white_stuffed
Member
Rather a confronting table from the latest CCC report
Alarming aspirations from latest climate report...
- Thread starter white_stuffed
- Start date
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I don't have figures to back it but my hunch is that the biggest proportion of food waste is bread and fresh fruit and veg, not meat. How would eating less meat cut food waste?
I increasingly think there are are undeclared campaigning vegans on the CCC.
I increasingly think there are are undeclared campaigning vegans on the CCC.
Last edited:
The head of the CCC was on BBC Breakfast last week, giving it the usual we all know we need to eat less meat bollox. I had to look them up as I wasn't sure who the CCC were, defo whifs of the Judean People's Front. I didn't investigate beyond the name as he just sounded like a propaganda merchant rather than a reasonable scientist.
white_stuffed
Member
(I don't think they're necessarily linking reduced meat with reduced food waste. Theyre lumped together for the purposes of the table as they are both examples of required behaviour change.)
The methane gwp metric seems such a blunt instrument and yet it absolutely drives the output of these kinds of report. This 6th edition of the CCC is massively influential on policymakers. Elsewhere in the report it refers to a new 2024 metric which is even worse for methane and will make livestock emissions appear even higher. This is so frustrating - I thought/hoped the IPCC were considering using gwp* (which is the metric which takes account of the short life of methane) in their next report?
The methane gwp metric seems such a blunt instrument and yet it absolutely drives the output of these kinds of report. This 6th edition of the CCC is massively influential on policymakers. Elsewhere in the report it refers to a new 2024 metric which is even worse for methane and will make livestock emissions appear even higher. This is so frustrating - I thought/hoped the IPCC were considering using gwp* (which is the metric which takes account of the short life of methane) in their next report?
And methane is a closed loop,decreasing due to lower UK livestock numbers historically.
How about maintaining air travel at 1980’s levels?
How about maintaining air travel at 1980’s levels?
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I've read that the 6th IPCC report due in 2022 will use e GWP* for methane....
I'd read that too but then I read quite a lot of stuff. What journalists write doesn't necessarily have to be true. Can't remember where I read it. One thing's for sure, if they do use it in the report it will be ignored by the media.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
People really don’t think in joined up systems or complete cycles. They home in on one fact and don’t see the bigger picture. “Replace meat with food from plants” they say? But where does extra land and fertiliser come from to grow these plants, the chemical usage, the harvesting, transportation and processing resources?
And while air travel and needless consumption continues unabated, why tinker with agriculture?
And while air travel and needless consumption continues unabated, why tinker with agriculture?
- Location
- Shropshire
Maybe their "eat less meat" mantra isn't working as they'd hoped at the moment so they need to up their game
Meanwhile let's build the 3rd runway at Heathrow....
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
That would be Christ Stark, and he's certainly not a scientist. He studied "law and finance" at UoG and UoE.
That's the fella.
- Location
- South Devon
Its all bull $hit - our crops would be much more efficient and desserts would be greening faster if CO2 was 2 or 3 times higher.
white_stuffed
Member
They don't need more land, they're going to move it indoors...
Extract from the report:
Moving horticulture indoors
Horticultural products such as fruit, vegetables and salad crops are grown on 163,000 hectares, or 3% of cropland in the UK. There is considerable scope to improve grassland utilisation, improve productivity and enable land to be used for other uses. Indoor horticulture can raise productivity while reducing nutrient, land and water footprints. 19 Indoor systems such as vertical farming, where crops are grown in stacks in a controlled environment, can raise productivity while reducing the nutrient, land and water footprint. Indoor horticulture in the UK is mainly for high value salad crops and is currently small scale. Some systems are based on hydroponic and vertical production systems using LEDs. Our analysis assumes that this system could be applied to 10– 50% of current horticultural production. Given the small area of land currently used for horticulture, moving production indoors has a limited impact on land area and carbon impacts. More significant emissions savings would come from moving horticultural production from lowland peat, although we have not included this in our analysis.
Greater benefits could accrue from shifting arable crop production indoors. The controlled environment could allow for quicker and multiple harvests each year. Estimates suggest that combined with a ten-tier stacking system, yields could be 220 to 600 times higher than the current global average annual wheat yield of 3.2 tonnes/hectare.11 However, this production method is still at the experimental stage, with trials on-going at Rothamsted Research, while the costs of energy (e.g. LED lighting) would also have to reduce to make this a cost-effective option. Indoor wheat production is not included in our scenarios.
white_stuffed
Member
They've found some land here....
In this stylised analysis, our model assumes that farmers do not respond to the change in diets by increasing meat and dairy exports. This has three main impacts: • It reduces emissions from livestock (e.g. methane from enteric fermentation) and from managing grassland and cropland used to grow animal feed (e.g. N2O from fertiliser use). • It increases the area of cropland used to grow crops for human consumption and reduces land required for livestock production – both grassland for grazed livestock and cropland for livestock feed. • There is a corresponding fall in imports of meat, dairy and animal feed which reduces the carbon footprint of the UK’s food imports. Our ambition on diet change are within range of the Climate Assembly’s recommendations for a 20-40% change in diets by 2050 23 There are uncertainties as to whether these could all be achieved in practice. This will require a strong policy framework in place to encourage a shift in diets and, incentives for farmers to improve productivity and to use their land for measures to sequester carbon (see our accompanying Policy Report: Policies for the Sixth Carbon Budget & Net Zero).
And more bright ideas from the report...grassland is used inefficiently, so they propose encouraging paddock and mob grazing. On the other hand, to enhance efficiencies, we need to be milking cows more frequently by robotic milking. Not sure that robots and grazing work well together?
In this stylised analysis, our model assumes that farmers do not respond to the change in diets by increasing meat and dairy exports. This has three main impacts: • It reduces emissions from livestock (e.g. methane from enteric fermentation) and from managing grassland and cropland used to grow animal feed (e.g. N2O from fertiliser use). • It increases the area of cropland used to grow crops for human consumption and reduces land required for livestock production – both grassland for grazed livestock and cropland for livestock feed. • There is a corresponding fall in imports of meat, dairy and animal feed which reduces the carbon footprint of the UK’s food imports. Our ambition on diet change are within range of the Climate Assembly’s recommendations for a 20-40% change in diets by 2050 23 There are uncertainties as to whether these could all be achieved in practice. This will require a strong policy framework in place to encourage a shift in diets and, incentives for farmers to improve productivity and to use their land for measures to sequester carbon (see our accompanying Policy Report: Policies for the Sixth Carbon Budget & Net Zero).
And more bright ideas from the report...grassland is used inefficiently, so they propose encouraging paddock and mob grazing. On the other hand, to enhance efficiencies, we need to be milking cows more frequently by robotic milking. Not sure that robots and grazing work well together?
white_stuffed
Member
There's a good typo here, do you think it was deliberate?!
A larger sh!t towards healthier diets beyond 2030, results in a 50% switch away from meat and dairy products to all plant-based products by 2050. Food waste is halved by 2030 and continues to fall to 70% by 2050.
A larger sh!t towards healthier diets beyond 2030, results in a 50% switch away from meat and dairy products to all plant-based products by 2050. Food waste is halved by 2030 and continues to fall to 70% by 2050.
deleted user 837354
Member
There is no way these lofty climate goals will come to anything because the whole issue needs approaching holistically and no single government can agree to anything.
The world has categorically no hope of dealing with it's fossil fuel consumption without the widespread introduction of extremely safe and extremely cheap nuclear power being phased in across the world in short order.
The world has categorically no hope of dealing with it's fossil fuel consumption without the widespread introduction of extremely safe and extremely cheap nuclear power being phased in across the world in short order.
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
If this report illustrates anything, it’s that the wonks that wrote it are completely out of touch with the real world.
He and the rest of them need a dose of reality. I suggest by them walking into a fried chicken shop in south London and see how the clientele react when Stark and his minions demand that the clientele halve the amount of chicken they eat. It won’t be pretty but they might get an idea of what the general public, not just the hand-picked individuals that were brainwashed by those with an agenda at the “climate assembly”, think of such an idea.
It’s particularly grating that not only is the chief wonk ignorant of anything outside of the public sector, but that he’s also paid over £200k a year to come up with such sh!te.
He and the rest of them need a dose of reality. I suggest by them walking into a fried chicken shop in south London and see how the clientele react when Stark and his minions demand that the clientele halve the amount of chicken they eat. It won’t be pretty but they might get an idea of what the general public, not just the hand-picked individuals that were brainwashed by those with an agenda at the “climate assembly”, think of such an idea.
It’s particularly grating that not only is the chief wonk ignorant of anything outside of the public sector, but that he’s also paid over £200k a year to come up with such sh!te.