Was far easier than I thought it would be, biggest issue were my parents, friends and colleagues at work. I don't worry about my diet, in terms of health, that much (probably no more than the average male) - lots of italian food, mexican, stir frys, curries etc. are easy to do sans meat. Also have no problem with faux meat products. And chocolate is also vegetarian (vegan if you like your dark chocolate).

too easy

And you never know who gets bought off just so they can get the AAA on food labelling, even thought some of the ingredients come from China.:d

Edited by SocaWho: 11/9/2014 09:33:32 AM

I'm more concerned about "food miles" than how much gas a certain animal produces. It's inevitable that renewable energy sources are going to be cheaper than fossil fuels for large scale energy generation (an ETS would have accelerated the innovation and the use of these greatly) but I don't have the same confidence that our transportation is going to go the same way.

The laws on product labelling means that it takes far too much effort to really know if you're making good choices.

Haven't tried Kangaroo. Must try it though. It all comes down to taste at the end of the day.
My priority of eating.
1) Taste
2) Health
3) Helping the environment.
I reckon its a pretty fucked up way of living if option 3 is your first priority. Its a pretty odd train of thought to be thinking that Im eating something particular so that Im helping the environment but meanwhile Joe over there at the construction site on his lunch break is eating a triple cheeseburger and doing his share of the damage to the environment.:lol:


Edited by SocaWho: 11/9/2014 12:32:05 AM

Edited by SocaWho: 11/9/2014 12:38:20 AM

Take your hippie bullshit elsewhere.

There is no way I'm giving up meat, I love nothing more then a big steak for breakfast :d

Kangaroos don't produce anywhere near the amount of pollution in comparison to cattle due to the fact that they have certain species of bacteria in their gut that stops the build up/release of those gases in the first place.

Great quality meat and low price too.

I have thought about giving away meat. Red meat anyway. Probably still eat chicken though.

And no its not an easy thing for some people who have eaten meat all their life, just because you can do it doesn't mean that other people can easily adopt that lifestyle. Theres heaps of things to consider. Its about managing time as well. Salads and vegetables are not very filling also. If you're a big guy and you are used to eating meat, then good luck to converting them.
I realise its healthier to not eat meat, and I think at some stage I might turn vegetarian, but if you have a busy lifestyle and you need to keep energy levels up then being a vegan is not very practical for some people.

Edited by SocaWho: 11/9/2014 12:37:39 AM

Yes that is gold.

LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLL

This really is an interesting study, I'm a fan of scientific rigour and the mathematical process undertaken looks like a pretty solid. Not unexpected from the CSIRO of course. In my opinion the body of evidence was already overwhelming but we can hope that those who are sceptical might be swayed by that one more piece. I'm an optimist I guess :)

Easy thing to do, stop eating meat. I have been vegetarian (a bad vegan) for about 10 years.

Its not like I don't care. If Im in a position to make a big difference (as in if I am a politician or a UN ambassador) believe me I would. Its all about being practical.
So what are you going to do to save the world tomorrow....buy carbon credits? lol.
So how are you going to stop natural disasters like earthquakes,volcanoes,etc.


Edited by SocaWho: 10/9/2014 01:51:39 PM

Rather than just one scientist or scientific study, what about the vast majority of scientists/scientific studies?

You do seem like a great global citizen, - with attitudes like that hopefully Govts do act to address climate change.

I know. Thats why I don't really trust anything scientists or politicians say, regardless of their persuasion.

It works the other way too. Politicians get paid to go against climate change with backing from industries and oil companies.

Don't get me wrong I sit on the fence in terms of Climate change, I believe it exists but I don't believe the scientists that sprout their shit. I don't believe the naysayers who say its all climate change doesn't exist. But the truth is politicians use it for their own agenda. A bit like the Greens who say they are pro environment yet the clothes they wear, the cars they drive and the houses they live contradict everything they stand for. As for guys like Tim Flannery, it does bother me that he used to get paid a couple of hundred grand just to give us a weather report for what it will be like in 100 years or whatever. What justifies him getting a huge salary for looking into a crystal ball. Bureaucrats and Pollies have their snouts in the trough one way or the other.

Edited by SocaWho: 7/9/2014 07:24:07 PM

Calling bullshit on this. He bought a house on the hawkesbury. Very different, plus it matters nought irrelevant to argument. The simple fact is all evidence point to climate change, can not be explained any other way.

A bit like Tim Flannery who said there was going to be mass flooding on the Australian coastlines then proceeds to buy a waterfront property facing the Pacific Ocean with his big pay packet.:lol:

Wrong, been shown in a number of different ways. But the easiest way to show this is, the source. Of the CO2 is fossil fuels and can been identified through isotopes only associated with "old" carbon

The process is global warming, the outcome is climate change. Probably the most simplistic way of putting it.

Climate change is more accurate for those very reasons

ET has become as bad as AF, maybe even worse.

Is this from the bloke who said it'll never rain again ? lmao

I thought they changed the term "global warming" to "climate change" when they realised that some places on the planet were experiencing record low temperatures, shooting a hole in the "global warming" argument.

There's a thread for this already.

Myth.

Interesting thing here is a i was watching a documentary on TV about how the main source of carbon and destructive gases to the planet were generated or caused by volcano eruptions, so surely that doesn't only equate to 1 %??????

Close thread.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM">For the deniers out there...