actually i used to think of these things, i.e. what some may call 'Eco-action' initiatives....but i then remember watching a story of a mother bird building a nest to lay her egg. then i remembered the 'enterprising' beaver building the "dam", then there is the good natured Mole from the wind and the willows! in anycase, does the bird interfere with nature when she builds her nest? or does the beaver cause environmental damage with his 'mega' dam?
 
i guess what i am saying is these animals are part of nature, if we think ourselves as being part of nature, then we interact with it, not try to change it... so in a nutshell, if i saw many-many startsih suddenly stranded in the beach and I throw some back, it is ok, one may say it is human 'nature'. however, if i decide to get a big bulldozer and decide the bulldoze all the startfishes into the sea....hmm...that may be interference, dont you think?..... it is a thin line between the two, only because we have made the line thin :( lets face it, we have a problem of modernity, and personally i do not see a solution except the solution i am too scared to see..
 
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:37:21 -0800
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Vegan Versus SUV & BBC2 tonight at 8pm
To: [log in to unmask]

I'm sorry, Tom, I guess I was being a bit flippant.  It's a nice inspiring story about compassion, every little bit helps, etc.  I was just reflecting on the thought that, even in this edifying story, "let it be" is not usually part of the human response to nature.
 
Perhaps there is a better story about somebody picking up plastic bags on the beach and taking them back to the store that distributed them.  We don't need to manage nature, we need to manage ourselves.  This action might even save a few undersea creatures.
 
John
........................................................
John Scull
http://members.shaw.ca/jscull
The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased; and not impaired in value.
                                                      Teddy Roosevelt
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Tom Barker
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">John Scull ; [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Vegan Versus SUV & BBC2 tonight at 8pm

That's not quite true is it?  Should we not bother to preserve lions so that wildebeest are safe from them?  Starfish are predators, but they are under attack from anthropogenic stresses as much as any other organism in the littoral zone.  They are missing from some of their natural areas to boot.  If they are native species, throwing them back (or not) will not cause any harm in itself, but it could be considered normal compassion to place a dying creature back into its habitat.
Tom



At 06:35 25/02/2009, John Scull wrote:
From the perspective of barnacles and many other creatures, throwing stranded starfish back isn't such a great idea.  Sea stars are pretty much the top predator in the intertidal zone.
 
But somehow, humans can't seem to leave nature alone.
 
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Mohamed Yunus Yasin
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: Vegan Versus SUV & BBC2 tonight at 8pm


 
personally i would throw the starfish back inot the sea simple because it is the right thing to do, even though personally, i would not think the star fish has a chance in hell to survive in the stormy 'acidified' sea, in which case one may say, is it really the right thing to do???.... i am at malaysia, the country next to singapore, and singapore is very strict with their car users simple because it is a very small country, more like a city state, i.e. they do it because they have to and one would hope they also do it because it is the right thing to do, although.......sorry being a little pessimistic these days..... :(

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:57:14 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Vegan Versus SUV & BBC2 tonight at 8pm
To: [log in to unmask]

But Steve, if they don't do both things, and more besides, they've had it, and so have their children, and their grandchildren.  It's too late to choose between options. Tom


At 10:51 23/02/2009, Wright, Steve wrote:
Dear Yunus,

 
It is not black and white. I am not sure what country you are in. In the UK public transport si subsidized by the government - why not? here we have commercial and tendered services - it could eb alot of better since the benefits strech beyond transport and the environment to social welfare and keeping elderly people mobile who otherwise would becoem house bound.

 
In some countries like Singapore - car drivers do have to pay to pay punitive road taxes...

 
The meat point may seem trivial but its a bit like the two old women wandering along the ebach after a storm where millions of star fish are stranded. One of the aldies is throwing star fish abck into the sea and her friend queries why are you doing that - you can't make any difference there are just two many of them...and her friend replies tossing another star fish into the ocean - made a difference to taht one!

 
I guess the calculus is not known to most people to make the connection so a graphic example can help people decide let me do this one thing - eat less or no meat...

 
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [ mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mohamed Yunus Yasin
Sent: 23 February 2009 09:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Vegan Versus SUV & BBC2 tonight at 8pm
I am not discounting the fact that this is not an important debate, but personally i think it is like arguing, "If I am going to get shot, do I prefer to be shot by Hitler or Mussolini...a gun is a gun, a bullet is a bullet, no?"
furthermore, i remember a problem i faced when arguing for better public transport and I was told that public transport, like trains and underground systems was not just feasable because the operator could never be able to re-coup his/her investment and thus public transport would have to be subsidised by the government, unlike private cars. I could not argue my point well enough until i realised that we were not comparing 'like for like' ie that private cars do not pay for the roads (which is paid for by the government) whilst the train operators had to pay for thier own tracks....so imagine if the car companies had to pay for their own roads! thus if we compare 'like for like', a car should cost half a million bucks instead of  just 10 thousand, becuase if you buy a car, you should buy 1-2 kilometer(s) of road with it!!!!

and so "Yes" meat is bad because of the 'unseen' cost like methane, feed transported etc etc. but SUV has also has got these types of cost associated to it, i.e. mining of iron for its body, cutting rain forest to replase with rubber trees for its tyres, petrolieum by products for the dashboard and other plastics, killing alligators for the 'fine' leather seats etc etc etc...... So if we do want to compare, we should be honest, dont you think?
personally, they are both bad just like the 2 fellows mentioned above....maybe we should learn to eat less and 'stay put'.
peace
yunus

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:30:37 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Vegan Versus SUV & BBC2 tonight at 8pm
To: [log in to unmask]

A Farm for the Future, this evening on BBC2 television at 8pm, might be of interest? If in Wales, it seems to be 5pm Sun instead.
Re Steve's original email, New Scientist ran article in July 07 saying "A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home." The calculations, which are based on standard industrial methods of meat production in Japan, did not include the impact of managing farm infrastructure and transporting the meat, so the total environmental load is higher than the study suggests.
Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals' digestive systems, while the acid and fertilising substances come primarily from their waste. Over two-thirds of the energy goes towards producing and transporting the animals' feed.
From issue 2613 of New Scientist magazine, page 15 or see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500
Mandy
________________________________
Energy is the one true currency, it always was and always will be.
- Chris Shaw




A Farm for the Future





http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hs8zp
Wildlife film maker Rebecca Hosking investigates how to transform her family's farm in Devon into a low energy farm for the future, and discovers that nature holds the key.
With her father close to retirement, Rebecca returns to her family's wildlife-friendly farm in Devon, to become the next generation to farm the land. But last year's high fuel prices were a wake-up call for Rebecca. Realising that all food production in the UK is completely dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel, particularly oil, she sets out to discover just how secure this oil supply is.

Alarmed by the answers, she explores ways of farming without using fossil fuel. With the help of pioneering farmers and growers, Rebecca learns that it is actually nature that holds the key to farming in a low-energy future.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wright, Steve
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:29 AM
Subject: Vegan Versus SUV

Dear Forumers,
I wonder if someone out there has data to settle a friendly dispute? As part of the events we are holding next week students are beinga sked to consider ways in which behavioural change can affect future climate change so......
I suggested that one option is to go vegetarian and quoted an old fiend - an ardent green and obsessive cyclist who once told me, Give me a vegetraian SUV driver anyday than a meat eating bike rider when it comes to reducing carbon emmissions.....
I know the vegetraian society have been promoting this line but my colleague heres approach is well they would wouldn't they....
So - is there any hard data out there re pro capita impact of someone eating no meat versus someopne who eats meat in terms of total C02 emmissions and is the data robust enough to satisfy my friends here who are dubious that giving up meat could be just or even more beneficial as giving up SUV's (I know we would rather have both but this is a debate about ensuring data are well absed)
Steve

Chat online and in real-time with friends and family! Windows Live Messenger

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

Tom Barker BSc, PhD
SWIMMER (Institute for Sustainable Water, Integrated Management, and Ecosystem Research)
Nicholson Building
University of Liverpool
Liverpool
L69 3GP

0151 795 4646
[log in to unmask]

Support Contraction and Convergence - the global response to climate change
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf

Make the most of what you can do on your PC and the Web, just the way you want. Windows Live
Tom Barker BSc, PhD
SWIMMER (Institute for Sustainable Water, Integrated Management, and Ecosystem Research)
Nicholson Building
University of Liverpool
Liverpool
L69 3GP

0151 795 4646
[log in to unmask]

Support Contraction and Convergence - the global response to climate change
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf

What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out