Freelance web developer met interesse in AI, robotica, frontend en backend php development.
Al lang had ik het idee dat er weinig zekerheid was over de claims omtrent klimaatverandering. Dat de mensen een negatieve leveren middels de verhoogde CO2-uitstoot geloof ik wel, maar in welke mate dit van invloed is op de processen die in de natuur sowieso al aan de gang zijn is voor mij onduidelijk. De laatste tijd echter hoorde je veel claims over die veranderingen en wie het nuanceerde of tegensprak was simpelweg eigenwijs. Maar de trend van napraten valt me steeds meer op. Ik heb de indruk dat sinds Pim Fortuyn de trend om geluiden van onderop te volgen is ingezet. Het kuddegedrag is er meer dan voorheen. Beleid wordt gevormd door de massa in plaats van de deskundigen. De media willen er ook niet meer op afgerekend worden dat ze niet luisteren naar de stem volks en maken documentaires die aansluiten op de heersende opinie. Vooral het journaal is vertolkt vaker de mening in de samenleving dan die van de deskundigen. Deels is dat natuurlijk de bedoeling van een journaal om verslagleggend te zijn.
Nadat zelfs de grote klimaatquiz het daglicht had gezien, waarin veel antwoorden voorkwamen waarvan nog maar moet blijken of ze wel echt zo zullen uitpakken, was het eindelijk tijd voor een tegengeluid. Reporter zond de documentaire 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' uit (min of meer de tegenhanger van de film van Al Gore) en liet die volgen door een discussie met zowel deskundigen uit het ene front alsook de deskundigen uit het andere front. En dat deden ze uitermate goed, mijns inziens. Te vaak heb ik het idee dat programma's (zoals EénVandaag) een documentaire maken en er een deskundige bij zoeken die dezelfde mening nog eens verkondigd in het nagesprek.
From The Times
August 4, 2007
Walking to the shops 'damages planet more than going by car'
Dominic Kennedy
Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading
environmentalist has calculated.
Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted
providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car
would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people
avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course,
they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.
The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a
Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef
production. "Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg
[2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere," he said, a calculation based on the
Government's official fuel emission figures. "If you walked instead, it
would use about 180 calories. You'd need about 100g of beef to replace those
calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.
"The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit
more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to
save energy would be better."
Mr Goodall, Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford West & Abingdon,
is the latest serious thinker to turn popular myths about the environment on
their head.
Catching a diesel train is now twice as polluting as travelling by car for
an average family, the Rail Safety and Standards Board admitted recently.
Paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic because of the extra
energy needed to manufacture and transport them, the Government says.
Fresh research published in New Scientistlast month suggested that 1kg of
meat cost the Earth 36kg in global warming gases. The figure was based on
Japanese methods of industrial beef production but Mr Goodall says that
farming techniques are similar throughout the West.
What if, instead of beef, the walker drank a glass of milk? The average
person would need to drink 420ml - three quarters of a pint - to recover the
calories used in the walk. Modern dairy farming emits the equivalent of
1.2kg of CO2 to produce the milk, still more pollution than the car journey.
Cattle farming is notorious for its perceived damage to the environment,
based on what scientists politely call "methane production" from cows. The
gas, released during the digestive process, is 21 times more harmful than
CO2 . Organic beef is the most damaging because organic cattle emit more
methane.
Michael O'Leary, boss of the budget airline Ryanair, has been widely derided
after he was reported to have said that global warming could be solved by
massacring the world's cattle. "The way he is running around telling people
they should shoot cows," Lawrence Hunt, head of Silverjet, another budget
airline, told the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. "I do not think you
can really have debates with somebody with that mentality."
But according to Mr Goodall, Mr O'Leary may have a point. "Food is more
important [to Britain's greenhouse emissions] than aircraft but there is no
publicity," he said. "Associated British Foods isn't being questioned by MPs
about energy.
"We need to become accustomed to the idea that our food production systems
are equally damaging. As the man from Ryanair says, cows generate more
emissions than aircraft. Unfortunately, perhaps, he is right. Of course,
this doesn't mean we should always choose to use air or car travel instead
of walking. It means we need urgently to work out how to reduce the
greenhouse gas intensity of our foodstuffs."
Simply cutting out beef, or even meat, however, would be too modest a
change. The food industry is estimated to be responsible for a sixth of an
individual's carbon emissions, and Britain may be the worst culprit.
"This is not just about flying your beans from Kenya in the winter," Mr
Goodall said. "The whole system is stuffed with energy and nitrous oxide
emissions. The UK is probably the worst country in the world for this.
"We have industrialised our food production. We use an enormous amount of
processed food, like ready meals, compared to most countries. Three quarters
of supermarkets' energy is to refrigerate and freeze food prepared
elsewhere.
A chilled ready meal is a perfect example of where the energy is wasted. You
make the meal, then use an enormous amount of energy to chill it and keep it
chilled through warehousing and storage."
The ideal diet would consist of cereals and pulses. "This is a route which
virtually nobody, apart from a vegan, is going to follow," Mr Goodall said.
But there are other ways to reduce the carbon footprint. "Don't buy anything
from the supermarket," Mr Goodall said, "or anything that's travelled too
far.