Navitron Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum

Announcements & News => Media Watch => Topic started by: GarethC on June 12, 2019, 08:59:45 AM



Title: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: GarethC on June 12, 2019, 08:59:45 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/11/theresa-may-commits-to-net-zero-uk-carbon-emissions-by-2050

First big nation to do so I believe?


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 12, 2019, 09:28:41 AM
Easy to make these announcement, but much harder to deliver on them. A major step would be to electrify all of the train network, which is taking place but at a snails pace. It's much needed, especially at Victoria train station in Manchester where you can almost see the air when the diesel trains sit in the station for a while.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: azps on June 12, 2019, 09:35:42 AM
Easy to make these announcement, but much harder to deliver on them. A major step would be to electrify all of the train network

Sadly, that would be a very minor step. Train emissions are pretty much lost in the rounding of UK greenhouse gas emissions.

Nevertheless, we do need to decarbonise trains. And we should be getting on with it right now.

It's conceivable that for minor lines, electrification might not be the best option. It's conceivable that hydrogen may have a role there. But all decently busy lines should be electric, and it's probably not worth waiting to see if hydrogen trains really establish, we may as well just electrify the lot.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: azps on June 12, 2019, 09:38:33 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/11/theresa-may-commits-to-net-zero-uk-carbon-emissions-by-2050

First big nation to do so I believe?

First G7 nation, yes.

Sweden's probably the industrialised nation that's most committed to net zero, and the most advanced in achieving it.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: GarethC on June 12, 2019, 09:43:17 AM
When will results of current offshore wind auction be known? Really hoping for a favourable outcome there. If bids arrive in the low 50s per MWh (granted in 2012 prices) it would bode well for us to ramp up capacity at little subsidy cost, which would help politically.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: azps on June 12, 2019, 12:41:49 PM
When will results of current offshore wind auction be known? Really hoping for a favourable outcome there. If bids arrive in the low 50s per MWh (granted in 2012 prices) it would bode well for us to ramp up capacity at little subsidy cost, which would help politically.

At a guess, based on previous years, around late September / early October. It rather depends on National Grid's capacity (unknown, but generally very professional IME) and BEIS's (ahh, umm, well, err, they're under a lot of pressure right now ...).

There are a few challenges. The tiny budget, and the very aggressive price cap on offshore wind, signal that some parts of the government had the intention of throttling off offshore wind development. The Brexit mess has devalued sterling, pushing up equipment prices, and added enormous uncertainty, for which investors will demand higher returns.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: brackwell on June 12, 2019, 02:55:59 PM
In reality we are not "committed" as it can quickly be changed and as stated if in 5yrs time other countries are not pulling their weight.

Also please note that little word "NET"

I happen to think that NET zero is technically possible,financially possible,but will the people change, because we are talking about real big changes not just replacing a few light bulbs.  Every time i see another 2tonne SUV hurtling towards red traffic lights or thinking it is necassary to do Le Man starts  or....  then quite frankly i get depressed.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: brackwell on June 12, 2019, 04:39:33 PM
Another controversy within the plans announced today is that the government will include international carbon credits in the calculation of the UK’s GHG emissions, meaning that it will effectively buy negative emissions from renewables projects in developing countries to offset its own emissions. This means that the UK may still be emitting greenhouse gases by 2050.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Allnightin on June 12, 2019, 04:43:13 PM
  Every time i see another 2tonne SUV hurtling towards red traffic lights or thinking it is necassary to do Le Man starts  or....  then quite frankly i get depressed.

Along the same line, most car and fast food adverts on TV make me doubt that much is going to change in the near future


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: M on June 13, 2019, 07:00:44 AM
I happen to think that NET zero is technically possible,financially possible,but will the people change, because we are talking about real big changes not just replacing a few light bulbs.  Every time i see another 2tonne SUV hurtling towards red traffic lights or thinking it is necassary to do Le Man starts  or....  then quite frankly i get depressed.

I think that's the easiest bit, just a natural transition. Do people buy Mondeo's today, or Cortina's? Just like a switch to LED lamps, as they are better and cheaper (total cost of ownership), so will BEV's, giving more power, more performance, better road-holding and crucially cheaper running costs. ICE's have already lost the fight, now it's just a matter of time for BEV's to replace them as the majority annual car sale, certainly long before 2050, probably before 2030. I can't imagine there being many ICE's still on the road by 2050, other than as enthusiast cars.

Much of the shift to 2050 requires only policy changes and 'nudge' techniques. Though the longer we take to get on board, the harder it will be.

In the case of a BEV today, we shouldn't focus on the whole purchase cost, nor (for example) a £10k higher purchase price, but a £20k lower running cost. The same applies to RE generation rollout. We should focus on the additional marginal cost of deployment, and in the case of BEV's, that should turn out to be a saving (not a cost) which will actually drive and accelerate (pun intended) rollout.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: stannn on June 13, 2019, 07:25:15 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/12/what-will-it-take-for-the-uk-to-reach-net-zero-emissions


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Stig on June 13, 2019, 07:54:23 AM
As ever, we're discussing electricity generation and transport but what about domestic heating and agriculture?  How to persuade people to get their houses insulated properly and adopt a more planet-friendly diet?  I think those will be more of a struggle.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: azps on June 13, 2019, 09:06:36 AM
As ever, we're discussing electricity generation and transport but what about domestic heating and agriculture?  How to persuade people to get their houses insulated properly and adopt a more planet-friendly diet?  I think those will be more of a struggle.

Domestic heating has been receiving a lot of interest recently, and is keeping me busy quite a lot of the time currently. We're one of several teams looking into one or other aspects of the question. We're looking at it from the system architecture angle: that is, how do the really big decisions about which technologies are best for which circumstances, play out, in terms of locking in pathway dependencies, infrastructure overhauls, policy and regulatory environments.

Currently, it looks like it might be a patchwork solution. Some areas might be suitable for widespread in-home heat pumps. Others for a carbon-neutral gas grid (renewable alkanes, hydrogen, or a blend of these). Others for resistance heating and storage heaters.

Deep insulation ... interesting challenge. David Adams' work on Energiesprong in the UK looks very exciting. Actual in-home works only take one day - all the fabrication is done off-site, then a new shell is fitted around the existing building, raising it to a very high insulation standard. And he's combining it with installing new communal heating systems, driven by a heat pump, plus storage, plus PV, and selling ancillary services to the grid.

The upfront capital costs are currently very high (£50-60k per dwelling). It's only a pilot right now, and we should certainly expect some economies of scale. It will take some time before it becomes clear what the whole-life costs might be, at scale.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: stannn on June 13, 2019, 09:26:41 AM
Here is some of David Adams’ work.
https://www.cibsejournal.com/case-studies/a-forward-leap-how-dutch-housing-process-energiesprong-guarantees-performance/


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 10:14:01 AM
The elephant in the room is the massive negative impact agriculture has on our environment. Unless the government start taxing the meat industry into oblivion, we will just keep tinkering around at the edges with energy when the main issue is methane, excessive water use and pollution from animal feces.

Still, people need want to eat meat and so this will never happen.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Bodidly on June 13, 2019, 10:51:14 AM
The elephant in the room is the massive negative impact agriculture has on our environment. Unless the government start taxing the meat industry into oblivion, we will just keep tinkering around at the edges with energy when the main issue is methane, excessive water use and pollution from animal feces.

Still, people need want to eat meat and so this will never happen.

Crops are not so great for the environment either https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize?fbclid=IwAR3bO5jAkW4W7c0VHoOvzQJ4kzaNn5nvttedO27zndwmfhMfDQ5u8zqTHZI

And it's hardly the elephant in the room as it's discussed everywhere we look


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 11:06:03 AM
The elephant in the room is the massive negative impact agriculture has on our environment. Unless the government start taxing the meat industry into oblivion, we will just keep tinkering around at the edges with energy when the main issue is methane, excessive water use and pollution from animal feces.

Still, people need want to eat meat and so this will never happen.

Crops are not so great for the environment either https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize?fbclid=IwAR3bO5jAkW4W7c0VHoOvzQJ4kzaNn5nvttedO27zndwmfhMfDQ5u8zqTHZI

And it's hardly the elephant in the room as it's discussed everywhere we look

It's being discussed, but nothing is done about it. That's the point I'm trying to make - everyone shrugs their shoulders as though it's an insurmountable problem, when actually it's really easy to solve. We just stop eating meat. Not only will the planet thank us, but so will our bodies with with reduction of heart disease and cancer.

That link you sent is an opinion piece, not factual and it was written by someone in the meat industry and contained no facts to support the assertion that 'Veganism isn't the solution'. Somehow the solution is to eat meat that lives on open fields despite there not being enough land on the planet to house all this free roaming meat (even with deforestation).

As I said, it's all pointless as people are too selfish to give up meat and there is too much vested interest for politicians or even environmental groups like Greenpeace to do anything about it. The planet is doomed because people like the taste of meat and would see the planet die rather than eat a salad (ironic because they are also killing themselves by eating the stuff - at least there's cold comfort in that for those of us who do care enough about the planet to stop eating meat).


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Bodidly on June 13, 2019, 12:36:29 PM
The elephant in the room is the massive negative impact agriculture has on our environment. Unless the government start taxing the meat industry into oblivion, we will just keep tinkering around at the edges with energy when the main issue is methane, excessive water use and pollution from animal feces.

Still, people need want to eat meat and so this will never happen.

Crops are not so great for the environment either https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize?fbclid=IwAR3bO5jAkW4W7c0VHoOvzQJ4kzaNn5nvttedO27zndwmfhMfDQ5u8zqTHZI

And it's hardly the elephant in the room as it's discussed everywhere we look

It's being discussed, but nothing is done about it. That's the point I'm trying to make - everyone shrugs their shoulders as though it's an insurmountable problem, when actually it's really easy to solve. We just stop eating meat. Not only will the planet thank us, but so will our bodies with with reduction of heart disease and cancer.

That link you sent is an opinion piece, not factual and it was written by someone in the meat industry and contained no facts to support the assertion that 'Veganism isn't the solution'. Somehow the solution is to eat meat that lives on open fields despite there not being enough land on the planet to house all this free roaming meat (even with deforestation).

As I said, it's all pointless as people are too selfish to give up meat and there is too much vested interest for politicians or even environmental groups like Greenpeace to do anything about it. The planet is doomed because people like the taste of meat and would see the planet die rather than eat a salad (ironic because they are also killing themselves by eating the stuff - at least there's cold comfort in that for those of us who do care enough about the planet to stop eating meat).

Agreed it's an opinion piece but it's one I partly buy into. I don't think there is any holistic solution that feeds all the people while being organic and keeping the wider environment healthy. Everyone becoming vegan is being bandied about like it's some magic panacea. I have been chatting to a local organic veg grower about how we might grow veg here but due to shallow topsoil, he thought it would not be viable. He also said that organic compost for veg on most farms comes from the meat industry. You can get around that with a chemical fertilizer but then you run into problems with long term soil health.

 I have filled in some carbon footprint calculators and cutting out meat helped a little but made a surprisinly little impact, to my surprise I might add. A veg based diet is not carbon neutral by a long way. As I have said before there are large swathes of the UK that it's hard to grow anything other than grass on and in turn meat. Some would love to see these higher areas left to nature and it would be beautiful but then we have a world with too many mouths to feed. I agree that most of us eat too much meat but I don't think a 100% veggy life for all will be viable for all of us either.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 01:58:43 PM
Agreed it's an opinion piece but it's one I partly buy into. I don't think there is any holistic solution that feeds all the people while being organic and keeping the wider environment healthy. Everyone becoming vegan is being bandied about like it's some magic panacea. I have been chatting to a local organic veg grower about how we might grow veg here but due to shallow topsoil, he thought it would not be viable. He also said that organic compost for veg on most farms comes from the meat industry. You can get around that with a chemical fertilizer but then you run into problems with long term soil health.

 I have filled in some carbon footprint calculators and cutting out meat helped a little but made a surprisinly little impact, to my surprise I might add. A veg based diet is not carbon neutral by a long way. As I have said before there are large swathes of the UK that it's hard to grow anything other than grass on and in turn meat. Some would love to see these higher areas left to nature and it would be beautiful but then we have a world with too many mouths to feed. I agree that most of us eat too much meat but I don't think a 100% veggy life for all will be viable for all of us either.

Again, this is just an opinion and is not backed up by actual facts. The reality is that a large amount of land is actually used to grow food for livestock rather than humans.

https://www.simply-live-consciously.com/english/food-resources/food-consumption-of-animals/
"Did you know that 90 percent of the soybeans grown worldwide, 50 percent of the grain, and 40 percent of the fish caught are fed to livestock? This very fact should make all those think again who assume that livestock animals are basically fed grass. Apart from that many people still believe that the rainforests and our climate are destroyed in order to provide soy products for vegans. Actually the opposite is true: about 90% of soybeans are used for making animal products.

........

Putting all the figures together, we can see that the grain (5.58 billion) and the soybeans (1.29 billion) which are fed to livestock animals would suffice to nourish 6.87 billion people. In contrast, meat (863 million), milk (529 million), fish (210 million) and eggs (119 million) together can feed only 1.72 billion people. As a consequence, we can say that approximately an additional 5,2 billion people could be nourished if the plants needed for animal food were directly eaten by man."


"The facts shown here should be able to convince any critic of veganism – at least as far as the waste of resources is concerned. For it is often argued that it would be impossible to feed all people on a vegan diet as the larger part of farmland could not be used for plants which can be eaten by man.

Like many other such arguments, this one, too, is based on superficial knowledge and on the erroneous assumption that livestock animals solely feed on grass. The facts given above clearly refute this argument. "




Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Bodidly on June 13, 2019, 02:50:51 PM
Agreed it's an opinion piece but it's one I partly buy into. I don't think there is any holistic solution that feeds all the people while being organic and keeping the wider environment healthy. Everyone becoming vegan is being bandied about like it's some magic panacea. I have been chatting to a local organic veg grower about how we might grow veg here but due to shallow topsoil, he thought it would not be viable. He also said that organic compost for veg on most farms comes from the meat industry. You can get around that with a chemical fertilizer but then you run into problems with long term soil health.

 I have filled in some carbon footprint calculators and cutting out meat helped a little but made a surprisinly little impact, to my surprise I might add. A veg based diet is not carbon neutral by a long way. As I have said before there are large swathes of the UK that it's hard to grow anything other than grass on and in turn meat. Some would love to see these higher areas left to nature and it would be beautiful but then we have a world with too many mouths to feed. I agree that most of us eat too much meat but I don't think a 100% veggy life for all will be viable for all of us either.



Again, this is just an opinion and is not backed up by actual facts. The reality is that a large amount of land is actually used to grow food for livestock rather than humans.

https://www.simply-live-consciously.com/english/food-resources/food-consumption-of-animals/
"Did you know that 90 percent of the soybeans grown worldwide, 50 percent of the grain, and 40 percent of the fish caught are fed to livestock? This very fact should make all those think again who assume that livestock animals are basically fed grass. Apart from that many people still believe that the rainforests and our climate are destroyed in order to provide soy products for vegans. Actually the opposite is true: about 90% of soybeans are used for making animal products.

........

Putting all the figures together, we can see that the grain (5.58 billion) and the soybeans (1.29 billion) which are fed to livestock animals would suffice to nourish 6.87 billion people. In contrast, meat (863 million), milk (529 million), fish (210 million) and eggs (119 million) together can feed only 1.72 billion people. As a consequence, we can say that approximately an additional 5,2 billion people could be nourished if the plants needed for animal food were directly eaten by man."


"The facts shown here should be able to convince any critic of veganism – at least as far as the waste of resources is concerned. For it is often argued that it would be impossible to feed all people on a vegan diet as the larger part of farmland could not be used for plants which can be eaten by man.

Like many other such arguments, this one, too, is based on superficial knowledge and on the erroneous assumption that livestock animals solely feed on grass. The facts given above clearly refute this argument. "




Some numbers without the wider picture. Farming is complicated not just some neat numbers. None of the above addresses declining soil health or fertilizer organic or otherwise. We could entirely feed our sheep on grass but don't do at present but have in the past.

Don't be too condescending with "superficial knowledge" as I have lived and worked the land all my life and see the effects of different farming practices on a daily basis.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 03:08:54 PM

Some numbers without the wider picture. Farming is complicated not just some neat numbers. None of the above addresses declining soil health or fertilizer organic or otherwise. We could entirely feed our sheep on grass but don't do at present but have in the past.

Don't be too condescending with "superficial knowledge" as I have lived and worked the land all my life and see the effects of different farming practices on a daily basis.

I'm happy to read anything that post to support your position, but at the moment you've just supplied an opinion piece from a meat farmer that was riddled with errors and omissions, your own opinion and the opinion of some other bloke. I'd suggest that to expect people to just 'take your word for it' because you have lived and worked on farms is way more condescending than my approach of defending my position with facts and pointing out when opinions have been dressed as fact. Plus I've not done it in an unfriendly manner and I hope it hasn't come across that way.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: renewablejohn on June 13, 2019, 03:33:21 PM

Some numbers without the wider picture. Farming is complicated not just some neat numbers. None of the above addresses declining soil health or fertilizer organic or otherwise. We could entirely feed our sheep on grass but don't do at present but have in the past.

Don't be too condescending with "superficial knowledge" as I have lived and worked the land all my life and see the effects of different farming practices on a daily basis.

I'm happy to read anything that post to support your position, but at the moment you've just supplied an opinion piece from a meat farmer that was riddled with errors and omissions, your own opinion and the opinion of some other bloke. I'd suggest that to expect people to just 'take your word for it' because you have lived and worked on farms is way more condescending than my approach of defending my position with facts and pointing out when opinions have been dressed as fact. Plus I've not done it in an unfriendly manner and I hope it hasn't come across that way.


Yet more farmer bashing on Navitron.  Well just to start defending the farming community from this vegan twaddle. The great fish pile they refer to is actually the processing waste from your lovely fish fillets or do you believe there magically disposed of. No its turned into animal feed that is turned into meat whichsome of us actually enjoy eating. As for soya thats obviously come from an American website where production techniques are totally different to the UK.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: smegal on June 13, 2019, 03:50:51 PM

Some numbers without the wider picture. Farming is complicated not just some neat numbers. None of the above addresses declining soil health or fertilizer organic or otherwise. We could entirely feed our sheep on grass but don't do at present but have in the past.

Don't be too condescending with "superficial knowledge" as I have lived and worked the land all my life and see the effects of different farming practices on a daily basis.

I'm happy to read anything that post to support your position, but at the moment you've just supplied an opinion piece from a meat farmer that was riddled with errors and omissions, your own opinion and the opinion of some other bloke. I'd suggest that to expect people to just 'take your word for it' because you have lived and worked on farms is way more condescending than my approach of defending my position with facts and pointing out when opinions have been dressed as fact. Plus I've not done it in an unfriendly manner and I hope it hasn't come across that way.


Yet more farmer bashing on Navitron.  Well just to start defending the farming community from this vegan twaddle. The great fish pile they refer to is actually the processing waste from your lovely fish fillets or do you believe there magically disposed of. No its turned into animal feed that is turned into meat whichsome of us actually enjoy eating. As for soya thats obviously come from an American website where production techniques are totally different to the UK.

POS falls into a common trap that many ideological vegans fall into. Anyone can cherry pick data. The source they listed above is heavily cherry picked.

Very few cows in the UK are fed on soya, the example of soya use is in areas where beef is raised in intensive feedlots. Cows in the UK are mainly fed on grass, or silage (grass). Some are fed on maize, but this is the whole maize crop turned to silage. People would only eat the cobs.

Agricultural methane is also a dodgey item to get excited about. The methane is from the natural carbon cycle, not released from the ground (think gas leaks form the O&G industry). This methane also decays back to C)2 eventually.

You are vegan for your reasons, that's great. Should we cut down on meat, yes. Would cutting down be more healthy, yes. Would cutting meat down to nothing be healthier than eating meat in moderation I'd argue probably not (if you can find true peer reviewed evidence, I'm all ears). The only way I could see the vegan diet being more healthy is that the inherent lack of essential nutrients means that vegans are forced to give their diet a greater level of assessment than a normal balanced diet.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 04:55:50 PM


Yet more farmer bashing on Navitron.  Well just to start defending the farming community from this vegan twaddle. The great fish pile they refer to is actually the processing waste from your lovely fish fillets or do you believe there magically disposed of. No its turned into animal feed that is turned into meat whichsome of us actually enjoy eating. As for soya thats obviously come from an American website where production techniques are totally different to the UK.

It's not farmer bashing to be against the production of meat and the mono-crop cultivation of feedstuffs for those livestock.

Not sure what you're talking about with my 'lovely fish fillets' as I'm vegan and so don't eat fish in any form. The waste from fish processing (and the appalling throwbacks of dead fish into the sea due to quotas) are therefore nothing to do with me. My hands are clean. :)


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 05:04:37 PM

POS falls into a common trap that many ideological vegans fall into. Anyone can cherry pick data. The source they listed above is heavily cherry picked.

Very few cows in the UK are fed on soya, the example of soya use is in areas where beef is raised in intensive feedlots. Cows in the UK are mainly fed on grass, or silage (grass). Some are fed on maize, but this is the whole maize crop turned to silage. People would only eat the cobs.

Agricultural methane is also a dodgey item to get excited about. The methane is from the natural carbon cycle, not released from the ground (think gas leaks form the O&G industry). This methane also decays back to C)2 eventually.

You are vegan for your reasons, that's great. Should we cut down on meat, yes. Would cutting down be more healthy, yes. Would cutting meat down to nothing be healthier than eating meat in moderation I'd argue probably not (if you can find true peer reviewed evidence, I'm all ears). The only way I could see the vegan diet being more healthy is that the inherent lack of essential nutrients means that vegans are forced to give their diet a greater level of assessment than a normal balanced diet.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertions, or are we to just take your word for it? It seems a little churlish of you to berate me for 'cherry picking' my data while you're providing none whatsoever.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk
"Thousands of British cattle reared for supermarket beef are being fattened in industrial-scale units where livestock have little or no access to pasture."

I don't understand how you can argue that we should cut down on eating meat (I assume for environmental reasons) and that reducing meat consumption is healthier and then in the next sentence say you don't believe it's healthier? Either it is or it isn't, it can't be both.

I'm not sure what essential nutrients I'm lacking in my diet that you have in your 'normal' diet? I'm certainly missing out on the lack of fibre, the high cholesterol and saturated fat and the growth hormones and antibiotics. I'm also missing out on the nitrates, preservatives and various chemicals used in processed meats.

If you're alluding to B12, which is the only essential nutrient that can't be obtained from plants or sunlight, then I'd ask if you knew where B12 comes from?

Here's some info:

While it is true that plants do not produce vitamin B12, neither do animals inherently produce it. B12 is produced by bacteria that live in the soil and in the intestines of animals, including humans; however, in humans and other animals, it is generally manufactured too far down the intestinal tract (in the colon, in our case) to be absorbed, and is instead excreted in feces, where it is abundant.

Most farmed animals are not a natural source of B12.

Cattle, sheep and other ruminants have ample B-12 producing bacteria in the first chamber of their four-chambered stomachs, and in natural environments can synthesize B12 for absorption as long as there are sufficient amounts of cobalt in the soil where they graze. (Non-ruminant herbivores such as elephants get B12 from dirt and fecal matter ingested with the grass and forage they consume.) Chickens and other birds take in B12 from soil and insects. B12 is then stored in the livers and muscles of these animals, and some passes into their milk and eggs. In the wild, carnivorous and omnivorous animals can thus get B12 by eating other animals.

 Modern farmed animals, however, do not consume a natural diet; most farmed animals are confined for some or all of their lives and receive supplemental B12 or cobalt in their feed. (3, 4) (Cobalt is the element necessary for ruminant B12 synthesis, and cobalt supplementation of all ruminant diets throughout the US is currently recommended). In fact, most of the world’s synthetic B12 (55-90% depending on the source) is consumed by farmed animals. (5, 6) Even organic and pastured animals receive supplemental B12 or cobalt. This means that in industrialized societies, most meat, eggs and dairy are not any more “natural” as sources of B12 than the fortified foods or supplements vegans consume. In both cases, the B12 derives from a synthetic supplement."

https://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/b12-magic-pill-veganisms-achilles-heel/

More info:
https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30
"Cattle and other grass-eating animals get B12 and B12 producing bacteria from clumps of dirt around the grass roots that they pull up. Chickens and other birds get B12 from pecking around for worms and other insects. But, cattle no longer feed on grass and chickens do not peck in the dirt on factory farms. Even if they did, pesticides often kill B12 producing bacteria and insects in soil. Heavy antibiotic use kills B12 producing bacteria in the guts of farm animals. In order to maintain meat a source of B12 the meat industry now adds it to animal feed, 90% of B12 supplements produced in the world are fed to livestock. Even if you only eat grass-fed organic meat you may not be able to absorb the B12 attached to animal protein. It may be more efficient to just skip the animals and get B12 directly from supplements."

So basically, I get my B12 from a supplement that I digest, and you get your B12 from a supplement that the animal you eat digest. I just get B12, you get B12 and saturated fat, cholesterol, growth hormones, antibiotics, etc. etc.

I'd much rather just get the B12 thanks and cut out the other ingredients :)


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 06:01:44 PM
One final thought for people who eat meat, despite its undoubted impact on the environment and on their health, they might want to think about the workers who have to kill the animals.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/31/how-killing-animals-everyday-leaves-slaughterhouse-workers-traumatised-7175087/

"If a pig came and nuzzled you like a puppy, would you be able to kill it just moments later? This is one of the scenarios faced by slaughterhouse workers on a daily basis. They see animals that are, in many ways, no different to those we welcome into our homes as family members. They then have to kill them. Hundreds, sometimes thousands of them a day. The psychological toll this takes on a person cannot be underestimated. Slaughterhouse work has been linked to a variety of disorders, including PTSD and the lesser-known PITS (perpetration-induced traumatic stress). It has also been connected to an increase in crime rates, including higher incidents of domestic abuse, as well as alcohol and drug abuse. And as the already huge demand for meat goes up, so too does the number of animals employees are required to kill on a daily basis."



Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: renewablejohn on June 13, 2019, 06:52:30 PM
One final thought for people who eat meat, despite its undoubted impact on the environment and on their health, they might want to think about the workers who have to kill the animals.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/31/how-killing-animals-everyday-leaves-slaughterhouse-workers-traumatised-7175087/

"If a pig came and nuzzled you like a puppy, would you be able to kill it just moments later? This is one of the scenarios faced by slaughterhouse workers on a daily basis. They see animals that are, in many ways, no different to those we welcome into our homes as family members. They then have to kill them. Hundreds, sometimes thousands of them a day. The psychological toll this takes on a person cannot be underestimated. Slaughterhouse work has been linked to a variety of disorders, including PTSD and the lesser-known PITS (perpetration-induced traumatic stress). It has also been connected to an increase in crime rates, including higher incidents of domestic abuse, as well as alcohol and drug abuse. And as the already huge demand for meat goes up, so too does the number of animals employees are required to kill on a daily basis."

Quite frankly have little sympathy. Its what you get when the local slaughterhouse is closed down.  Always used to walk the old sow down to the local slaughter house in the village.  Probably spent 5 years of contented happy life  on the farm and if we left any longer than atheritus would set in and only be fit for the knackerman.   Once humanely killed by the butcher would be taken back to the farm and everything processed apart from the squeal.  Generation before that it would have been killed and processed on the farm. All this talk of food waste and recyling was totally unheard of on the farm as the Sow was the mobile recycling unit.




Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: renewablejohn on June 13, 2019, 07:01:29 PM


Yet more farmer bashing on Navitron.  Well just to start defending the farming community from this vegan twaddle. The great fish pile they refer to is actually the processing waste from your lovely fish fillets or do you believe there magically disposed of. No its turned into animal feed that is turned into meat whichsome of us actually enjoy eating. As for soya thats obviously come from an American website where production techniques are totally different to the UK.

It's not farmer bashing to be against the production of meat and the mono-crop cultivation of feedstuffs for those livestock.

Not sure what you're talking about with my 'lovely fish fillets' as I'm vegan and so don't eat fish in any form. The waste from fish processing (and the appalling throwbacks of dead fish into the sea due to quotas) are therefore nothing to do with me. My hands are clean. :)

This is where vegans get it hopelessly wrong. Soya is grown for one purpose to produce oil. Whether you use it as margarine or refine it into biofuel is totally irrelevant. What you do get from pressing that oil is a protein rich meal which used to be discarded until some bright spark found out you could turn it into a viable waste product and call it animal feed. So its not acres of Soya grown for animal feed at all much to the annoyance of the vegan society but a useful byproduct that could just as easily be disposed of in an AD plant generating electric.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 08:22:50 PM
This is where vegans get it hopelessly wrong. Soya is grown for one purpose to produce oil. Whether you use it as margarine or refine it into biofuel is totally irrelevant. What you do get from pressing that oil is a protein rich meal which used to be discarded until some bright spark found out you could turn it into a viable waste product and call it animal feed. So its not acres of Soya grown for animal feed at all much to the annoyance of the vegan society but a useful byproduct that could just as easily be disposed of in an AD plant generating electric.

Yep, and once the oil is extracted the remaining solid soybean meal is made into flour to provide the basis for soy milks, meat analogues (i.e. veggie burgers), etc. and it's also fermented into tofu or tempeh.

So I'm not sure what your point is except that you're basically agreeing with what I have said earlier:

Livestock is fed on soya beans* that could instead be used to feed billions of humans, so we won't starve to death without meat. Far from it.
Livestock is fed on soya beans* rather than on grass so the animals are B12 deficient and have to be supplemented, which means humans who eat meat are getting B12 from supplements, just like vegans - but they also get growth hormones, antibiotics, saturated fats, etc.

It's a shame you have 'little sympathy' for people who get PTSD from working in slaughter houses as it's not their fault that the industrial nature of livestock production means animals are killed on an industrial scale rather than down the local village butchers. Kinda adds to my point that people are eating too much meat and it's not sustainable.

*Other grains are used to feed animals, not just soya.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: renewablejohn on June 13, 2019, 08:45:42 PM
This is where vegans get it hopelessly wrong. Soya is grown for one purpose to produce oil. Whether you use it as margarine or refine it into biofuel is totally irrelevant. What you do get from pressing that oil is a protein rich meal which used to be discarded until some bright spark found out you could turn it into a viable waste product and call it animal feed. So its not acres of Soya grown for animal feed at all much to the annoyance of the vegan society but a useful byproduct that could just as easily be disposed of in an AD plant generating electric.

Yep, and once the oil is extracted the remaining solid soybean meal is made into flour to provide the basis for soy milks, meat analogues (i.e. veggie burgers), etc. and it's also fermented into tofu or tempeh.

So I'm not sure what your point is except that you're basically agreeing with what I have said earlier:

Livestock is fed on soya beans* that could instead be used to feed billions of humans, so we won't starve to death without meat. Far from it.
Livestock is fed on soya beans* rather than on grass so the animals are B12 deficient and have to be supplemented, which means humans who eat meat are getting B12 from supplements, just like vegans - but they also get growth hormones, antibiotics, saturated fats, etc.

It's a shame you have 'little sympathy' for people who get PTSD from working in sl  aughter houses as it's not their fault that the industrial nature of livestock production means animals are killed on an industrial scale rather than down the local village butchers. Kinda adds to my point that people are eating too much meat and it's not sustainable.

*Other grains are used to feed animals, not just soya.

Yes other grains like brewers grains yet again a waste product of the brewing industry with no useful purpose apart from feeding to animals. Its not the grains of soya fed to animals but the pressed waste. The same with oil seed rape. the seed is cold pressed and the oil extracted with the waste fed to animals. The common thread through all these animal feeds is the recycling of a waste product into a useful product that some humans enjoy eating. Its nothing to do with raising animals in an industrial environment it just does not happen in the UK. As for the stock photo of the 3000 herd its a pity you did not look at the whole video from which the photo was taken. If you had you would have soon realised its actually fake news as around all the buildings on the site is rows and rows of farm machinery. Its quite obvious what has been taken is an aerial photograph of an auction market. To be honest if there is only 3000 animals at the market then its quite a small market.
For your information a lot of farmers have protested for years at the loss of local slaughter houses all to no avail. It makes no sense to farmers whatsoever but the rules are made by government and have shut local abbatoirs.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: smegal on June 13, 2019, 09:11:18 PM

POS falls into a common trap that many ideological vegans fall into. Anyone can cherry pick data. The source they listed above is heavily cherry picked.

Very few cows in the UK are fed on soya, the example of soya use is in areas where beef is raised in intensive feedlots. Cows in the UK are mainly fed on grass, or silage (grass). Some are fed on maize, but this is the whole maize crop turned to silage. People would only eat the cobs.

Agricultural methane is also a dodgey item to get excited about. The methane is from the natural carbon cycle, not released from the ground (think gas leaks form the O&G industry). This methane also decays back to C)2 eventually.

You are vegan for your reasons, that's great. Should we cut down on meat, yes. Would cutting down be more healthy, yes. Would cutting meat down to nothing be healthier than eating meat in moderation I'd argue probably not (if you can find true peer reviewed evidence, I'm all ears). The only way I could see the vegan diet being more healthy is that the inherent lack of essential nutrients means that vegans are forced to give their diet a greater level of assessment than a normal balanced diet.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertions, or are we to just take your word for it? It seems a little churlish of you to berate me for 'cherry picking' my data while you're providing none whatsoever.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk
"Thousands of British cattle reared for supermarket beef are being fattened in industrial-scale units where livestock have little or no access to pasture."and how many more are not intensively farmed?

I don't understand how you can argue that we should cut down on eating meat (I assume for environmental reasons) and that reducing meat consumption is healthier and then in the next sentence say you don't believe it's healthier? Either it is or it isn't, it can't be both. I said that cutting down was probably good, cutting OUT is probably bad.

Here is a simplistic analogy for you. For many people cutting down on salt intake is good. Cutting it out altogether would be bad for you!

I'm not sure what essential nutrients I'm lacking in my diet that you have in your 'normal' diet? I'm certainly missing out on the lack of fibre, the high cholesterol and saturated fat and the growth hormones and antibiotics. I'm also missing out on the nitrates, preservatives and various chemicals used in processed meats.

If you're alluding to B12, which is the only essential nutrient that can't be obtained from plants or sunlight, then I'd ask if you knew where B12 comes from?

Here's some info:

While it is true that plants do not produce vitamin B12, neither do animals inherently produce it. B12 is produced by bacteria that live in the soil and in the intestines of animals, including humans; however, in humans and other animals, it is generally manufactured too far down the intestinal tract (in the colon, in our case) to be absorbed, and is instead excreted in feces, where it is abundant.

Most farmed animals are not a natural source of B12.

Cattle, sheep and other ruminants have ample B-12 producing bacteria in the first chamber of their four-chambered stomachs, and in natural environments can synthesize B12 for absorption as long as there are sufficient amounts of cobalt in the soil where they graze. (Non-ruminant herbivores such as elephants get B12 from dirt and fecal matter ingested with the grass and forage they consume.) Chickens and other birds take in B12 from soil and insects. B12 is then stored in the livers and muscles of these animals, and some passes into their milk and eggs. In the wild, carnivorous and omnivorous animals can thus get B12 by eating other animals.

 Modern farmed animals, however, do not consume a natural diet; most farmed animals are confined for some or all of their lives and receive supplemental B12 or cobalt in their feed. (3, 4) (Cobalt is the element necessary for ruminant B12 synthesis, and cobalt supplementation of all ruminant diets throughout the US is currently recommended). In fact, most of the world’s synthetic B12 (55-90% depending on the source) is consumed by farmed animals. (5, 6) Even organic and pastured animals receive supplemental B12 or cobalt. This means that in industrialized societies, most meat, eggs and dairy are not any more “natural” as sources of B12 than the fortified foods or supplements vegans consume. In both cases, the B12 derives from a synthetic supplement."

https://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/b12-magic-pill-veganisms-achilles-heel/

More info:
https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30
"Cattle and other grass-eating animals get B12 and B12 producing bacteria from clumps of dirt around the grass roots that they pull up. Chickens and other birds get B12 from pecking around for worms and other insects. But, cattle no longer feed on grass and chickens do not peck in the dirt on factory farms. Even if they did, pesticides often kill B12 producing bacteria and insects in soil. Heavy antibiotic use kills B12 producing bacteria in the guts of farm animals. In order to maintain meat a source of B12 the meat industry now adds it to animal feed, 90% of B12 supplements produced in the world are fed to livestock. Even if you only eat grass-fed organic meat you may not be able to absorb the B12 attached to animal protein. It may be more efficient to just skip the animals and get B12 directly from supplements."

So basically, I get my B12 from a supplement that I digest, and you get your B12 from a supplement that the animal you eat digest. I just get B12, you get B12 and saturated fat conventional wisdom on saturated fats is changing, the same for cholesterol, the real evil seems to be hydrogenated trans fats, cholesterol, growth hormones banned in the UK, antibioticsheavily regulated in the UK, etc. etc.  any diet that needs supplements cannot be considered a healthy diet.

I'd much rather just get the B12 thanks and cut out the other ingredients :)

I wasn't just alluding to B12. If a person eats a normal balanced diet, they eat some meat, dairy, eggs, fruit and veg. That gives you all that you need.

Vegans need to carefully manage their diets to ensure they get enough protein, iron and yes, B12. 

I'm not the one posting articles that are clearly stating cherry picked "facts".

You seem to be a serious victim of confirmation bias, yet question when people talk from real experience, not just vegan echo chambers.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 10:49:18 PM
Lol, it’s like talking to climate deniers, no matter what evidence you supply, what scientific data you provide, despite even the evidence of our own eyes, they just call it fake news and dismiss it.

This is EXACTLY what my initial post on this thread was about. The elephant in the room that cannot be spoken about, the debate that is closed down because of the vested interest and Intimidation

Surprised and disappointed to find it on a sustainability forum, though.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: renewablejohn on June 13, 2019, 11:07:14 PM
Easy to make these announcement, but much harder to deliver on them. A major step would be to electrify all of the train network, which is taking place but at a snails pace. It's much needed, especially at Victoria train station in Manchester where you can almost see the air when the diesel trains sit in the station for a while.

So I presume this is the initial post your referring to.  Well all I can say is you must be going to a different Manchester Victoria station to the one that I go to. All the trams through Victoria are electric , Trains to Preston, Warrington and Liverpool are electric. The only train I can still think of as being diesel is the train to Clitheroe.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: Pile-o-stone on June 13, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Easy to make these announcement, but much harder to deliver on them. A major step would be to electrify all of the train network, which is taking place but at a snails pace. It's much needed, especially at Victoria train station in Manchester where you can almost see the air when the diesel trains sit in the station for a while.

So I presume this is the initial post your referring to.  Well all I can say is you must be going to a different Manchester Victoria station to the one that I go to. All the trams through Victoria are electric , Trains to Preston, Warrington and Liverpool are electric. The only train I can still think of as being diesel is the train to Clitheroe.

Ah, you’re one of those. I understand now.


Title: Re: UK commits to net zero emissions by 2050
Post by: stannn on June 14, 2019, 07:07:13 AM
I’m locking this thread to prevent further warming!
Stan