Why are certain people completely apathetic or opposed to the idea of tackling climate change?

[mac]

brad465 why ever would anyone eat chemically produced lab grown meat when you can enjoy the real thing

 

[Box]

brad465 why ever would anyone eat chemically produced lab grown meat when you can enjoy the real thing

I would assume the same reason they eat high chemical, intensive factory-farmed chicken for example, it’s cheap and edible and they can’t afford a better tasting product.

 

[AndrewE]

Please see the post I originally answered.

What was wrong with it? hemp could well go into batteries: https://www.ecowatch.com/battery-hemp-lithium-sulfur.html says

Researchers at Bemp Research Corp. have developed a lithium-sulfur battery that is more cost-effective, has a higher performance and is more recyclable than lithium-ion batteries thanks to a helpful material: hemp.
The company uses carbonized hemp rather than heavy metals like cobalt or nickel, making batteries that are lightweight and durable. While many researchers globally have been looking into ways to use graphene for better EV batteries, it is still an expensive material that cannot be scaled up for mass production.

and https://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/hemp-plastic-what-is-it-and-how-is-it-made/ has a lot of information about different plastics made from hemp and it starts with

Each year, innovations in hemp plastic technology hit the market and many companies are incorporating hemp plastics into their products. Hemp is proving to be a clean alternative to the highly polluting plastics that are damaging our environment. There are various types of hemp plastic; here, we will briefly take you through how these plastics are produced.

the whole article is too long to quote in full, but has lots of detail.

Nobody expects any single change to be the whole answer, so we shall need a mosaic of actions or substitutions. e.g. we shouldn't condemn heat pumps because they are not drop-in replacements fo gas boilers. In fact (if you address the most-easily dealt with bits of heat loss) lots of houses could manage with one if they had some sort of back-up for extremes of weather - which is what they do abroad. Could be a wood-burning stove - in the right location - or even a storage heater or two.

 

[mac]

I would assume the same reason they eat high chemical, intensive factory-farmed chicken for example, it’s cheap and edible and they can’t afford a better tasting product.

But at least factory farmed chicken is real meat unlike a tumour produced in a laboratory

 

[philosopher]

But at least factory farmed chicken is real meat unlike a tumour produced in a laboratory

Providing it has gone through rigorous trials, I would have no issue eating eat lab grown meat and would prefer it over highly processed plant based meat substitutes. Current livestock farming uses antibiotics and steroids extensively, whereas lab grown meat can avoid this.

 

[mac]

Only intensely reared livestock use antibiotics and I don't think anyone in this country use steroids on animals. Beef and lamb from the grasslands of this country is the best you can get

 

[WelshBluebird]

But at least factory farmed chicken is real meat unlike a tumour produced in a laboratory

If its the same chemically, nutritionally and in taste, what's the issue with lab grown meat?

 

[nlogax]

But at least factory farmed chicken is real meat unlike a tumour produced in a laboratory

Using that emotive and completely inaccurate term does your argument zero favours.

If the lab grown stuff tastes the same as the real deal, contains the same nutrients, is affordable and is better for the environment then why on earth wouldn't you eat it?

 

[MikeWM]

Except that we know it is possible to eat well and with great variety without eating much or any meat

*Possible*, yes. Many people, including myself, do not want to be *forced* into not doing so however.

(and as a plus, reduce the burden on the NHS because it’s healthier),

*Highly* debateable!

a properly built and insulated home (Passivhaus standard) requires almost no heating (thus cutting fuel bills),

But even the most extreme net zero advocates don't say we should knock down every building in the country and start again, and even if we did, there are issues with such standards anyway (eg. the uniform temperature inside the building, when ideally you want bedrooms to be quite a bit cooler than living spaces).

it’s nicer to use properly designed and funded public transport than to drive in many cases,

I agree. Give us proper public transport and many people would voluntarily give up their pricey cars. Carrot, not stick.

and all those places you want to go on foreign holidays are currently on fire.

They're really not. There are questions to be asked about forestry management and arsonists, and people who holiday in southern Europe or 'Death Valley' in July and are apparently surprised that it is rather hot.

A real cynic might suggest that people making vast amounts of money from the present system would try to persuade the people that they shouldn’t make any sacrifices, because the problem didn’t really exist, and anyway their own whims and feelings, based on something they heard on Facebook are more important than anything said by these experts we have all apparently had enough of.

And yet that's not what the people in charge and making vast amounts of money from the present system are actually doing, is it? These people are all on the same page in pushing us towards net zero, in every country simultaneously. Either they're great philanthropists and wonderful people, or there is something in it for them.

Conversely, other than the fossil fuel companies - and yes, they are powerful, but not when compared to everyone else in power put together - there is little to financially gain from opposing net zero, in the same way there was little to gain from being a contrary voice on covid. I agree we should always ask cui bono?, but it seems my answer on that is different from yours.

--

Arguably our lack of past action means that we've got to do more now.

Take for example that 100 units of CO2 that the planet could cope with, if we'd reduced the man-made from 125 to much closer to 100 earlier - even if we had only just got to 100, then what we would need to do now would be much easier.

Not because the next cuts would have been easier, but rather because the total in the atmosphere would be far far lower.

Let's say we manage to not increase our global emissions from 2010 (peaking at 115 rather than the current 125) and then had managed to reduce them back to 100 at a rate of 1 unit a year since then this would have meant about 225 units of CO2 less being emitted into the atmosphere than would otherwise be the case.

This would have made getting to a point where we averaged 100 units per year would be a significantly easier task, not least as any further reduction would be in the reducing the average side, rather than still increasing the average (and fairly significantly).

Even if we assume all that is true, and assuming there is a level of CO2 that the planet can 'cope with' (which I'd say is highly contentious when you look back at historic concentrations of CO2 at various points in the planet's history) - it all comes to naught if the biggest emitters, China, India, etc. don't change what they are doing. The current plan appears to be to impoverish and hobble ourselves while these other countries use the benefits of fossil fuels to enrich themselves. It is bizarre.

Just on the heating your home, do you wish guess at the European country which has a much more advanced market for heat pumps (i.e. has a far greater number being brought, even though the population isn't as large)?

Clearly it's got to be somewhere a bit warmer than us, right?

No, it's Norway. If Norway can use heat pumps whilst being further north than the vast majority of the population of the UK (the southern edge is about in line with Inverness), then maybe some of the concerns about them may be slightly over exaggerated - maybe those with a vested interest are trying to maintain the status quo.

Or maybe heat pumps are suitable for some types of property but not others, which is what I said above. And equally the Norwegians are quite well off, so many of them can afford to take the large expense of installation up front with the idea of saving money *eventually*.

You're also overlooking the fact that a great many Norweigans still burn wood for extra heating at the coldest parts of the winter

 

[VauxhallandI]

The problem is that you desire not to give people the choice to eat it or not. All this talk of getting the authorities to take control of it.

Why is the line always exactly where you want it when it comes to the folks trying to tell others how to live their lives?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I agree. Give us proper public transport and many people would voluntarily give up their pricey cars. Carrot, not stick.

Given some people will drive 2 minutes instead of walking 5 minutes (when they are perfectly able to), there are some people who very much need the stick.

 

[MikeWM]

Given some people will drive 2 minutes instead of walking 5 minutes (when they are perfectly able to),

I did say 'many', not all

there are some people who very much need the stick.

Really? It is a very stupid choice to make in my opinion, but if we start punishing legal but dumb things, where does that end? Not least because then you'd have to have all sorts of systems to identify the people who actually can't walk 5 minutes, and somehow arrange exceptions for them...

 

[Silenos]

*Possible*, yes. Many people, including myself, do not want to be *forced* into not doing so however.

You won’t be ‘forced’. You’ll just be priced out. Even the cheap, steroid- and antibiotic-laced meat we will be importing with the government’s new trade treaties is going to become more and more expensive over time, and anything not intensively raised is going to be purely for the elite.

*Highly* debateable!

Not really. Processed meat has an incontrovertible link to cancer (IARC Category 1). For red meat, the link is less well established (category 2a). Personally I think the evidence for an effect of saturated fats from meat or dairy on cardiovascular health is weak, but some experts draw different conclusions.

But even the most extreme net zero advocates don't say we should knock down every building in the country and start again, and even if we did, there are issues with such standards anyway (eg. the uniform temperature inside the building, when ideally you want bedrooms to be quite a bit cooler than living spaces).

No, but it does suggest that improving insulation in the British housing stock (something campaigners have been calling for for years) would hugely reduce fuel use and expenditure (and thus emissions). And hot air rises, last I checked - put your bedrooms downstairs.

They're really not. There are questions to be asked about forestry management and arsonists, and people who holiday in southern Europe or 'Death Valley' in July and are apparently surprised that it is rather hot.

It’s the people who actually live there who are saying the conditions are changing for the worse, so I’m inclined to accept their view of it.

And yet that's not what the people in charge and making vast amounts of money from the present system are actually doing, is it?

I would disagree. When I look at the usual suspects inveighing against climate change I see precisely the people who are doing well out of the system.

Even if we assume all that is true, and assuming there is a level of CO2 that the planet can 'cope with' (which I'd say is highly contentious when you look back at historic concentrations of CO2 at various points in the planet's history)

On this I’m totally in agreement. The planet can cope with any level of CO2. Venus, for example has an atmosphere of 96% CO2, and is still merrily revolving in orbit, though admittedly with surface temperatures that can melt lead. Life can even cope with much higher levels - at the end of the Permian era, it was around 2500 ppm, compared with around 400 ppm today. However, the current ecosystem on which humans rely for survival will not cope with a substantial further increase.

- it all comes to naught if the biggest emitters, China, India, etc. don't change what they are doing. The current plan appears to be to impoverish and hobble ourselves while these other countries use the benefits of fossil fuels to enrich themselves. It is bizarre.

That’s a bit like saying, other people are doing well out of committing murder, we should all do the same.

 

[VauxhallandI]

BBC at it again with the narrative

A storm is now labelled a “danger to life warning”

Jeez

Storm Antoni: Danger to life warning as strong winds and heavy rain hits UK

The first storm to be named by the Met Office this year is expected to bring gusts of up to 65mph.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Correctomundo, I don't think anyone wants the planet to boil. But now it's unfashionable to admit it
(edit: tongue in cheek alert!)

To be a bit more serious, can only answer for me but a lot of the needed changes are both inconvenient and costly. So it falls by the wayside of day to day priorities.

The hyperbole doesn't help either. "Global Boiling" as someone attempted to rebrand climate change as last week just sounds extreme and ridiculous. The alarmist rhetoric from the likes of JSO is more likely to make people think it's a lost cause and give up.

 

[mac]

Using that emotive and completely inaccurate term does your argument zero favours.

If the lab grown stuff tastes the same as the real deal, contains the same nutrients, is affordable and is better for the environment then why on earth wouldn't you eat it?

If you want to eat chemical derived rubbish go ahead I'll stick with my meat reared and fed naturally

 

[nlogax]

If you want to eat chemical derived rubbish go ahead I'll stick with my meat reared and fed naturally

In your opinion (for that's all it is) why do you think it's 'rubbish'?

 

[mac]

In your opinion (for that's all it is) why do you think it's 'rubbish'?

How can it be anything but rubbish when it's grown in a laboratory, would you take any chemicals you happen to find as I wouldn't

 

[dakta]

The hyperbole doesn't help either. "Global Boiling" as someone attempted to rebrand climate change as last week just sounds extreme and ridiculous. The alarmist rhetoric from the likes of JSO is more likely to make people think it's a lost cause and give up.

Absolutely, and it's more widespread than that too, greanpeace's antics with activists sitting on Sunak's roof - I mean i've no love for the PM or his approach but I'm expected to support that, blockading the public, sitting on tube train roofs in rush hour etc etc etc?

Nah, I'll go idle my car for 20 minutes in not-strictly silent protest at letting people live whilst we decide how to manage the longer term problems.

For me the approach they're taking is more than a put off, it's begging me to not care and disassociate. One thing I can guarentee is every drop of oil, that can be extracted economically, will get used up. The good side is it might not be in cars, so my guess is a marine cargo ship.

 

[nlogax]

How can it be anything but rubbish when it's grown in a laboratory, would you take any chemicals you happen to find as I wouldn't

I'm willing to bet that much of what you and I eat is less safe and higher on the rubbish scale than lab grown meat. Not that you've really outlined what your definition of 'rubbish' is.

Truth is lab-grown meat is our collective future as global demand for food grows counter to the planet's ability to support livestock.

 

[AndrewE]

I'm willing to bet that much of what you and I eat is less safe and higher on the rubbish scale than lab grown meat. Not that you've really outlined what your definition of 'rubbish' is.

Truth is lab-grown meat is our collective future as global demand for food grows counter to the planet's ability to support livestock.

I disagree. lab-grown meat and lots of other substitutes for real food are recognised as Ultra-processed foods, associated with poor health. The thing about real food is that it has all sorts of constituents and nutrients beyond the simple analysis which has been replicated by a factory copy. People don't know either how much a "full" analysis costs (so is not done) or how limited the capability of such "analyses" really are.
I would rather eat meals made from things which I recognise. My wife and I (in our '70s) I always get asked twice when we say we are not on any medications. Most medics are reluctant to accept the first answer we give...

 

[Silenos]

^

If you want to eat chemical derived rubbish go ahead I'll stick with my meat reared and fed naturally

you mean like battery chickens and farmed salmon?

 

[uglymonkey]

What about the point, people think and are endlessly bombarded with media scare stories " climate emergency" etc that they think the tipping point has been reached and no matter what we do , it's too late. ( especially since countries continue to tank out tons and tons of coal fired badness).

So if it's too late, what's the point. I'm going to make hay while the sunshine thank you very much.
Hence apathy from the other side of the coin.

 

[Enthusiast]

...and all those places you want to go on foreign holidays are currently on fire.

And there's me thinking climate change activists want to be taken seriously.

 

[DerekC]

What about the point, people think and are endlessly bombarded with media scare stories " climate emergency" etc that they think the tipping point has been reached and no matter what we do , it's too late. ( especially since countries continue to tank out tons and tons of coal fired badness).

So if it's too late, what's the point. I'm going to make hay while the sunshine thank you very much.
Hence apathy from the other side of the coin.

There is certainly a danger of that - and of a combination of the two - "I don't believe it and anyway, there is nothing we can do about it". I hear that very regularly, from people who really should know better. And variations of "everybody else does it so why should we bother cutting down?"

 

[philosopher]

Given some people will drive 2 minutes instead of walking 5 minutes (when they are perfectly able to), there are some people who very much need the stick.

For people who drive for very short journeys, a better way to encourage them to walk to would be to emphasise that it is good for their own personal health. People I think are more likely to change their behaviour if they can see a direct personal benefit to them. In this case reducing emissions would then merely be a beneficial side effect.

 

[The Ham]

Even if we assume all that is true, and assuming there is a level of CO2 that the planet can 'cope with' (which I'd say is highly contentious when you look back at historic concentrations of CO2 at various points in the planet's history) - it all comes to naught if the biggest emitters, China, India, etc. don't change what they are doing. The current plan appears to be to impoverish and hobble ourselves while these other countries use the benefits of fossil fuels to enrich themselves. It is bizarre.

However China is changing what is doing, they're buying electric cars at double the percentage that we do, they are more to travel by rail over flying for medium/long(ish) distance travel within China, they are about to install more wind turbines than we have (and show no signs of slowing down) and many other things.

Even India had paused (which may result in then restarting, but may not) coal power station building (where not already started) for their next five year period - rather they are building grid storage.

Also, as pointed out China's per capita emissions are about the same as ours, so even if they don't peak out until a few years time (before falling back) then given our historic emissions (a lot are still in the atmosphere) the per capita level for China would be noticeable lower.

Or maybe heat pumps are suitable for some types of property but not others, which is what I said above. And equally the Norwegians are quite well off, so many of them can afford to take the large expense of installation up front with the idea of saving money *eventually*.

You're also overlooking the fact that a great many Norweigans still burn wood for extra heating at the coldest parts of the winter

Indeed not all properties are suitable for heat pumps, however we could have brought them in for new builds much sooner than we have.

Talking to a plumber, typically you'd need radiators double the size - well given the size of radiators in current be builds, they could double in size and still be the typical size from a 1960's home (assuming we use underfloor heating).

On this I’m totally in agreement. The planet can cope with any level of CO2. Venus, for example has an atmosphere of 96% CO2, and is still merrily revolving in orbit, though admittedly with surface temperatures that can melt lead. Life can even cope with much higher levels - at the end of the Permian era, it was around 2500 ppm, compared with around 400 ppm today. However, the current ecosystem on which humans rely for survival will not cope with a substantial further increase.

Indeed, I was to keep what I said short (ish), clearly I meant the planet with it's current ecosystems cope with

For people who drive for very short journeys, a better way to encourage them to walk to would be to emphasise that it is good for their own personal health. People I think are more likely to change their behaviour if they can see a direct personal benefit to them. In this case reducing emissions would then merely be a beneficial side effect.

The best way is to get them to think that their friends and neighbours are doing you want them to do and so encourage them to replicate it.

 

[Silenos]

And there's me thinking climate change activists want to be taken seriously.

I don’t know what climate change activists want, I haven’t met most of them and I’m not one of them. I know I personally wouldn’t take seriously anyone who thinks that millions of people all have a single analysis of the issue, or whose grasp of written English was so weak that they were unfamiliar with synecdoche.

Only intensely reared livestock use antibiotics and I don't think anyone in this country use steroids on animals. Beef and lamb from the grasslands of this country is the best you can get

You won’t get it much longer, because the farmers who produce it are being driven out of business by the government’s new trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which will allow the import of such meat.

 

[Bantamzen]

What was wrong with it? hemp could well go into batteries: https://www.ecowatch.com/battery-hemp-lithium-sulfur.html says

To even have a small impact on clothing, plastic and battery replacement will require huge amounts of new land to be used. And given that it will be on a global scale, I can well imagine plenty of businesses eying up areas of land that ought not to be used such as rain forest. The solution could end up being worse than the problem.

Nobody expects any single change to be the whole answer, so we shall need a mosaic of actions or substitutions. e.g. we shouldn't condemn heat pumps because they are not drop-in replacements fo gas boilers. In fact (if you address the most-easily dealt with bits of heat loss) lots of houses could manage with one if they had some sort of back-up for extremes of weather - which is what they do abroad. Could be a wood-burning stove - in the right location - or even a storage heater or two.

But the problem is that people are increasingly expecting exactly that, an insta-solution.

If its the same chemically, nutritionally and in taste, what's the issue with lab grown meat?

Actually lab meat won't taste the same, and probably won't even be nutritionally equal.

 

[SJL2020]

You won’t get it much longer, because the farmers who produce it are being driven out of business by the government’s new trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which will allow the import of such meat.

Are we talking about 100% pasture-fed meat from the UK? If so, I doubt that imported Australian/NZ meat will be competing with that. I think its much more likely that meat from those sources will be competing with domestic grain-fed meat (or at least animals that are fed grain at least part of the year).

I've been buying only certified pasture-fed meat for a few years now and the number of suppliers has definitely been increasing. Here's a map of current suppliers:

Where to Buy Grass-fed Beef & Lamb - Pasture for Life – Certified 100% grass-fed meat, milk and dairy

www.pastureforlife.org

I do find it more difficult to find certified pasture-fed dairy products though. Cheese is OK but fresh milk is very difficult in my area.