Norway's Army Battles Global Warming By Going Vegetarian 495
cold fjord writes "It looks like no more spam, spam, spam for Norway's warriors... at least on Mondays. The Daily Caller reports, 'Norway's military is taking drastic steps to ramp up its war against global warming. The Scandinavian country announced its soldiers would be put on a vegetarian diet once a week to reduce the military's carbon footprint. "Meatless Monday's" has already been introduced at one of Norway's main military bases and will soon be rolled out to others, including overseas bases. It is estimated that the new vegetarian diet will cut meat consumption by 150 tons per year. "It's a step to protect our climate," military spokesman Eystein Kvarving told AFP. "The idea is to serve food that's respectful of the environment." ... The United Nations says that livestock farming is responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting meat consumption, environmentalists argue, would help stem global warming and improve the environment." — The Manchester Journal reports, "The meatless Monday campaign launched in 2003 as a global non-profit initiative in collaboration with Johns Hopkins University to promote personal and environmental health by reducing meat consumption.'"
Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
If Norway was really going to make a dent in Global Warming, they would stop pumping up oil.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:5, Funny)
but that's the money they use to import thai spices for their veggie foods for their hipster mondays.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
hipster mondays
Or as it's also known, "Hey, let's go eat at one of the restaurants off-base" Mondays.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:5, Funny)
> Meatless Mondays [in Norway]
Meanwhile, the US military, in an effort to attract more recruits, has added bacon to its vegetable dishes and ice creams.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Most Norwegian military bases are located in the outer parts of nowhere, and regular soldier pay is worse than lousy (military service being semi-compulsory for men, still). Even if there are restaurants nearby, it's unlikely they could serve most of the soldiers stationed there, and if they could, most of the soldiers wouldn't be able to pay.
Also, the food tends to suck anyway, so a day of vegetables shouldn't make matters much worse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Really. Pebble-beds. LFTRs, and other modern nuclear tech looks to be a viable solution. Save the petrochemicals for plastics and pharmaceutical feedstocks. . .
Now, burning natural gas, otoh, looks like a viable alternative to petroleum for vehicle use. . .
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
We had tried pebble bed reactors in Germany. They did not work. AVR is now one of the highest contaminated reactor sites in the world, THTR was plagued with numerous technical problems, broken pebbles among other things and was prohibitively expensive to operate. The AVR technology was then sold to China and THTR technology to South Africa.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well well, your Islamophobia is pushing you to do something good for once.
If by Islamaphobia you mean resisting attempts to impose a system which has no freedom of speech, inequality of women, death for homosexuals, death for changing religion from Islam, inequality in law for non-Muslims, penalty taxes on non-muslims --- then I consider this to be generally good rather than "for once".
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:4, Informative)
I just came back from Sarajevo, in a Muslim country, and didn't see any of that stuff. Are you sure you're talking about Islam and not just certain countries where religious leaders are crazy as shithouse rats and would use any religious system to do the same ugly stuff?
I think Sharia Law is just an excuse for assholes to be bigger assholes.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight; Conservatives think Liberals are naive because we don't want to push Liberalism on foreign Conservatives?
Otherwise, conservatives object to Islamic backward societies merely because they have the WRONG MASCOT.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Christianity has similar rules for non-christians. Research the word "ghetto" and its origins to find out more.
Modern contemporary Christianity does not. If there is some Christian group doing it somewhere it is wrong. The same applies to anyone else who promotes discrimination and violence. This sort of equivocation is typical of the pro-Sharia lobby. If anyone else at any time in history has done something wrong then it is OK for Muslims to do it now. Thus the Unibomber in an Islamophile's eyes means that the Boston marathon bombing is acceptable as "a non muslim did it too", violence against women is "OK" because it was common in Victorian England, and so on.
The Muslims should be responsible for their own actions - and not seek to justify them on the basis that once upon a time someone else was bad.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
By that logic, same should apply to christians.
So when are people like you going to start taking responsibility for things like butchering done by various christians in middle east, genitalia mutilation done by christians in middle east, terrorist acts by Breivik et al, and so on?
Fact is, these people have a lot more in common with the extremist islamists (and also extremists [insert religion here]) worldwide. We have buddhists murdering the hell out of people in Burma, hindus butchering people in India and so on. Common element? Extremist religion.
Not so common element? The actual name of the religion. Moderate islam is pretty much like moderate christianity - take a look at former CIS countries that didn't get murdered by saudi-funded wahabbists, most of the muslims in Europe and Northern America. And before you explode at that one spamming extremist references, compare the extremists to, for example, christian laestadianism, which does most of the extremist stuff from suppression of women's rights to arranged marriages for children to paedofilia - and these people outnumber muslims in my country about 10:1, and they're pretty damn scary - I have a friend who to quote his words "managed to escape his family's grasp".
Fact is, christianity is about as much a "religion of peace" as any other large organized religion, be it buddhism, islam, hinduism, thaoism or any other. And you can mod me "troll" as much as you want - that particular fact will not go away no matter how much PR bullshit keeps getting spewed from TV screens. The only difference is that people like you view christianity as inherently righteous, and anyone who isn't doing it like you think it should be done is "doing it wrong". At the same time you do not accept that other religions should get the same right, and instead put them all under the same umbrella, extremists or moderates.
And in the end, like most hypocrites, you claim righteousness to be on your side.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Fact is, christianity is about as much a "religion of peace" as any other large organized religion, be it buddhism, islam, hinduism, thaoism or any other.
For your information, Hinduism is not an organized religion. There is no hierarchy of clergy. They don't evangelize, (except for Christianity influenced Hare Krishna movement) there is no official ceremony to become a Hindu, Anyone can call himself/herself a Hindu and practice as much or as little as one wishes to. Hindu godmen have not had government backing or support for centuries. It is a mass religion, as many versions of Hinduism exists as there are clans and tribes.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you, Luckyo, for injecting a little sanity into this discussion.
Most people from western cultures would recognize that making generalizations about *all christians*, based on the actions of a few (say self-proclaimed KKK members who consider themselves Christians) is not an intelligent way to talk about the world. Certainly "Christians" that are for war have very little if any common ground with modern day Quakers.
Where I still see a lot of ignorance (and I am an ignorant westerner too) is in failing
Re: (Score:3)
If there is some Christian group doing it somewhere it is wrong.
Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You, sir, are a hypocrite.
You had better look up the "No true Scotsman" falicy. Clue it is not:
McDonald is a Scotsman
McDonald murdered someone
Murdering someone is wrong
Incorrect understanding of Christianity (Score:5, Informative)
No, Christianity does NOT have similar rules for non-Christians. Some who have claimed to follow Christianity may have, but they have to make it up. (creative excuses for discrimination seems all too common for most humans through history.)
Ghettos started as segregation of Jews, in places they were not treated well, in other gettos they were treated VERY well, encouraged to settle, and left alone to practice Judaism without restraint.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Why fart and waste it when you can burp and taste it !
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, I remember when we used to burn sand....
Oh well, I'll eat their share of the beef, it all works out.
Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, I remember when we used to burn sand....
Oh well, I'll eat their share of the beef, it all works out.
They think they can dent global warming by going vegetarian? A lot of greenhouse gasses come from cows burping and farting. Make them go vegetarian!
An example to follow (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:An example to follow (Score:5, Funny)
cannibalism
Re:An example to follow (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe just on Monday...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People would starve. Mostly the poor in "rich" countries, though.
Recall that there is a bit of distance between where the food comes from and where it is eaten, and how it bridges that gap.
Re: (Score:3)
Every time you try to hurt the rich, you may well succeed, but you'll hurt the poor far more.
Re: (Score:2)
An economic melt-down.
Re:An example to follow (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:An example to follow (Score:5, Funny)
Challenge accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
People would respond with meat-packed Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it absolutely would not. All those vegetables and other ingredients had to come from somewhere and our food industry just throws things away when they are expired and then they make just as much as before. A "meatless" day per week is ridiculous and useless, all it will do is slightly increase the amount of meat that gets thrown out on this day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:An example to follow (Score:4, Informative)
Norway doesn't have any warriors. That was a long time ago in the age of blood and glory. Today Norway's army consists of young boys, bored out of there minds [youtube.com] that can't wait to get back home, sit in the couch to play Call of Duty and enjoy the highest standard of living in the world.
Re: An example to follow (Score:3)
Re:An example to follow (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the proof is in the waist lines, considering protein doesn't have that many calories, and even when you include fatty cuts of meat that's not that many calories. Protein and fat satisfy your appetite better than carbs too. If you pay attention, you'll notice that people with large waist lines eat lots of empty carbs and "low fat" shit.
Re: An example to follow (Score:2)
Re:An example to follow (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, but most of the soya is fed to animals. 70% of corn grown in the USA is fed to animals. For every kilo of meat you eat, 10 kilos of feedstock went into an animal.
So you could eat less meat, and devote more land to growing plants, which is the essence of carbon capture. And all those animal farts contribute to global warming as well (methane is a greenhouse gas).
Regardless of whether vegetarianism / veganism is better for animals or your health, they require less energy and produce less CO2.
Re: (Score:3)
Well her point in her book is that you'd be better just letting cows eat their natural diet, grass. Then we eat the cows. Like the food chain was originally.
Re: (Score:3)
Well her point in her book is that you'd be better just letting cows eat their natural diet, grass. Then we eat the cows. Like the food chain was originally.
Yeah, back when there were millions fewer people in this country and billions fewer in the world. Good luck finding the grassland for year-round grazing of cows that can support the human consumption of meat.
Re: (Score:3)
It would only force cattle raising to be spread out, rather than condensed into a few factory farms. We likely have plenty of biomass to do this -- we have a lot of farms the government pays farmers NOT TO USE.
We have a lot of farming practices that just funnel money into a few hands, and groups like Monsanto and ADM sell the seeds, the pesticides and the fertilizer -- and too many make the assumption we cannot live without this junk. We cannot live with it for much longer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:An example to follow (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the sort of grand experiment with our food chain is something I'm not a fan of. Original Nations who ate meat and fat (all grass fed), and were to some accounts quite healthy, good teeth, good bones, compared to the high carb, high sugar, highly processed foods, high soy, low fat yoghurts packed with hidden sugar, etc. etc. substitutes which, according to some reports, we're starting to see the outcome in how even children now get diabetes, whilst still in the womb. It takes a few generations to see the results.
I would much rather save energy on other stuff than on foods, which leads to massive health costs. I would rather continue to get the bus to work, never own a car (have never owned a car), not have too many kids (actually have no kids), and to appease the CO2 people, never fly (I fly once in 10 years), and keep the heating low and wear furry fleeces around the house. I'd insulate but the house is way too old for that, so I settle for better glazing. But food? Mess with that and may as well not be living in a first world country.
Re: (Score:3)
What about grass fed beef? not much carbon footprint there. No fossil-fuel-based fertilizer, no tractors. It could have a lower carbon footprint than a vegetarian's corn/soy/wheat diet.
Cattle that is fed ONLY by pasture grass is very rare in the U.S. Grass-fed beef includes cattle that are fed hay in the winter. That hay is harvested with tractors and fossil-fuels. There aren't a lot of areas of the country that can support year-round grazing.
Tomorrow in the news: (Score:5, Funny)
Sweden annexed Norway without fighting after shelling Norwegian formations with cans of corned beef.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait.... I thought Norway was part of Denmark before independence in 1905...
Re: (Score:3)
Sweden annexed Norway without fighting after shelling Norwegian formations with cans of corned beef.
I believe the most successful tactic the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact forces could have used to invade Western Europe would have been to make their first echelon forces to be thousands of snack & ice cream trucks. That would have quickly rendered the Western defences helpless for the following tanks.
ridiculous... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
The impact on global climate would be NOTHING MEASURABLE whatsoever. Several years ago I read China is about to launch 700+ coal power stations by 2020. Sure, China will decommission other stations in that period, but the overall trend is obvious. Even if the whole Norway, not just the army, stops eating anything and even stops breathing to reduce the so called carbon footprint, the impact would be ... nothing. China alone will more than compensate :)
Well fuck it, nothing can be done. We might as well give up and prepare to die as there is no cumulative effect when combating global warming. Goodbye cruel world...
Just run around waving your arms in panic (Score:2)
Well fuck it, nothing can be done. We might as well give up and prepare to die as there is no cumulative effect when combating global warming. Goodbye cruel world...
Or you could stop complaining and adapt to a slightly warmer world.
Re:Just run around waving your arms in panic (Score:5, Informative)
You're outer category delusional.
The projected sea level rise is up to about a meter by the year 2100. Not in the form of a sudden tidal wave arriving next tuesday, but a few milimeters per decade.
Think of the world 100 years ago. Think how different agriculture was then, how different cities were. A century is a very long time on the scale of a human life and culture.
Let's adapt to a potentially global and humankind-annihiliating catastrophy once the methane under ice in Siberia starts to melt and gets released to the atmosphere. It's already bubbling out, you can see it with your eyes.
Earth will go on, some life possibly will also go on but humans are facing the business end of a shotgun at the moment.
(...)
You're harming your cause with such extreme and patently ridiculous alarmism. Did you know that up to the start of the Pleistocene, there were no permanent ice caps on either pole? Was the earth in the Pliocene an uninhabitable wasteland? We are living in the Holocene interglacial stage of an ice age today. Today's climate isn't the norm, it isn't the only climate in which life is possible. In fact, every species alive today, except for perhaps a handful of human domesticated crops, already existed during the last ice age, and lived through the transition. Before you bring up the standard response about the rate of climate change being completely unique in the history of the earth, this too is false. The transition from the last glacial to the Holocene interglacial was just as sudden. Vast subarctic tundras, built up over a period of 100,000 years (the duration of the last glaciation) thawed and became exposed (in fact, some of it is still frozen deep under the surface in central Europe!).
The environment is facing a number of terrible human induced crises - primarily habitat loss, over-fishing, and pollution. Yes, many species will disappear by the end of the century, even if the climate stops changing today, even if the climate goes back to the way it was before the industrial revolution. If you live long enough, you will find that a slight increase in temperature will have been a minor influence compared to these things.
Re:Just run around waving your arms in panic (Score:5, Informative)
The projected sea level rise is up to about a meter by the year 2100. Not in the form of a sudden tidal wave arriving next tuesday, but a few milimeters per decade.
1m = 1000mm. Assuming that by "a few" you mean 5mm per decade that's only 50mm/century.
To get a 1m rise we are looking at 100mm/decade, or 10mm/year. It doesn't sound like a lot but the cost of dealing with it is going to be huge.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Global warming may cause coastal cities to face a bit more flooding and shift around agriculture a bit on the time scale of a few centuries, but that's about the extent of it.
The only thing we need to be saved from is hucksters like you w
Re: (Score:2)
Or you know we could look for solutions that don't require reduction of carbon emmisions. We could work on atmospheric scrubbing, or other climate engineering technology.
The omg china and the bricks won't cut so we can't do anything crowd is wrong.
The lets cut emissions and slit our economic wrist crowd even though china and the bricks won't are also wrong?
A large portion of the world can't or won't reduce emmisions is simply one of the constraints on the problem a real solution just needs to accommodate i
Re: (Score:2)
Things can be done. But if we're going to do them we should stop wasting time on token efforts and start making a difference. The net effect from switching to vegetarian diets isn't that great. Farming vegetables like farming cows still has an incredible carbon footprint if for not other reason than the transportation costs. Just less methane producing cows.
This story is cute but it has about the same effect as organising a rally in the name of climate change.
Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if I stop killing people at my usual rate of one per week it will make no difference because of the huge number of people being killed by other "so called" things.
Small numbers of people doing stuff is obviously not going to make any difference but small numbers of people start doing anything before large numbers of people do it. Somebody has to be first.
Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a drop in the ocean, eh? They did something. What did you do? They found one thing that they CAN do, and did it. Maybe some day the chinese will do one thing also. Or several. I'm sure the US is never going to do a damn thing. They seem selfish assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
a tankless monday would do a lot more(or apc'less monday since they have a lot more of those).
a shipless monday would do ten times as more.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is useless and actually degrading to people who do real things. Imagine neighbour getting ill and having to raise $100k for live saving treatment. They found $20k after going through all the family and friends and now only people living around are left. They come to you house (and let's assume your are filthy rich) and you give them one cent. After that, you go to other poor family who has not chipped in at all and gloat your moral superiority - "I do CARE, 1 cent might be just a drop in the ocean, b
Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, the problem should be solved in a different way. did you know that an average USian uses double the energy than an average German (with similar living standards). Maybe it is time that you start having proper insulation in your homes and start investing in quality public transport. I understand that the distances in US are very big (I also come from a very big country), so the contamination associated to the transport is also higher, but if you do proper urban planification those things can be mitigated.
Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Per capita wise, we probably should start with the USA. If the Americans eat less meat, drive less and consume less resources, I'm sure that's going to have a very positive impact on their health too, not just the environment of this planet.
Unfortunately, the american lifestyle is a model that most Chinese dream of right now. So this trend is a terrible one. But what do you expect people in other countries to do, when the Americans export their movies in which people are living in big houses, with gigantic backyard, and there are more cars than persons in a family, have a fun life with a lot of meat (fill in your favorite resources)? When people in other countries have the means, they will want the same thing. And they emulate. This is totally normal. That means, in China, people also want a big house, at least a car, or preferably, one car per person, and all the comfort in life that the Americans have been enjoying for so long.
I gave up driving 10 years ago, my wife and I each have a bike. We ride or take the public transit, set a quota on our own diet, watch closely our AC and heater to just have a minimum of comfort. We watch our carbon footprint carefully. But when we try to convince other people to at least try to do something, people think we are idiots. The planet belongs to everyone, if the Americans/Europeans can enjoy the resources, why can't we?
It would interesting if there was some kind of quota system on all countries in the world, based on the population size. And it would be even more interesting if we can control it at the individual level. You want to enjoy more resources? Pay for it. That money will go to those who have left over. So the rich people can have all the shit they want, as long as they pay for it.
Re: (Score:3)
I gave up driving 10 years ago, my wife and I each have a bike. We ride or take the public transit, set a quota on our own diet, watch closely our AC and heater to just have a minimum of comfort.
That's nice, shame it wouldn't work here... there is no mass transit here and things are too far to walk/bike. It is 105 in the summer and 20 in the winter and everything from the kid's school to the stores are all beyond walking/biking distance.
But more power to you. :) I would never dare to tell you to stop, I only ask that you return the favor. :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you not able to vote in local elections?
Are you not able to campaign for improvements to local services?
Do you not have the power to improve your community?
Re:ridiculous... (Score:4, Insightful)
It keeps the riff raff out. By having everything spread out, thus making owning cars a requirement, then only having large houses here, plus no mass transit (they city buss system stops a few miles south of my area), it keeps poor people away.
That isn't very PC to say, but it is the truth of why the city bus system skips this area, even if it runs both east and west of here.
Re: (Score:2)
But when we try to convince other people to at least try to do something, people think we are idiots.
That is because if your stated goal is to "save the planet" then you are indeed idiots.
If your goal is to feel good about yourself and do something that is important to you, then you are not an idiot, you're just you, and there is nothing wrong with that.
There simply aren't enough of "you" and way too many of "me" for your efforts to amount to anything.
It is a simple numbers game, one that you will lose... if your goal of course is to "save the planet".
Re:ridiculous... (Score:4, Informative)
In China, people want to breathe and see across the street.
Most have realized that the American way doesn't apply to their density. Individually, they want it, but collectively they are a lot smarter.
It's gonna get worse for them before it gets better. But they already they kick ass on trains, wind and solar (when the sun can make it to the panels), and their government will do anything that promotes stability. If they keep having these smogs which cause unrest (because the rich have filters), they will look for solutions, and they will invest as much as it takes.
And we'll still be arguing whether 1% or 3% is worth debating.
Solutions.. (Score:2)
What Norway or other smaller Scandinavian countries propose and follows is commendable...but its nothing more than good PR.
As far as vegetarian / vegan goes, India is more or less "Shuddh Shakahari" - Hindi/Sanskrit for "Pur
Several years ago - how about now? (Score:5, Informative)
You may want to try reading this year :)
You must have missed it but China recently made an announcement about not building any more coal fired power stations. That's a very major change and completely pulls the rug out from under your argument - so what may have been a good point in July just makes no sense at all now.
Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
The impact on global climate would be NOTHING MEASURABLE whatsoever
Ah, the good old "It ain't perfect, so I won't have it" fallacy. I can't imagine anybody thinking that this in itself has a significant impact, but that isn't the purpose - it is about starting on the journey. It may be a ten thousand mile journey, but if you don't take the first step, you will never start moving. And unless your body is of a somewhat unusual configuration, you will not be able to do it in one, easy stride. So, get off your backside and start moving forward.
Re: (Score:2)
It has become a "moral" issue, numbers don't matter. Unless you're talking carbon trading, in which case made up numbers and made up money matter a lot. Or would if they could. Who cares if Africa can't turn the lights on? I hope China continues to build infrastructure in Africa, because the West isn't going to help them. Not far from where I used to live in Africa, in a small town, there is now a football stadium, built by the Chinese. I saw it on Google Earth and was like, what the heck is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China actually leads the world in renewable energy. I don't know where the 700+ figure comes from because that's what, 3-4TW of capacity?
Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (Score:4, Interesting)
Vegetarianism is a great threat to the environment precisely because it is more efficient at providing food. The argument is a bit counter-intuitive, but bear with me.
Being more efficient, it allows to feed more people with the same land. Alternatively, one could feed the same number of people with less land.
The problem is that in whole human history, any increase in efficiency has not been used to reduce the human footprint, but simply to increase the number of people until any advantage created by the increased efficiency is lost. A larger number of people don't just need the same land as before, but, they also need more water, more metals, cause more emissions and generally consume a lot more. Therefore, the final effect, just for the increase of people, will be a worsening of environmental conditions.
This is exactly what has happened quite recently. The book "The population bomb" is often derided for inaccurately predicting mass starvation.
This wasn't so much because the calculations were wrong but, rather, because a massive increase in efficiency of food production, the so called Green Revolution.
The Green Revolution would have allowed the same number of people to live with a much smaller footprint but, guess what happened ?
The population grew instead to match the new capability and the environment is in more in trouble than ever. Plus we now have a much bigger population to maintain, with ever growing expectations.
This is applies to any increase in efficiency, not just food and vegetarianism. When you are urged to save more water, food or energy, whatever is saved never goes to a better environment (it might, temporarily, until the population grows to match the new limit), it just goes to grow more people and make matter worse.
So, please, waste more, it is very damaging to the environment, but the alternative is far worse.
Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (Score:5, Insightful)
But the population isn't really increasing in the western world where we have all the food we can eat. By your reasoning western populations should be increasing a lot. The number of people will stop increasing when also poor countries have enough food and good health care so that parents are confident that the children they get will reach adulthood.
Re: (Score:2)
So your answer is to live more luxuriously in the aim of causing starvation. Nice.
Re: (Score:3)
Meh, if you want to apply that logic then the first thing we should do away with is hygiene and medicine. People used to have lots of children, why didn't it turn into a population boom until the 20th century? Because lots of those children died, their mothers died in labor, people in general died from pests and plagues and infections and diseases. Culture changed and currently we're only producing enough children to sustain a small growth in population, in fact if birth rates continue to decline the world
Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (Score:5, Informative)
Utter bullshit.
The fertility rate in Norway is below two, has been since 1970s and is likely to stay for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't buy that argument. We have hugely excessive amounts of food in the west (not to mention hugely cheap food in comparison to income). Yet the cheaper and more plentiful food is, the lower the birth rate.
For example, compare Germany which is a wealthy country with plenty of food to an African country on the brink of food shortage. Germany's population is actually decreasing (despite immigration), but the African country with low GDP and a food shortage has a very high population growth rate.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are describing is the Jevons paradox [wikipedia.org]
But... but... (Score:2)
Math (Score:3)
Decrease of 150 tons of meat. Global production of meat 180 million tons. 150/180,000,000 - 0.00005%. Decrease in greenhouse gasses: 0.00005*.18 =0.000009%. Get a million of those together and you would have something.
In favor of what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Off the top of my head I can't think of a whole lot of options for locally-produced protein in Norway. If you eliminate the animal proteins, what's left? How much carbon is Norway saving if they have to ship more nuts and beans in from overseas, particularly if the alternative is wild-caught fish?
Re: (Score:2)
Fungus-based protein, hemp-based protein, other vegetable-based protein, such as beans.
they grow a lot of beans in norway? thats news.
though if they don't count fish as animals then this day would be nothing to report of. maybe they actually serve fish on mondays.
Sounds more like they're battling feelings (Score:2)
They need to formulate graphene into a device for ultradense storage of hydrogen. Then they could use their hydro-electric to separate the hydrogen from the carbon, make graphene gas (hydrogen gas) tanks from the carbon, put the hydrogen in it an sell 'em pre-filled to owners of Toyota fuel cell cars. That would help cut down on the feelings of responsibility for global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Because /. hates you. I can edit posts.
Edit: see?! It's easy if you know how.
Pure greenwash (Score:2, Informative)
This has nothing to do with global warming. Its an excuse to change diet of people who can't object to something less natural than eating meat or fish.
I predict a revolt amongst the ranks
Reverse discrimination? (Score:3)
How much outrage would there be if this were reversed, and perhaps for health reasons, the Norwegian Army would force vegetarians/vegans to eat meat once a week?
And nobody is pretending there is a good reason like health concerns behind this move. They're saving some money feeding their soldiers cheaper foods, while others have no such requirements.
Let's see all the politicians strictly holding themselves to Meatless Mondays first. Then we'll talk.
It's your funeral. (Score:4, Funny)
That is the WORST day to enforce this on. The only thing that prevents me from aborting the Monday morning mission is Bacon.
In a pinch, a fried Spam sandwich will do. No meat at all on Mondays? They are trying to start World War 3!
Re: (Score:3)
almost everyone apart from the poorest in countries where its common to be a vegetarian anyways?
I'm in thailand. pretty much everyone eats meat. sure, it might be just chicken livers bbq'd and bought from a street stall but I'd count that as meat.
of course if they adjust rest of the days so that the average meat protein for week/month/year stays the same it will not make any difference whatsoever to anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets just switch to nuclear power and be done with it. After all, it's the only realistic way to become a Type I civilization...
Yes, because there are zero downsides to nuclear power... Compared to fossil fuel it is sort of clean, to be sure, but the byproducts have to be managed for decades or more and if something does go wrong it tends to go wrong rather badly. So yes, it may be not quite as obviously horrible as fossil fuel.
Personally, I would rather current research focus more on solar, wind, tidal, geothermal -- rather than to continue to rely nuclear power.
Oh, and while they make a show of "green research" it's probably not s
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I would rather current research focus more on solar, wind, tidal, geothermal -- rather than to continue to rely nuclear power.
The problem with all of those is that there are a limited number of locales where they can work well, and all of them except for geothermal are transient. That means power storage, which means batteries, which means toxic chemical waste. It may or may not be as dangerous on a per-volume basis as nuclear waste (someone more knowledgeable than me would have to answer that), but there would certainly be a hell of a lot more of it.
Re: (Score:2)
there's another way and currently the biggest way to store energy: artificial lakes.
problem with them? same people who are hardliners against coal are hardliners against them.
Re: Kardashev scale (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just use the radiation equivalent of the Drake equation, fill it full of made up numbers, and calculate how many are going to die.
Re:No such thing as 'man made global warming' (Score:5, Funny)
How did you get to be so shit at trolling?