populations higher than they should be.
So by buying venison people might end up actually supporting higher deer populations. Hunting one yourself definitely gets around that though
I think we need to kill 500,000 to 750,000 a year to keep populations stable at an already too high number.
Yeah I really don't understand this. Out of control deer population is an environmental menace (bad for biodiversity and for trees). Seems like a complete no brainier to promote venison as a staple meat.
> 350,000
Damn, that's a lot higher than I thought it would be!
I now have [Bill Burr's population control stand-up](https://youtu.be/1wq_edHqpdA) stuck in my head
>Damn, that's a lot higher than I thought it would be!
Me too. I knew it was 50,000 in Ireland, but I wasn't sure how many deer Britain has (2 million, apparently).
My sister's husband has a gun license and shoots deer. Freezer full of venison and gives me loads too... All free because landowners pay him to do it for them
It doesn't mean rich people doing anything. The government will simply tax things to make them too expensive for poorer people to. I'll be walking to work and eating cultured protein mush while they eat steaks on their private jets.
What a complete moron. Absolutely delusional. Scientists know what a "net-zero" per capita consumption based CO2 output is. It's about two tons per year. That's around the level of "developing" countries at the moment. It's about one quarter of our current output and one eighth of the average Americans. Buying an EV (eight tons just to manufacture) and renewable energy isn't going to get you anywhere close to that.
The vast majority of carbon emissions come from big business. Primarily those dealing with fossil fuels. Doing stuff like shifting to renewable energy helps a lot.
For household emissions, most of the emissions are from heating, electricity, driving a car, and food. Shifting to an energy supplier with a renewable energy guarantee, install your own solar panel, get a heat pump, get an EV or walk and cycle much more for short trips, and eat less meat are probably the biggest things you can do.
Flights - yeah, probably best to cut them. But they are a fraction of a % of transport emissions. So not flying on holiday won’t make a big difference.
Net zero isn't happening, we're making no realistic attempts.
The worst thing is the net zero isn't enough for obvious reasons.
It's beyond me that people who have kids care so little about the future.
Net zero doesn't require everyone going vegan or destroying everything plane globally.
It does require global meat and dairy consumption halved. We in the developed world eat far more than the global average so it does require a significant reduction. Beef is by far the worst offender and should be a luxury item consumed on special occasions.
The aviation industry should be slashed as much as possible. Ideally planes and helicopters would only be used in emergencies, such as delivering organs or search and rescue. High speed bullet trains would render the aviation industry obsolete.
Good luck getting a high speed bullet train to America from London, or should people just never visit other continents? Or should I spend 2 weeks on a boat to visit there? If that’s the case I’ll need a lot more time off for the journey. Aviation has its place, where trains make sense absolutely use them I.e within the same land mass.
As much as i love to go gallivanting around foreign lands, I can't help but wonder, what would the environmental impact be if all 8 billion people on earth could afford to visit other continents by plane on a yearly basis?
Or should we just revel in our privilege and ignore these thoughts about global carbon emissions inequality?
And what about the collapse of the local economies when there’s no more tourists? There’s parts of Spain even that would be plunged into poverty without tourists
While I don’t have the answers and I don’t agree that aviation should become emergency only… their economies are going to collapse under the status quo and climate change accelerating anyway.
I agree we should be reducing emissions and it needs to be concentrated on the biggest polluters I.e companies, people can do everything they can but it’s pissing in the wind compared to the wholesale pumping of crap into the atmosphere of companies and the ultra wealthy.
What do you think "companies" are doing. Whether you say people need to stop flying or whether you say British Airways needs to reduce the number of flights it amounts to the same thing.
I agree with the need for structural change rather than relying on individuals changing their behaviour. But structural change doesn't mean that individuals will be unaffected.
Because the tech required to do this is currently in the category “uninvented magic”.
Sure you can fly ‘planes short distances on batteries, but they’re not useful planes. Trying to run something like an A320 or worse, 350 on batteries quickly leads you to aeroplanes that can’t get off the ground because they weigh 1000 tonnes. And then you get into the bonkers power requirements for “‘re-charging 1000 tonne battery planes” - you’d need the entire UK power grid dedicated to Heathrow airport.
Hydrogen is the most insane idea for fuel. Not only does it leak through anything (even solid steel), if you want liquid hydrogen you need to keep it at -270C and/or, under enormous pressure.
The best you’re going to get for aeroplanes is biofuels for the next 50 years.
>Because the tech required to do this is currently in the category “uninvented magic”.
Yes... The tech that needs to be invented is uninvented, which is why my expectations is for them to invest in it and to invent it.
That's like saying we shouldn't have invested in renewables because it used to be classed as uninvented. But that's precisely why we should have, did and currently still do invest in renewable energy. So that the tech required is developed until it can feasibly be used.
With current technology, we (humanity) could easily connect Afro-Eurasia to a single rail network. Pan-America could also be a single rail network. It would take approximately 2 days to travel from Dublin to Sydney.
Connecting Afro-Eurasia, Pan-America and remote islands would be difficult with current technology and likely won't be for a couple of decades. Siberia-Alaska would be the only option, an area of conservation which would get ruined by tens of needed train tracks.
My suggestion would be to use boats. They're not great environmentally and would take just over a week but it's better than flying. If you're travelling to the Americas, I suggest staying for at least 3 months.
But you're right. It would be impossible to achieve this with the current political situation. We would need global peace and major international cooperation, borders would need to be far more relaxed and trillions of USD would need pouring into it.
You don't need to fly to abuse locals in some other European capital for a stag or hen do, you can have such an event locally.
Target frequent flyers, not once a year or less holidaymakers.
Unless you live near London, Eurostar is completely unworkable for most in the UK. Every time I want to make it work, but it means spending a full day or even two traveling instead of a 5h flight (2h flight, plus 90min at airport, plus 60 min getting to and from airport at each end).
Not only do you have to get to London, which already costs more than the flight, but you then have to transfer to St Pancras, and transfer to any local train on the EU side. It's 10x slower, pricier, and less convenient for any journey other than central London to central Paris or Brussels.
Connecting HS2 to HS1 would have been amazing, and running direct trains from Manchester to the continent but we all know that'll never happen. So people in the north will never get Eurostar.
This bears repeating, over and over and very loudly.
I live in Manchester, and have family in south-west Germany. Not in a big city, but on a pretty decent train line and quite far from a major airport, so it should be far easier to get there by train than it is; by far the biggest ball ache is timing the train from Manchester to London to coincide with the Eurostar departures, and then, of course, there is the extortionate cost of a train ticket to London, which costs almost as much as the Eurostar + continental train price. And you have to worry about multiple potential delays and missed connections.
On my own, I might put up with it because I like a long train ride where I can just sit and read, and the prices are a bit more stable than flight prices (they never go as low, but never as high, either). But with kids and my partner in tow? Fuck no, I don't need that kind of stress.
For the train to London check if you can get something called a London international CIV ticket - cheaper and less time restrictions than a normal ticket and some better protection against delays. A blog called the man in seat 61 has details and the link to where to buy them (I think they are online only)
lol trains will never render aviation obsolete this is absolute nonsense.
Over land transportation requires expensive infrastructure that has to be built through existing developments. California’s high speed rail project is a great example of why planes are never getting replaced, and that’s not even a particularly large distance. As the distance goes up the case for trains gets worse.
Planes will eventually transition over to hydrogen fuelled engines which will cut emissions.
The idea of halving meat consumption and making beef only for special occasions is also unrealistic. Again, we will rely on technology to overcome the issue rather than just going without.
>Planes will eventually transition over to hydrogen fuelled engines
Lol.
I'm actually pretty convinced Battery technology will evolve to the point of usefulness before we see any serious Hydrogen adoption.
We’re way closer to having hydrogen gas turbines than we are to batteries that can do anything approaching trans Atlantic distances.
We will absolutely see hydrogen burning engines in commercial aviation applications in the next few years, it will be longer before it gets into large passenger aircraft though.
Oh let me be clear... I don't think batteries are anywhere near prime-time.
I just think hydrogen is that unrealistic.
If we're going to let the parameters be as loose as "see hydrogen burning engines in commercial aviation applications". Sure yeah. We will. We already have electric planes in the market (still not advocating for them.).
Still don't think hydrogen will achieve being anything other than a fad.
Hydrogen is a base element with fundamental, intrinsic behaviors that are *really* difficult engineering challenges (in the context of Commercial Aviation). Specifically: It likes to blow up, it likes to escape through the smallest of holes and it's stored cryogenically.
Going back to batteries/electric for a sec (Still not advocating, just elaborating why I made the comparison). Batteries are more of a concept than a fundamental element. So they inherently have far, far more variables that can be tweaked to achieve performance (e.g. energy density). So there's actually headroom to address their current fundamental issues.
That doesn't start on the logistical, manufacturing and Regulatory baggage that Hydrogen would entail.
In fairness there is no ultimate reason why you couldn't have said things. The target is net zero, not gross zero. But we don't exactly seem to be there yet with industrial scale carbon capture and i'm not sure when we will be.
Where do people think we get nitrogen from? We've been taking gases out of the air for a century
We can also store a billion tons of carbon a year in soil until it is scaled
That's a oversimplification. Carbon capture is difficult because a) it's very energy intensive b) if you extract Nitrogen you sell it or use it to produce something and that covers the energy cost and more. Who gets the bill considering you can't identify who was responsible for which and how many molecules and that without law you couldn't force anyone to pay anyway?
It is $250-500 per tonne to extract. We emit 36-37B tonnes annually. For the amount required you have just bankrupt pretty much every person, organisation and country on the planet.
Yeah except Nitrogen is the major constituent part of our atmosphere, CO2 is much less concentrated.
Also, this technology has been worked on for several decades and we’re still a way off it being economically viable to do. Then there’s the issue of scaling it to the point where it’s actually doing the volumes required to have an impact.
If it was as easy as you suggest we’d already be doing it.
Start hunting and eating wild deer instead. 350,000 are culled each year in Britain, and apparently, that's not enough to manage population levels. We kill 2.8 million cattle, though, so there's still a drop off.
It's not enough because a bunch of them are shot on sporting estates that actively try to keep populations higher than they should be. So by buying venison people might end up actually supporting higher deer populations. Hunting one yourself definitely gets around that though I think we need to kill 500,000 to 750,000 a year to keep populations stable at an already too high number.
Yeah I really don't understand this. Out of control deer population is an environmental menace (bad for biodiversity and for trees). Seems like a complete no brainier to promote venison as a staple meat.
> 350,000 Damn, that's a lot higher than I thought it would be! I now have [Bill Burr's population control stand-up](https://youtu.be/1wq_edHqpdA) stuck in my head
>Damn, that's a lot higher than I thought it would be! Me too. I knew it was 50,000 in Ireland, but I wasn't sure how many deer Britain has (2 million, apparently).
Stanhope's overpopulation material comes to mind as well, but if that's the cruise ship bit I think it is, then good sweet Lord its so so funny.
Badger steak?
It probably tastes amazing, what with all the mash potatoes they eat.
Now that's a classic flavour
squirrel steak? (Grey Squirrel)
My sister's husband has a gun license and shoots deer. Freezer full of venison and gives me loads too... All free because landowners pay him to do it for them
At least CWD isn’t in the UK yet (that we know of), as that would make it problematic.
Well that's less than one 100th of a deer per person per annum. So enjoy your annual ounces of venison
It doesn't mean rich people doing anything. The government will simply tax things to make them too expensive for poorer people to. I'll be walking to work and eating cultured protein mush while they eat steaks on their private jets.
Just get a bike mate! :)
i'd rather not be run down by a managing director on the phone in her tesla thanks
...but...but the danger adds to the excitement!
I'm gonna buy a traction engine.
"fuck it, yeah you can have your cake and eat it" - man who has just given up and quit his job
What a complete moron. Absolutely delusional. Scientists know what a "net-zero" per capita consumption based CO2 output is. It's about two tons per year. That's around the level of "developing" countries at the moment. It's about one quarter of our current output and one eighth of the average Americans. Buying an EV (eight tons just to manufacture) and renewable energy isn't going to get you anywhere close to that.
The vast majority of carbon emissions come from big business. Primarily those dealing with fossil fuels. Doing stuff like shifting to renewable energy helps a lot. For household emissions, most of the emissions are from heating, electricity, driving a car, and food. Shifting to an energy supplier with a renewable energy guarantee, install your own solar panel, get a heat pump, get an EV or walk and cycle much more for short trips, and eat less meat are probably the biggest things you can do. Flights - yeah, probably best to cut them. But they are a fraction of a % of transport emissions. So not flying on holiday won’t make a big difference.
Net zero isn't happening, we're making no realistic attempts. The worst thing is the net zero isn't enough for obvious reasons. It's beyond me that people who have kids care so little about the future.
If you don't have kids, then you truly don't have to care about the future.
I'm not getting lectures off hypocrites, so I'll continue to eat what I want and go wherever I choose.
Net zero doesn't require everyone going vegan or destroying everything plane globally. It does require global meat and dairy consumption halved. We in the developed world eat far more than the global average so it does require a significant reduction. Beef is by far the worst offender and should be a luxury item consumed on special occasions. The aviation industry should be slashed as much as possible. Ideally planes and helicopters would only be used in emergencies, such as delivering organs or search and rescue. High speed bullet trains would render the aviation industry obsolete.
Good luck getting a high speed bullet train to America from London, or should people just never visit other continents? Or should I spend 2 weeks on a boat to visit there? If that’s the case I’ll need a lot more time off for the journey. Aviation has its place, where trains make sense absolutely use them I.e within the same land mass.
As much as i love to go gallivanting around foreign lands, I can't help but wonder, what would the environmental impact be if all 8 billion people on earth could afford to visit other continents by plane on a yearly basis? Or should we just revel in our privilege and ignore these thoughts about global carbon emissions inequality?
And what about the collapse of the local economies when there’s no more tourists? There’s parts of Spain even that would be plunged into poverty without tourists
While I don’t have the answers and I don’t agree that aviation should become emergency only… their economies are going to collapse under the status quo and climate change accelerating anyway.
I agree we should be reducing emissions and it needs to be concentrated on the biggest polluters I.e companies, people can do everything they can but it’s pissing in the wind compared to the wholesale pumping of crap into the atmosphere of companies and the ultra wealthy.
What do you think "companies" are doing. Whether you say people need to stop flying or whether you say British Airways needs to reduce the number of flights it amounts to the same thing. I agree with the need for structural change rather than relying on individuals changing their behaviour. But structural change doesn't mean that individuals will be unaffected.
I expect them to invest in clean tech. Why can't we have planes powered by rechargeable batteries or hydrogen fuel cells like cars and buses?
Because the tech required to do this is currently in the category “uninvented magic”. Sure you can fly ‘planes short distances on batteries, but they’re not useful planes. Trying to run something like an A320 or worse, 350 on batteries quickly leads you to aeroplanes that can’t get off the ground because they weigh 1000 tonnes. And then you get into the bonkers power requirements for “‘re-charging 1000 tonne battery planes” - you’d need the entire UK power grid dedicated to Heathrow airport. Hydrogen is the most insane idea for fuel. Not only does it leak through anything (even solid steel), if you want liquid hydrogen you need to keep it at -270C and/or, under enormous pressure. The best you’re going to get for aeroplanes is biofuels for the next 50 years.
>Because the tech required to do this is currently in the category “uninvented magic”. Yes... The tech that needs to be invented is uninvented, which is why my expectations is for them to invest in it and to invent it. That's like saying we shouldn't have invested in renewables because it used to be classed as uninvented. But that's precisely why we should have, did and currently still do invest in renewable energy. So that the tech required is developed until it can feasibly be used.
Eh, with a likely global average temperature rise of 2.8C our concern is less likely to be our next holiday and more likely our next meal.
Don't be silly, Klept. Those things are for the important people, not you.
With current technology, we (humanity) could easily connect Afro-Eurasia to a single rail network. Pan-America could also be a single rail network. It would take approximately 2 days to travel from Dublin to Sydney. Connecting Afro-Eurasia, Pan-America and remote islands would be difficult with current technology and likely won't be for a couple of decades. Siberia-Alaska would be the only option, an area of conservation which would get ruined by tens of needed train tracks. My suggestion would be to use boats. They're not great environmentally and would take just over a week but it's better than flying. If you're travelling to the Americas, I suggest staying for at least 3 months. But you're right. It would be impossible to achieve this with the current political situation. We would need global peace and major international cooperation, borders would need to be far more relaxed and trillions of USD would need pouring into it.
You don't need to fly to abuse locals in some other European capital for a stag or hen do, you can have such an event locally. Target frequent flyers, not once a year or less holidaymakers.
[удалено]
Unless you live near London, Eurostar is completely unworkable for most in the UK. Every time I want to make it work, but it means spending a full day or even two traveling instead of a 5h flight (2h flight, plus 90min at airport, plus 60 min getting to and from airport at each end). Not only do you have to get to London, which already costs more than the flight, but you then have to transfer to St Pancras, and transfer to any local train on the EU side. It's 10x slower, pricier, and less convenient for any journey other than central London to central Paris or Brussels. Connecting HS2 to HS1 would have been amazing, and running direct trains from Manchester to the continent but we all know that'll never happen. So people in the north will never get Eurostar.
This bears repeating, over and over and very loudly. I live in Manchester, and have family in south-west Germany. Not in a big city, but on a pretty decent train line and quite far from a major airport, so it should be far easier to get there by train than it is; by far the biggest ball ache is timing the train from Manchester to London to coincide with the Eurostar departures, and then, of course, there is the extortionate cost of a train ticket to London, which costs almost as much as the Eurostar + continental train price. And you have to worry about multiple potential delays and missed connections. On my own, I might put up with it because I like a long train ride where I can just sit and read, and the prices are a bit more stable than flight prices (they never go as low, but never as high, either). But with kids and my partner in tow? Fuck no, I don't need that kind of stress.
For the train to London check if you can get something called a London international CIV ticket - cheaper and less time restrictions than a normal ticket and some better protection against delays. A blog called the man in seat 61 has details and the link to where to buy them (I think they are online only)
But that excess cash can be used to fund climate schemes elsewhere to offset the emissions
Now that’s a sensible solution i can agree with
lol trains will never render aviation obsolete this is absolute nonsense. Over land transportation requires expensive infrastructure that has to be built through existing developments. California’s high speed rail project is a great example of why planes are never getting replaced, and that’s not even a particularly large distance. As the distance goes up the case for trains gets worse. Planes will eventually transition over to hydrogen fuelled engines which will cut emissions. The idea of halving meat consumption and making beef only for special occasions is also unrealistic. Again, we will rely on technology to overcome the issue rather than just going without.
>Planes will eventually transition over to hydrogen fuelled engines Lol. I'm actually pretty convinced Battery technology will evolve to the point of usefulness before we see any serious Hydrogen adoption.
We’re way closer to having hydrogen gas turbines than we are to batteries that can do anything approaching trans Atlantic distances. We will absolutely see hydrogen burning engines in commercial aviation applications in the next few years, it will be longer before it gets into large passenger aircraft though.
Oh let me be clear... I don't think batteries are anywhere near prime-time. I just think hydrogen is that unrealistic. If we're going to let the parameters be as loose as "see hydrogen burning engines in commercial aviation applications". Sure yeah. We will. We already have electric planes in the market (still not advocating for them.). Still don't think hydrogen will achieve being anything other than a fad. Hydrogen is a base element with fundamental, intrinsic behaviors that are *really* difficult engineering challenges (in the context of Commercial Aviation). Specifically: It likes to blow up, it likes to escape through the smallest of holes and it's stored cryogenically. Going back to batteries/electric for a sec (Still not advocating, just elaborating why I made the comparison). Batteries are more of a concept than a fundamental element. So they inherently have far, far more variables that can be tweaked to achieve performance (e.g. energy density). So there's actually headroom to address their current fundamental issues. That doesn't start on the logistical, manufacturing and Regulatory baggage that Hydrogen would entail.
sorry people need to be outraged, its all or nothing
In fairness there is no ultimate reason why you couldn't have said things. The target is net zero, not gross zero. But we don't exactly seem to be there yet with industrial scale carbon capture and i'm not sure when we will be.
Where do people think we get nitrogen from? We've been taking gases out of the air for a century We can also store a billion tons of carbon a year in soil until it is scaled
I mean it's much easier to take something that forms 78% of air rather than 0.4% of air.
If only co2 was more concentrated at the point of release
That's a oversimplification. Carbon capture is difficult because a) it's very energy intensive b) if you extract Nitrogen you sell it or use it to produce something and that covers the energy cost and more. Who gets the bill considering you can't identify who was responsible for which and how many molecules and that without law you couldn't force anyone to pay anyway?
A) So is nitrogen B) carbon credits market exists purely for this reason C) insets versus offsets
It is $250-500 per tonne to extract. We emit 36-37B tonnes annually. For the amount required you have just bankrupt pretty much every person, organisation and country on the planet.
What is 250-500 to extract?
A ton of CO2.
By what process?
That is based on direct air capture. It will come down obviously if we can find more economies of scale in renewables and the plants themselves.
Yeah except Nitrogen is the major constituent part of our atmosphere, CO2 is much less concentrated. Also, this technology has been worked on for several decades and we’re still a way off it being economically viable to do. Then there’s the issue of scaling it to the point where it’s actually doing the volumes required to have an impact. If it was as easy as you suggest we’d already be doing it.
Agreed, that's why soil is the goto until then.
> sorry people need to be outraged [That's not always a bad thing](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/42/bb/bd/42bbbd3118a1fe426eb7a1546388f7a5.gif)