I once heard a vegan repsond to this by saying " plough up the land and grow crops" to which I replied. " sheep often graze on steep hillsides: good luck ploughing that up" She didn't reply!
Get the vegans to do the grazing @Fairygirl 😂 they'll feel even more self righteous as they tuck in some dandelions. That said, nicely steamed with a vinaigrette they are delicious.
Steamed vegans, now there's a thought. JOKING , HONEST
@amancalledgeorge - good idea. Send them to live on a Welsh hillside, or perhaps one of the many Scottish sheep farms in Inver-naewhere for a year or two.
That'll maybe put their gas at a peep @Hostafan1- that just proves how woefully inadequate their understanding is of how anything works.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
I have to agree with Allotment Boy I started to watch the programme and could see the way it was going jumping from one country to the other to show how horrible meat eaters are, and Liz Bonnin's face said it all especially when she usually looks so cheerful. It was a bit like another programme that I didn't watch, Emily Maitlis interviewing Prince Edward she should ask the questions and let the viewer make their own minds up not stand looking daggers at the interviewee. Of course the BBC finds it impossible to be impartial these days.
IMHO it'd be impossible to have a programme on this subject where nobody felt there some form of bias. Vegans and meat eater are unlikely to accept it as "impartial" from the BBC or anyone else.
Just to be clear, I've read the Committee on Climate Change's report (yes, all of it). It doesn't anywhere suggest that we should all become vegetarian, not remotely. It suggests that the number of people that are eating meat EVERY DAY for at least 2 meals a day is problematic and that people should be encouraged to REDUCE - not eliminate - meat in their diets.
It's neither preachy nor an emotional report. It's a very hard nosed document that doesn't pull its punches but which keeps well clear of handwringing or emotional blackmail. If you want to understand the issue without the overblown sentimentality then I highly recommend it, at least in its summary form, as a reliable source of information.
Even so, it makes very sobering reading - the amount of change we need to address is substantial. It makes me very sad that so many respondents have replied along the lines of 'until there's a perfect answer I'll not consider making any changes at all, however small' and/or 'if China can continue to burn coal then I can continue to do whatever I like'.
There are plenty of examples of legal/political action being taken unilaterally by a small number of countries leading multilateral action when it's shown that the arguments against action don't stand up.
For what it's worth, I completely agree that extensively reared meat has relatively little impact, compared to arable farming on some of the same land. But extensively reared meat is more expensive than factory farmed, and we all expect food to be cheap. It would benefit careful farmers as well as people with a weight problem and the climate if we stuck to the same meat budgets but bought much higher welfare products. Personally I think that reducing meat in people's diets and replacing it with beans merely moves the source of methane rather than eliminating it. But I support the intention - that we should all THINK a bit about our choices and the impacts they have that we can't see.
Eating meat two or three days a week rather than 7 is not a hardship. I've done it for years. Meat - especially fast food - is a bad habit, not a farming necessity. And the climate debate cannot be considered in terms of absolutes - perfectly good or perfectly bad. It's balance of harm that has to be managed and every sensible decision has a compromise behind it.
I'll put my soapbox away.
As you were.....
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Just to be clear, I've read the Committee on Climate Change's report (yes, all of it). It doesn't anywhere suggest that we should all become vegetarian, not remotely. It suggests that the number of people that are eating meat EVERY DAY for at least 2 meals a day is problematic and that people should be encouraged to REDUCE - not eliminate - meat in their diets.
It's neither preachy nor an emotional report. It's a very hard nosed document that doesn't pull its punches but which keeps well clear of handwringing or emotional blackmail. If you want to understand the issue without the overblown sentimentality then I highly recommend it, at least in its summary form, as a reliable source of information.
Even so, it makes very sobering reading - the amount of change we need to address is substantial. It makes me very sad that so many respondents have replied along the lines of 'until there's a perfect answer I'll not consider making any changes at all, however small' and/or 'if China can continue to burn coal then I can continue to do whatever I like'.
There are plenty of examples of legal/political action being taken unilaterally by a small number of countries leading multilateral action when it's shown that the arguments against action don't stand up.
For what it's worth, I completely agree that extensively reared meat has relatively little impact, compared to arable farming on some of the same land. But extensively reared meat is more expensive than factory farmed, and we all expect food to be cheap. It would benefit careful farmers as well as people with a weight problem and the climate if we stuck to the same meat budgets but bought much higher welfare products. Personally I think that reducing meat in people's diets and replacing it with beans merely moves the source of methane rather than eliminating it. But I support the intention - that we should all THINK a bit about our choices and the impacts they have that we can't see.
Eating meat two or three days a week rather than 7 is not a hardship. I've done it for years. Meat - especially fast food - is a bad habit, not a farming necessity. And the climate debate cannot be considered in terms of absolutes - perfectly good or perfectly bad. It's balance of harm that has to be managed and every sensible decision has a compromise behind it.
Beautifully summarised @raisingirl. It is not about giving up, it is about moderating. If land is only suitable for pasture, then that is what it should be used for. BUT, something has to be done.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
The BBC bias is quite blatant though, I was watching the programme with an open mind the presenter wasn't doing the same.
I've heard about the same number of people say the BBC is biased against the tories as I have heard say it's biased against labour. I suppose it depends upon the perspective of the viewer.
Posts
She didn't reply!
JOKING , HONEST
That'll maybe put their gas at a peep
@Hostafan1- that just proves how woefully inadequate their understanding is of how anything works.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
It's neither preachy nor an emotional report. It's a very hard nosed document that doesn't pull its punches but which keeps well clear of handwringing or emotional blackmail. If you want to understand the issue without the overblown sentimentality then I highly recommend it, at least in its summary form, as a reliable source of information.
Even so, it makes very sobering reading - the amount of change we need to address is substantial. It makes me very sad that so many respondents have replied along the lines of 'until there's a perfect answer I'll not consider making any changes at all, however small' and/or 'if China can continue to burn coal then I can continue to do whatever I like'.
There are plenty of examples of legal/political action being taken unilaterally by a small number of countries leading multilateral action when it's shown that the arguments against action don't stand up.
For what it's worth, I completely agree that extensively reared meat has relatively little impact, compared to arable farming on some of the same land. But extensively reared meat is more expensive than factory farmed, and we all expect food to be cheap. It would benefit careful farmers as well as people with a weight problem and the climate if we stuck to the same meat budgets but bought much higher welfare products. Personally I think that reducing meat in people's diets and replacing it with beans merely moves the source of methane rather than eliminating it. But I support the intention - that we should all THINK a bit about our choices and the impacts they have that we can't see.
Eating meat two or three days a week rather than 7 is not a hardship. I've done it for years. Meat - especially fast food - is a bad habit, not a farming necessity. And the climate debate cannot be considered in terms of absolutes - perfectly good or perfectly bad. It's balance of harm that has to be managed and every sensible decision has a compromise behind it.
I'll put my soapbox away.
As you were.....
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
It is not about giving up, it is about moderating.
If land is only suitable for pasture, then that is what it should be used for.
BUT, something has to be done.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
I suppose it depends upon the perspective of the viewer.