|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 16, 2019 8:55:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 16, 2019 9:13:52 GMT
I imagine his veganism will make no difference at all to his carbon footprint.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 16, 2019 9:16:35 GMT
I imagine his veganism will make no difference at all to his carbon footprint. But he has sold his private jet, so it must do! 😂🙄
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2019 9:17:10 GMT
I imagine his veganism will make no difference at all to his carbon footprint. I also presume one of his army of assistants has done a full audit of the source of all his vegan products to ensure they are authentic and, at the very least, carbon neutral. I also assume they did this while not creating any extra pollution, such as leaving their desk, using a Google search, etc? Does Hamilton travel by commercial jet to/from races or is he on something more private?
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 16, 2019 9:29:15 GMT
Especially when they live such a jet set lifestyle and race cars for a living.
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 16, 2019 9:31:09 GMT
I imagine his veganism will make no difference at all to his carbon footprint. But he has sold his private jet, so it must do! 😂🙄 And that's fair enough, if it significantly reduces his air travel. But if it only saves him money and he flies just as often on a chartered plane, then it's pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 16, 2019 9:34:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Oct 16, 2019 10:05:32 GMT
The whole 'going vegan will save the planet' argument is complete and utter tosh, based on widely discredited 'science' and is driven by big business promoting their own agenda.
Of the many, many articles I have read which debunk this vegan myth there was a good one in the Vet Record this week which makes a clear and provable case that a grass-based livestock farming system actually helps to sequester carbon and, with a few simple steps, livestock farming will be part of the solution to global warming, while improving soil health and biodiversity at the same time. We have to look not at the amount of greenhouse gas which is emitted, but rather look at the actual warming effect of that gas. While ruminant livestock do emit methane, the relatively short-lived time this methane is in the atmosphere means that its effect is very much reduced when compared to a similar amount of CO2.
The trouble is that lazy, urban-based journalists don't understand the science, can't be bothered to do the research and so just regurgitate the same old fake news over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Oct 16, 2019 10:20:57 GMT
From what I’ve seen/read directly from Lewis, it’s much more about the poor (Can be horrendous) treatment of animals, particularly in some of the countries he frequents. He does a lot of work with PETA.
He did sell his jet, but he’s not reduced his travel much as far as I can tell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 10:33:24 GMT
He went vegan a few years ago, so it's taken some time for him to embrace that twattish persona they all seem to adopt* and jumping on the climate change bullshitwagon when you do what he does for a living just makes him look properly thick.
*How can you tell someone is vegetarian? They'll tell you.
Funny story. On another forum someone told that joke and a veggie got the hump and stated he didn't harp on about being a meat avoider. The OP then went through all of his posts and replied with ' apart from here, here, here, here, here, here and here'!
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 16, 2019 10:35:52 GMT
The whole 'going vegan will save the planet' argument is complete and utter tosh, based on widely discredited 'science' and is driven by big business promoting their own agenda. Of the many, many articles I have read which debunk this vegan myth there was a good one in the Vet Record this week which makes a clear and provable case that a grass-based livestock farming system actually helps to sequester carbon and, with a few simple steps, livestock farming will be part of the solution to global warming, while improving soil health and biodiversity at the same time. We have to look not at the amount of greenhouse gas which is emitted, but rather look at the actual warming effect of that gas. While ruminant livestock do emit methane, the relatively short-lived time this methane is in the atmosphere means that its effect is very much reduced when compared to a similar amount of CO 2. The trouble is that lazy, urban-based journalists don't understand the science, can't be bothered to do the research and so just regurgitate the same old fake news over and over again. I shared this earlier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 10:47:18 GMT
Rather than the pet projects of interest groups all the above reinforces the fact that joined up thinking is the way to deal with the problem. No single interest group will ever agree with another, a bit like the constant crap about chocolate, alcohol and red meat etc. The worst I have seen actually, was a Sprout promoter who suggested that kids be made to eat them by covering them in chocolate. Joined up thinking? Not a chance, just get them to eat more chocolate and ruin their diet and dentition, just to get them to eat those poisonous things.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 16, 2019 10:51:35 GMT
The whole 'going vegan will save the planet' argument is complete and utter tosh, based on widely discredited 'science' and is driven by big business promoting their own agenda. Of the many, many articles I have read which debunk this vegan myth there was a good one in the Vet Record this week which makes a clear and provable case that a grass-based livestock farming system actually helps to sequester carbon and, with a few simple steps, livestock farming will be part of the solution to global warming, while improving soil health and biodiversity at the same time. We have to look not at the amount of greenhouse gas which is emitted, but rather look at the actual warming effect of that gas. While ruminant livestock do emit methane, the relatively short-lived time this methane is in the atmosphere means that its effect is very much reduced when compared to a similar amount of CO 2. The trouble is that lazy, urban-based journalists don't understand the science, can't be bothered to do the research and so just regurgitate the same old fake news over and over again. Exactly, sometimes I wonder if Donald Trump has a point about Fake News: Lewis might want to reconsider his clothing choices too:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 10:54:34 GMT
Did anyone see Andrew Neil take apart that Extinction Rebellion woman the other day? That was a joy to watch, even if it was on the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation. This is a link I've been sharing recently, as I've been reading a lot of websites where they tell it like it is rather than how the elite want us to see the world. www.altnewsmedia.net/news/its-the-science-stupid/
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 16, 2019 10:54:41 GMT
Yes, I've seen that letter as well.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2019 11:05:13 GMT
The whole 'going vegan will save the planet' argument is complete and utter tosh, based on widely discredited 'science' and is driven by big business promoting their own agenda. Of the many, many articles I have read which debunk this vegan myth there was a good one in the Vet Record this week which makes a clear and provable case that a grass-based livestock farming system actually helps to sequester carbon and, with a few simple steps, livestock farming will be part of the solution to global warming, while improving soil health and biodiversity at the same time. We have to look not at the amount of greenhouse gas which is emitted, but rather look at the actual warming effect of that gas. While ruminant livestock do emit methane, the relatively short-lived time this methane is in the atmosphere means that its effect is very much reduced when compared to a similar amount of CO 2. The trouble is that lazy, urban-based journalists don't understand the science, can't be bothered to do the research and so just regurgitate the same old fake news over and over again. I shared this earlier. I have a question about that. Is the 150 acres of pasture fully utilised by 130 cows/calves and a tractor or are there other farming activites going on that generate C02 that isn't included in the diagram? Or is that why the tractor is included, i.e. the balance of the 150 acres is farmed in some other way that only needs a tractor's pollution rather than other C02 producers in addition?
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 16, 2019 11:10:47 GMT
I would imagine the tractor is there as most farmers would utilise the same pasture to produce forage using machinery as well as grazing and use machinery to take livestock to market, feed over the winter when they aren't grazing etc. I would say that this is an extremely simplified example as all farms will be different.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 16, 2019 11:15:55 GMT
A colleague used to drink almond milk until I showed her the incredible damage that the intensive farming of almonds for these drinks is doing to the landscape of California, causing water shortages and drought, threatening the whole eco-system.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 16, 2019 11:23:14 GMT
I don't buy that agricultural propaganda above. For that is what it is.
One the other hand, I also have absolutely no truck with veganism, which I think is specious nonsense. It's just not what we are biologically designed for. Any diet which requires you to consume supplements is not a correct one.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 16, 2019 11:37:49 GMT
I don't buy that agricultural propaganda above. For that is what it is. That's OK, you're not a farmer. I'm sure they're entitled to put their side of the argument - or is it now that all argument has been shut down as per Simon's post? I wonder what Lewis's multiple hair transplants carbon footprint is - all those trips back and forth to do the fill ins and top ups? Go green, Lewis, go bald.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 16, 2019 12:07:04 GMT
Oh quite so. I don't think agriculture is per se terrible either. I'm merely remarking that the farming industry is just as capable of manipulating facts for its own ends as the militant veggie tendency is.
I'd take both sides more seriously if they were more honest about the fact that (as is nearly always the case) neither side has a monopoly on the truth. Tarring all vegans and all farmers with the same brush isn't right. But that doesn't mean that both sides don't have their share of bad actors. And whilst I might not be a farmer, my mother is a farmer's daughter and took on her parents' farmhouse in a tiny farming village when I was in my early teens. One of my godparents, who helped teach me to shoot, is also a smallholder in Gloucestershire. So I am not completely divorced from the farming perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 12:09:48 GMT
The above discounts the possibility that the land in question could still be absorbing CO2. It isn't automatically going to be covered in tarmac. And it's simple physics that producing food via another animal is less efficient than consuming what grows in the first place. In physics, there's no such thing as a free lunch, no matter what it might be. One or two of the links above do suggest that you can find something on the internet to support whatever view you hold, and it'll even look kosher (if that's not the wrong term, given the subject).
Veganism does seem to be the new preachy.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 16, 2019 17:07:34 GMT
Years ago, a girlfriend of mine threw a Burns Night supper and, as she had one very tedious vegan friend, carefully prepared some vegan imitation haggis as well as a real "great chieftain o' the puddin-race".
Over dinner, said vegan friend was particularly complimentary about how delicious her vegan alternative was and tediously banged on how it proved that meat wasn't necessary etc etc. The more she rabbited on, the harder it was to keep a straight face, because one of my best mates had whispered in my ear that he had switched his plate for hers, but we kept the secret for ourselves.
To this day, I don't believe she knows. Although I did tell my girlfriend who managed to see the funny side in between telling me how mean we were!
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Oct 16, 2019 17:23:54 GMT
The above discounts the possibility that the land in question could still be absorbing CO2. It isn't automatically going to be covered in tarmac. And it's simple physics that producing food via another animal is less efficient than consuming what grows in the first place. In physics, there's no such thing as a free lunch, no matter what it might be. One or two of the links above do suggest that you can find something on the internet to support whatever view you hold, and it'll even look kosher (if that's not the wrong term, given the subject).
Veganism does seem to be the new preachy. For the grass to be effective at sequestering CO2 it needs to be continually grazed to promote ongoing fresh re-growth. Grass which is left to grow old has a much lower demand for CO2, hence the need to graze it off. The alternative of using a tractor and topper mower would, obviously, be counter-productive.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Oct 16, 2019 17:50:20 GMT
Slums of Stevenage my fucking arse. Truth of the matter is that motor racing is expensive, competing is hideously expensive and if your dad can afford to even pay for a couple of seasons racing in order to get noticed, then it’s highly fucking unlikely you’re living in a slum.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Oct 16, 2019 17:51:37 GMT
From what I’ve seen/read directly from Lewis, it’s much more about the poor (Can be horrendous) treatment of animals, particularly in some of the countries he frequents. He does a lot of work with PETA.He did sell his jet, but he’s not reduced his travel much as far as I can tell. Which proves fuck all. Anyone who was truly interested in animal welfare wouldn’t have anything to do with PETA.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Oct 16, 2019 17:56:14 GMT
Years ago, a girlfriend of mine threw a Burns Night supper and, as she had one very tedious vegan friend, carefully prepared some vegan imitation haggis as well as a real "great chieftain o' the puddin-race". Over dinner, said vegan friend was particularly complimentary about how delicious her vegan alternative was and tediously banged on how it proved that meat wasn't necessary etc etc. The more she rabbited on, the harder it was to keep a straight face, because one of my best mates had whispered in my ear that he had switched his plate for hers, but we kept the secret for ourselves. To this day, I don't believe she knows. Although I did tell my girlfriend who managed to see the funny side in between telling me how mean we were! I did something similar to the militant veggie girl on my engineering course back when I tried to go to uni. One of those gobby, self righteous cows who’d wear leather and eat a kebab/burger when pissed but deny it and pontificate when sober. To shut her up I offered to cook one of her recipes one afternoon whilst she had an extra period. She said it was the best thing she’d tasted in a long time. I put it down to extra herbs & pepper. didn't mention the pound of black pudding I’d ground into it...
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 16, 2019 18:17:18 GMT
I’m assuming that Lewis will be competing in Formula E next year?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 7:59:54 GMT
The above discounts the possibility that the land in question could still be absorbing CO2. It isn't automatically going to be covered in tarmac. And it's simple physics that producing food via another animal is less efficient than consuming what grows in the first place. In physics, there's no such thing as a free lunch, no matter what it might be. One or two of the links above do suggest that you can find something on the internet to support whatever view you hold, and it'll even look kosher (if that's not the wrong term, given the subject).
Veganism does seem to be the new preachy. For the grass to be effective at sequestering CO2 it needs to be continually grazed to promote ongoing fresh re-growth. Grass which is left to grow old has a much lower demand for CO2, hence the need to graze it off. The alternative of using a tractor and topper mower would, obviously, be counter-productive. Doesn't have to be grass - other CO2 sinks are available. Not that I have any idea what would be most effective, mind. I'm not trying to put the boot in here, by the way - just trying to be rigorous.
Read a quote from Mike Pompeo in Delayed Gratification the other day saying that the melting of the Artic could open up new trade opportunities. With chimps like that in positions of influence, the world needs all the help it can get!
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Oct 17, 2019 9:23:53 GMT
Xtinction Rebellion: 'The people are with us comrades! Our message is getting through!' Londoners: 'You sure about that?'
|
|