• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Are we skiers helping global climate change?

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
There are multiple IPCC members who have publicly stated we should become vegetarians to "combat" climate change because eating meat is bad for the planet, and yes, worse than driving.

From the BBC:

Once again, you are confusing opinions, news reports and science. You will not find serious science on 'eating meat is worse than driving'.

With respect to my previous post on politicians, Rajendra Pachauri used to be a scientist. He is now a politician of the second category (agenda-driven self-serving ass). Al Gore belongs to both categories.
 

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
imo, the lodge should only sell vegan to offset all that carbon they use to keep the lift running, groomers going and blowing the manmade. Hmm... there's that 94% number again. luv that tramp stamp.


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • vegan_carbon_footprint_tshirt-rcdee7237f8674eaba14ea135db21787f_f0yj3_512.jpg
    vegan_carbon_footprint_tshirt-rcdee7237f8674eaba14ea135db21787f_f0yj3_512.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 54

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,168
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
Just because Tyson's right was deadly, doesn't mean you'd be fine getting hit with his left.

Then why do the trainers commonly inform you about Tyson's left, so much so that it's complete common knowledge to even the most low-information of individuals, and yet virtually nobody on the planet is even aware that Tyson's right is more deadly?
 

Cannonball

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Points
0
Location
This user has been deleted
Then why do the trainers commonly inform you about Tyson's left, so much so that it's complete common knowledge to even the most low-information of individuals, and yet virtually nobody on the planet is even aware that Tyson's right is more deadly?

Exactly. All the things you keep saying "how come nobody talks about this??"....EVERYBODY talks about. Heck Jack even has the shirt!
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,168
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
Exactly. All the things you keep saying "how come nobody talks about this??"....EVERYBODY talks about. Heck Jack even has the shirt!

You're full of crap if you're saying you GENUINELY believe that there is a similar number of people who are aware that "eating meat" is even in the same ballpark as "driving cars" in terms of being harmful.

There aren't many people who have even heard "eating meat" causes Global Warming (I'll say it's less than 10%) , but close to 100% (literally) of people know carbon emissions from vehicles do.


imo, the lodge should only sell vegan to offset all that carbon they use to keep the lift running, groomers going and blowing the manmade. Hmm... there's that 94% number again. luv that tramp stamp.


attachment.php

Was "organic" really necessary there?
 

Cannonball

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Points
0
Location
This user has been deleted
There aren't many people who have even heard "eating meat" causes Global Warming (I'll say it's less than 10%) , but close to 100% (literally) of people know carbon emissions from vehicles do.

It's nice to hear you finally say it.

It seems like the thread is kind of done. Now that even you say that.
 
Last edited:

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
I have a feeling the scientists, researchers, and statisticians at the UN FAO would probably disagree with you.

Are you reading right ? I've never said that the CO2 footprint of animals is not important. The climate forcing due to methane emissions from animals has been researched and is indeed taken into account in climate modelling. You just won't find serious science saying eating meat is worse than driving. That's all.
 

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
Are you reading right ? I've never said that the CO2 footprint of animals is not important. The climate forcing due to methane emissions from animals has been researched and is indeed taken into account in climate modelling.


more than just cow fart


Dario Caro co authored paper in Climate Change.... i assumed it was peered reviewed so it must be legit.
 
Last edited:

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
so which resort is going to step up and go vegan? think of all that land mass saved where the greenies can use for solar farms... oh yeah they use factory meat production, but that corn can be use for ethanol instead of cattle feed. its a win win which allows for higher ethanol mandates.

btw, i'm sure those who believe in the green house gas hypothesis has already converted to vegan right? otherwise they are hypocrites.
 

Edd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
6,567
Points
113
Location
Newmarket, NH
btw, i'm sure those who believe in the green house gas hypothesis has already converted to vegan right? otherwise they are hypocrites.

Not exactly. They're hypocrites if they're telling others to go vegan and they don't. Just because they believe in the hypothesis doesn't mean they'll automatically do something about it.

Take an obese person who grossly overeats. He admits to himself that, yup, I'm way to heavy because of the food. But he doesn't do anything about it. He's not a hypocrite.
 

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
Not exactly. They're hypocrites if they're telling others to go vegan and they don't. Just because they believe in the hypothesis doesn't mean they'll automatically do something about it.

Take an obese person who grossly overeats. He admits to himself that, yup, I'm way to heavy because of the food. But he doesn't do anything about it. He's not a hypocrite.

the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.


b8850198-f130-62ec-f2a7324de64fecca_21.jpg
 
Last edited:

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,168
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
Not exactly. They're hypocrites if they're telling others to go vegan and they don't. Just because they believe in the hypothesis doesn't mean they'll automatically do something about it.

Take an obese person who grossly overeats. He admits to himself that, yup, I'm way to heavy because of the food. But he doesn't do anything about it. He's not a hypocrite.

I have to agree with this.

But if you complain about an activity due to your believed negative effect it has on Global Warming, and you simultaneously participate in a different activity with and even larger believed negative effect on Global Warming, that = hypocrite.

the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.

Definitely.

Though I would argue most of the politicians who give the $$$$ to Wind & Solar certainly aren't doing it to combat "Global Warming", that's just the cover story.
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.


b8850198-f130-62ec-f2a7324de64fecca_21.jpg

What is your point ?

- that it is pointless to reduce industrial/transportation GHG emissions until we all go vegan ?
- that going vegan is the most important step in reducing GHG emissions ?
- that it is OK to drive a gaz-guzzling behemoth (or a gas efficient car while commuting 60 miles every day) as long as you don't eat beef ?

Or are you simply throwing bits of information/disinformation just to justify doing nothing ?
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
Though I would argue most of the politicians who give the $$$$ to Wind & Solar certainly aren't doing it to combat "Global Warming", that's just the cover story.

Mostly agree with the above. In Canada, I think some politicans truly believe it is for the greater good, but without a doubt, the ones in position to make decisions have agendas.
 

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
What is your point ?

- that it is pointless to reduce industrial/transportation GHG emissions until we all go vegan ?
- that going vegan is the most important step in reducing GHG emissions ?
- that it is OK to drive a gaz-guzzling behemoth (or a gas efficient car while commuting 60 miles every day) as long as you don't eat beef ?

Or are you simply throwing bits of information/disinformation just to justify doing nothing ?

where is the disinformation? that cartoon is from green friendly web site, surely they would not lie.

edit, its from scientific america..... so it must true. btw, you have a good recipe for veggie chilli?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/the-greenhouse-hamburger/
 
Last edited:

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
where is the disinformation? that cartoon is from green friendly web site, surely they would not lie.

It's the lack of context that makes it disingenuous. While it would be easy to argue the numbers, I'll grant you that the cartoon info is more or less correct. However, do you think it's fair to compare the life cycle emissions from food against that of emissions from the sole use of fuel from point A to point B ?

You have not answered my question.
 
Top