AdamB: On fibre and bowel cancer. Plenty of populations with low fibre
diets also have very low bowel cancer rates, e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10235221

Fibre in European studies seems to reduce bowel cancer rates
in meat eaters, but not in US studies. US fibre tends to be from
fruit and veg and European tends to be from grains. Which kind
of explains why CSIRO is pushing a resistant starch fibre product
to undo the damage of its high meat diet. They have the
patents and they want to make money selling you the diet and the
antidote :)

The rest of the animal rights movement should take note that this way of presenting their view, will make people consider what they are saying much better that the strident, accusatory tones that it is most often delivered in.

There already exists a palpable public sensibility that many in the pro-AGW debate consider the human condition as a lower order concern than the animal/vegetable/natural world… sometimes with good reason.

While this idea circulates commonly on the internet I attach no more significance to this than any other talking point by those opposing mitigation. If one took these things at face value, one might conclude that many think that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet or that most think it has been cooling since 1998 or scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970s.

The truth of the matter is that we humans are part of a dynamic ecosystem. We mark it and it marks us. Trying to work out who or what is more valuable in a global sense is an intellectually implausible exercise. We humans, almost as soon as we had consciousness, concluded that our interests were to be preferred to every other life, and in the end, that is what is central to policy.

That said, only a fool will forget that our interests depend in significant part on maintaining the quality of the systems offering us pretty much everything we value in life. If raising livestock in commercial quantities for food subtracts from public good, then we should oppose it. If an attitude of indifference to the suffering of sensate beings harms our culture or forces cognitive dissonance and logic chopping, then we should stop being indifferent and irrational.

After all, if one may be indifferent to the suffering of a cow or a sheep or a pig, then why should one care about the suffering of a chimpanzee or a dog or a human of feeble mind, or of someone whom we don’t like or who seems to be a rival for some resource?

Being human is a package and I’d argue that part of that package is empathy. Those who lack empathy are viewed by others as sociopathic and at best, to be kept at arms’ length and viewed with suspicion. Accordingly, it seems to me that those who cannot see why the imposition of unnecessary suffering on those who can appreciate it is axiomatically a bad thing must necessarily rub shoulders, in cultural terms, with those one would deem sociopathic, however artfully they may try to distinguish their rationale for such dealing from those of people who are regarded as sociopathic.

All of us are entitled to attempt to sustain our lives and to live as well as we can and to avoid misery, whatever that means, constrained in our conduct only by the recognition that every other person also has that right. And while, when the choice is forced, we may prefer animal suffering to human suffering, it is incumbent on us I believe to ensure that that choice is indeed forced rather than a false dilemma.

The fact remains that one can live very well without eating meat, and in many cases, if other forms of protein were substituted, those denied would live better and suffer less. And we now know that the industrial production of meat has a massive ecological footprint which is harming the prospects of our species even more. That the cruelty we have inflicted on animals is harming us both immediately and in the longer term in approximate proportion to the scale of the imposition urges a very clear conclusion, in my opinion.

I would call that an excellent solution. In fact with a little tweaking on the particulars of the net public goods with which it would endow us, I would call that nuclear power.

Certainly, nuclear power would be the ideal energy source to underpin a largely grid-demanding transport system, but getting people out of their cars and into mass public transport is what delivers the other associated public goods in the short term — the decline in RTAs and associated human and other costs.

If just 10% of people now commuting in their cars felt using public transport was feasible and arranged themselves to act upon it, then not only would those left on the road emit less but 100% of the travellers would be somewhat more than 10% safer from having a collision and the associated costs. That benefit is one we wouldn’t have to wait for — we get it straight away and for nearly zero marginal cost — perhaps some extra buses or train services.

In practice, we are going to have to improve public transport infrastructure to deliver that, but that’s something that can be done on a 5-7 year timeline rather than one in decades. Low hanging fruit IMO

Ladies and gentlemen, plain and simple… there is no “soy” or “gluten” substitute for that! Who are you trying to kid? C’mon…

With characteristic economy and pith, Finrod said it best, “If you want to effect lasting behavioural change, you need to work with human desires, not against them.”

Truer words were never spoken. They highlight another pitfall associated with this line of attack. There already exists a palpable public sensibility that many in the pro-AGW debate consider the human condition as a lower order concern than the animal/vegetable/natural world… sometimes with good reason. Rightly or wrongly, this line of reasoning feeds that frame of mind and runs the risk of alienating more folks than it would recruit.

Not to worry though… I doubt it will be adopted as the driving theme of this site, and it does bring up some interesting facts. As part of the larger narrative, to my mind the most persuasive part of the argument has to do with habitat destruction. Of course, as the unrepentant carnivore that I am, it only leads me to the “frankenmeat” and/or even more highly industrialized and condensed animal raising solutions.

John Rogers

When I see a statement like this-

“If you can get people onto public transport by making said transport much more comfortable and practical…”

I don’t see an easy fix solution (which is essentially what I take “low hanging fruit” to mean). Making public transport more comfortable will also make it more expensive. The incentive thereby creating a disincentive. Making it more practical involves a complete overhaul in both our public transport system and in the design of our cities and suburbs. I would like to see that happen. I just don’t consider it low hanging fruit.

If – as one of your previous posts suggests – your definition is this -

“If you by low-hanging fruit you mean something that requires no new technological breakthroughs and which has excellent EROEI, high net public goods and which, because it reaches far beyond mere CO2 abatement into imporved housing and amenity, reductions in road trauma and per capita cuts in high cost health spending has low program specific expenditure, then I would certainly regard it as such.”

I would call that an excellent solution. In fact with a little tweaking on the particulars of the net public goods with which it would endow us, I would call that nuclear power.

I find your definition too broad.

The problem here, in it’s entirety, I believe, can be summed up as follows: it is not animal protien consumption, GHG, peak soil / oil / ground water / whatever, ocean acidification etc that is the problem.

It’s is that there is too many of us and no ones carescc

Seriously. To be able to concern ones self with such things as we do here is a prerogative of the privelidge.

If we don’t address population control we’re going to very quickly exhaust this planets resources even if we do prevent catastrophic climate change.

However, offering a choice between two comparable products, in this case a synthetic meat, with a suitably snotty name, (CardioChoice or something along those lines) and ‘regular,’ even if the former has a slight premium in price, is likely to be successful.

BTW, when you say ‘you don’t have to school me’ I hope it was not because you read insult into my remarks as that was not my intention. English is not my mother tongue, and I have been told that I have not mastered the imperative mood in English such that I can use it with subtlety, and sometimes I unintentionally offend.

Warning: Viewing is not recommended for the faint-hearted:

http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/undercover-investigation-shows-the-horrors-of-the-pork-industry/

“.. any attempt to impose economic sanctions will only serve to make meat a luxury item, and that will do nothing in the way of garnering public support”

that that is the basic aim of any attempt to price in emissions costs (whether as a carbon tax, cap and trade, fee and dividend, or whatever), in respect of any carbon intensive product. The clear intent is to place an economic signal on such products. I don’t see why we should exempt agriculture from this process given the size of the impact of that sector. It will hurt, but thats the point, whether its meat, petrol or lightbulbs.

If you can get people onto public transport by making said transport much more comfortable and practical so that people don’t feel they need their cars as much, when people have got to the average five-year turnover time, and have paid off their cars, some will sell them or not buy another one and keep the car simply for those journeys that aren’t practical.

That means that the lead time to lower emissions is five years, and it costs the public pretty much zero — in fact they will actually be ahead in many cases when you consider foreclosed depeciation, interest, recurrent maintenance, parking, fines, fuel etc. Even more if they give up the car or their car is part of their salary package.

That’s low-hanging fruit, surely.

However, products can succeed where they offer a recognizable consumer benefit, which usually means an improvement in value, convenience, or some functional or emotional attribute. And behaviour can also change, if it optimizes these same dimensions (and I gave a relevant example). The suggestions I made were consistent with this basic model of consumer benefit and behavioural change.

The shopping centre of course only needs to reach threshhold profitablilty.

Marion: I spent July in 2003 cycling around Switzerland (yes, the hottest
summer on record!). Pull up at a supermarket in the smaller
places and there would be 100 bikes and 20 cars. Bikes with trailers,
panniers and baskets … and there are just a few little hills in
Switzerland :). Adelaide is pretty flat but the supermarkets are surrounded
by cars. The Swiss have about double the number
of supermarkets per capita … ie., more small supermarkets with smaller
travel distances. They also had about half the per capita number of
McDonalds.

I wrote to Jane Lomax-Smith here on her plan to replace lots of small
schools with a few big schools. This means more people have to travel
longer distances. Fewer kids can walk so there are both health and energy implications. In effect, it shifts the transport cost onto the consumer
from the producer (in this case the Dept of Education), which is exactly
what big shopping malls do. The producers deliver to fewer shops but
the consumers all travel further. Getting rid of this counter productive
arrangement isn’t exactly low hanging fruit, but we can at least legislate
to prevent it getting worse, by, for example, setting a maximum size limit
on shopping centers/ car parks etc.

“If, as most contributors here accept, one agrees that nuclear power is a key technology for reducing the footprint of stationary power production, then placing as much of the transport energy demand onto the stationary grid AND reducing the per capita energy demand in transport and in housing makes good sense. That’s low hanging fruit, surely.”

It does make good sense Jade, but it’s not low hanging fruit. I’m begining to think there is really no such thing as low hanging fruit. Any effective strategy will take time and money to implement. Any strategy that doesn’t, usually involves brow beating people into changing the way they live, without much thought as to how we are going to enable/force people – enough people – to do that.

Restructuring society may be necessary, even desirable, but lets not pretend it’s going to be easier or cheaper than replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power.

If by low-hanging fruit you mean sometjhing that could be instituted on a mass scale tomorrow or next year, then I’d agree. There would be a lead time in decades to do this sort of reconfiguration at acceptable cost and with political consent.

If you by low-hanging fruit you mean something that requires no new technological breakthroughs and which has excellent EROEI, high net public goods and which, because it reaches far beyond mere CO2 abatement into imporved housing and amenity, reductions in road trauma and per capita cuts in high cost health spending has low program specific expenditure, then I would certainly regard it as such.

If, as most contributors here accept, one agrees that nuclear power is a key technology for reducing the footprint of stationary power production, then placing as much of the transport energy demand onto the stationary grid AND reducing the per capita energy demand in transport and in housing makes good sense. That’s low hanging fruit, surely.

I also worry that any attempt to impose economic sanctions will only serve to make meat a luxury item, and that will do nothing in the way of garnering public support.

______________________________________________________________

Obviously any narrow approach to climate change relief is foolish, and certainly it is imperative that those of us with concerns stay abreast of all related activities. Thus I would not be happy if this blog only focused on the nuclear option. Having said that I am leery of those who would try and leverage the climate issue to push other non-related agendas. In this case it is rather transparent that some commenters are more concerned with animal welfare, and maintaining ecological diversity than the climate impacts of meat production, and while these may be laudable in their own right, I would not like to see the thrust of the discussions get too broad ether.

At least in this context we must explore things like genetic modification of both the animals and their feed, along with things like looking at other species, like insects, and earthworms as feedstock for processed meats. This along with the aforementioned in vitro, and substitution technologies, all of which are being worked on. We also must be prepared to integrate these into any education/awareness campaign that might be launched.

On the nuclear side I am wary of any claims of some one-type-does-all reactor design, so on this side I will also want to see many different solutions being put forward as well.