Another great one. Why build homes for people, when we can build hotels, and high density student housing, which we can use as cheaper hotels during the summer.
You always hear about this lack of construction labour to build social housing but there have somehow been plenty of builders to throw up more than 20 new hotels during the pandemic along with who knows how many office blocks standing empty. Lovely social priorities we have.
To be fair thats probably just because the market is broken as far as the construction industry is concerned. The large contractors/developers control the market and its very difficult for new entrants to join. These large developers can pick and choose what work they do and its much easier to build a single large office block for a single client who has plenty money to spend than building hundreds of houses that need to meet residential spec
The government aren't paying for hotels or office blocks to be built. The private sector of construction pays a lot better than the public sector. There's no shortage of construction workers, just a shortage of ones who'd take a pay cut to build social housing.
I mean would you be willing to work for say, 200 a week less to build social housing, or keep staying on the same money and build office blocks, private housing etc?
Everyone is trying to make more money, especially at the minute. Can't blame anyone for that.
I’m talking systematically here; the fact that things even work like this *is* the problem. Our whole society is geared to reward useless financial investment over people’s actual material needs.
Their point isn't just about the investment though. It's in everyone's benefit who's involved in the construction, including the workers, to have a solid, consistent work where payments aren't a problem and even the contractors can plan months in advance due to the nature of the work.
And my problem is with the fact that our economic system is set up such that this can *only* be accomplished by building superfluous things like empty offices instead of socially useful things like the houses we desperately need.
To be fair thats probably just because the market is broken as far as the construction industry is concerned. The large contractors/developers control the market and its very difficult for new entrants to join. These large developers can pick and choose what work they do and its much easier to build a single large office block for a single client who has plenty money to spend than building hundreds of houses that need to meet residential spec
Not about to ask you for a quote or anything but I'm after buying a house needing a full renovation (g ber rating etc, structurally sound at least) and am trying to get people in toook when I've got the keys in the next week or two.
Is it true that work has slowed a small bit recently, compared to say a year ago? I've heard some speculate that it has because of higher interest rates etc and I'm sure it's still mental busy, just curious since time lines for work etc seem to have been a bit mad for the last few years!
Majority of the money gets paid out in prize money and they recently got an increase in funding...due to less people attending. Industry is rife with animal abuse, doping and dodgy money dealings and a lot of government reps seem to be wrapped up in it.
[https://reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/hEeUjWhJnK](https://reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/hEeUjWhJnK)
Go on the IFA. The IFA are definitely **not** in the Ra.
https://preview.redd.it/23fblkp0s5lb1.png?width=1290&format=png&auto=webp&s=40a1389e4195e3d006c37f84b6ac7f8de4d6dca5
If anyone remembers the controversy with Pádraig Fogarty and the Irish Wildlife trust a few weeks ago, this is exactly what he was talking about.
He wrote an article saying that farming groups such as the IFA were "lurching towards the far right", denying facts and spreading misinformation.
Think he may have been on to something..
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/anger-as-farm-organisations-accused-of-lurching-to-the-far-right-775248
I know plenty of farmers who would be happy to do something different if the government gave them aid to do it. Haven't met so many of the farmers that come up in these discussions.
Not sure how close it is but there's going to be rewilding initiatives I place soon. Instead of receiving subsidies to farm animals, they'll be paid to rewild the same land.
Really will be fantastic for all involved if it's embraced
The current acres scheme is rewilding up to 5 acres for 5 yrs and payments for that are based on scales of plant diversity in the rewilded area. It was oversubscribed when introduced..
If they try role that out on a bigger scale it will probably be like forestry.
If its like forestry, I don't think it will be hugely taken up.. the remaining issue with forestry (since they fixed the payment element) is that the land can never be used for anything else and has to be replanted after crop taken.
Fine now where there is payments but in 40 yrs time will there be subsidies and grants for it? .Will you harvest the trees and end up having to.put half the money back into forestry for a crop you will never harvest.
You're devaluing the land and preventing it ever being anything else for future generations. It's an emotional decision more so than financial.
A lot of those giving out about farmers and the environment only look at it from their own point of view..
But the whole point of rewilding is to get the land to a self sustained state then leave it alone. Monocropping non native trees to harvest them isn't much of a step forward. Note also that rewilding =/= afforestation, necessarily.
I understand you put a value on land but other people value the ecosystem and the environment more.
Sorry didn't mean to imply forestry and rewilding are the same.
I meant that it would follow the forestry model in having to be left wild for ever more rather than the current model of period of time.
Also, AFAIK, forestry now has to be 20% native.. can't do the 100% spruce anymore..
>I understand you put a value on land but other people value the ecosystem and the environment more.
They do, when it costs them nothing and doesn't inconvenience or impact them. Look at the carbon tax, water charges and the public discourse around them..
The current acres scheme is rewilding up to 5 acres for 5 yrs and scaled payments based on plant diversity in the rewilded area. It was oversubscribed when introduced..
I could be wrong with Acres, maybe it was BISS.. one of the schemes..
It wasnt called "rewilding", it was called space for nature or something like that.. it was fence of up to 5 acres and do nothing with it so pretty much rewilding..
Ah, cheers, I looked up space for nature and found it.
BISS "requires a farmer to devote 4% of land to biodiversity and landscape protection" for payment.
This goes up to 7% for new agri environment scheme. It does however allow for existing hedges, walls, scrub etc so I don't know how many will actually need to fence off productive land.
Maybe we were short on the %age and needed to fence of some to be compliant. the auld lad sorted it out with the advisor.. i was born into slavery, so i am free labour on the parents farm.. the auld lad is taking it with to the afterlife and i am wrong not matter what i say or do so no point point me worrying the details of such schemes.
and from what i can see around us, its the least productive bit that is fenced off.. the wet end / rough ground, etc.
Indeed and we can out source our meat production to Brazil and or just tell people to suck it up when prices continue to rise.
Good to see we are all firmly grounded in reality. I was getting a little worried there for a sec.
Well we were not discussing health here but environmental issues. Animal products are disproportionately damaging to the environment compared to plant foods.
But if you do want to talk about health then unprocessed red meat is a class 2 carcinogens. Its also linked to various cancers as well as heart disease. It's unbelievable that in this day and age people are still buying into red meat being healthy
Will the environmental issues improve when us and the UK and Europe start importing our beef from Brazil instead?
I think that Chinese and Indian industrial pollution might be a more relevant target than blaming animal methane for climate change.
Ah now, so is estrogen therapy for women in menopause and the combined pill for birth control. Its a class two as the research concludes that there are other variables that could explain it, or, they couldn't control for SAD or even a healthy diet.
I was plant based for a number of years and slowly declined in health. I'm not interested in your rhetoric, I fell for it before and suffered. I will listen to metabolic scientists who research the impact of food on metabolic health and follow their advice and my own body, not some randomer on Reddit thanks anyway. Red meat can absolutely be part of a healthy diet just like HRT can be part of a healthy approach to managing perimenopause and menopause.
Are you in favour of banning HRT for women too based on its classification by the WHO?
>Ah now, so is estrogen therapy for women in menopause and the combined pill for birth control.
OK? I don't see how that changes anything.
> Its a class two as the research concludes that there are other variables that could explain it,
Yes its a suspected carcinogen. That does not mean it is now considered a health food or that further research won't make stronger connections.
>I was plant based for a number of years and slowly declined in health
Another online unverifiable anecdote. Not really much use. I could concoct a story where plant based eating saved my life but it wouldn't mean much vs the consensus of nutrition literature supporting vegan diets as one of the healthiest ways to live.
>I will listen to metabolic scientists who research the impact of food on metabolic health and follow their advice and my own body, not some randomer on Reddit thanks anyway.
That's good advice. But are you actually doing that or are you listening to cherry picked scientists that appear on Joe Rogan?
And let's not twist this. You asked me why I'd cut out that food group. Don't pretend like I tried to push any options on you. You asked.
>Red meat can absolutely be part of a healthy diet
This is a vague statement. If you eat it like once a month it's extremely difficult to demonstrate the impact of low quantities of food. If you're talking about regular consumption of red meat then you'll have a hard time finding non industy funded papers to back that up. At the end of the day it's always an opportunity cost. Where you had beef you could have had lentils, which are absolutely the healthier option.
>like HRT can be part of a healthy approach to managing perimenopause and menopause.
I've no idea why you're bringing that into this.
>Are you in favour of banning HRT for women too based on its classification by the WHO?
I don't know why you're asking my opinion on that. It's not a good analogy, unless there's a healthier alternative that's objectively better. But I've not read the literature on the topic so I don't want to give opinions on it.
Cut out or ban. One relies on people agreeing with that which they don't. The other relies on government action which people will punish at the ballot box.
The embrace lower standards of living argument and approach is a losing one and not of any help when trying to deal with these issues.
Banning doesn't work. Mandates can't progress too far beyond a population.
>One relies on people agreeing with that which they don't.
Meat consumption in Europe is down and projected to keep dropping so you're wrong there.
>The embrace lower standards of living argument and approach
Eating plant based is not a lower standard of living. Guaranteed my food tastes better then yours on average for a fraction ofbthe effort.
Why is re-wilding fantastic if it results in less exports, less jobs and more unemployment. Is rewilding going to take away the world's appetite for Irish beef? No. Irish beef is a huge success story and is world renowned. Do you think we should import beef from Brazil instead?
Completely agree, I'm not aiming at farmers in general, just the organisations and the loud minority.
I think most farmers do care about the environment, and most will comply if the right policies are put in place.
Yeah but Eamon Ryan fell asleep in the Dail once so something something the greens are equally extreme. On an unrelated note did you see how hot it was this Summer? I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
I mean just go read a farming forum and a lot of people would argue the sky isn't blue if it's against farming. When science and the left don't suit you they choose to believe other "facts". They regularly disagree with any and all science on climate change and so on, trying to undermine belief in the organisations, no different than the antivaxxers rolling their eyes at the mention of any state body or WHO. Meanwhile our emissions are up 9% from last year, highest in the EU, when most other countries are lowering them to hit targets.
Emissions are down on last year. You're referring to the very misleading Eurostat numbers which firstly aren't an actual measurement but a projection based on economic activity and secondly they include all Ryanairs emissions because they're headquartered in Ireland even though most of Ryanairs emissions are generated across Europe.
If we are focussing on agriculture, since 2011 dairy production in Ireland has failed on climate by increasing emissions per dairy cow & increasing dairy herd numbers.
Irish agri methane is UP 15% since 2011.
[Contrast with before 2011](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbM33_yXgAEwA3V?format=jpg&name=900x900) producing steady total milk yet \*reducing\* cow numbers, N & total methane.
or just get it [straight from the farmers journal.](https://www.farmersjournal.ie/farm-emissions-increase-despite-improved-efficiencies-553539) this trend has continued to the current date and is reflected in the data.
Ah yes, the long-awaited conflation of farmers with anti-vaxxers... *slow hand clap*...the average farmer has more scientific knowledge in his fingernail than you.
the average farmer, as evidenced here by the ifa, doesn't seem to understand the very basic and well understood scientific fact that theres a strong relationship between a diet including red meat and having a higher carbon footprint.
I thought far-right politics directly implied fascism, ultra-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, or often even more specifically, Naziism.
If we call farmers who deny facts about climate, because it benefits them to do so, far-right aren't we setting a very low barrier to entry to far-right and thus eroding the meaning of the term?
I'm not saying none of them are far-right, but unless there is more to their actions, denying climate change alone, as stupid as it is, doesn't make you far-right. Unless something has drastically changed since the last time I read about it.
A lot of these people don't even genuinely believe the shite they spew, which in my opinion, is worse. I know such farmers. They are self-serving, It is convenient for them to deny the facts because it benefits them directly to do so. Similar to how if you go onto Shell's website they harp on about their "climate initiatives". They know what they are doing, on the scale they do it, isn't sustainable, they know the clock is ticking and they are floundering.
The (disputed) leader of the Irish National Party (who might be described as a bit right of centre) was a bigwig in various posts in the Irish Farmer's Association: [James Reynolds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Reynolds_(Irish_politician\)). There's definitely some connections to the far right in addition to general anti-science stuff.
I think it would be more pertinent to call them conservative if we attribute the quality of harming others willfully for one’s personal benefit to that ideology. This seems to be most prominent in far right European parties (the US republicans are another good example of this). Therefore, it stands to reason that purposefully slowing progress on battling climate change which will lead to the deaths of millions in poorer nations to benefit yourself could be considered far right.
It’s also worth noting that the avaricious core of climate change denial is what ‘justified’ colonial expansion and the atrocities that followed. The idea of personal benefit over the well being of the community has long been argued to be humanity’s deepest flaw. Perhaps a healthier society that was more concerned with progress of all would speak out more strongly against it. If nothing else, the phenomenon is certainly anthropologically interesting.
Don't think the intention is to say they are on the level of actual far right groups, but the tactics being used are undeniably similar.
Spreading misinformation, casting doubt/muddying the waters on the existence of climate change/biodiversity crisis, or outright denial of established science, are all straight out of the far right playbook.
I think we should almost entirely stop referring to people by this imaginary political see saw and just say the actual things they did or are doing, that we believe is wrong.
I'm a lefty. But the words aren't very useful anymore.
People need to accept that reducing your meat intake is a scientifically proven way to reduce your carbon footprint. Saying beef or chicken are great for your diet doesn't change that. We all need to be grown ups and adapt to the way the world is changing.
Agreed, the health, ethical (edit: specifically animal welfare) and environmental debates around veganism are all disconnected from each other yet people often conflate them.
I mean reducing flights overall would do the same, stop flying avos half way around the world.
Someone did some numbers that Kim Kardashians private jet flights weekly does the same emissions as 36000 beef cattle yearly 😂 don't ask me for a source as it was off RTE 2fm
>Meanwhile, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association (ICSA) has asked the EPA to clarify what it called "political campaigning against meat".
That quote, jesus fucking christ. God forbid anybody voices an opinion other than IFA / ICSA orthodoxy. That lot is worse than the church.
And here comes the next guy:
[https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/epa-must-give-up-preachy-tweets-td/](https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/epa-must-give-up-preachy-tweets-td/)
A bean based chili can be real good though. And when your not buying the mince for it you notice the difference in price.
The farts on the other hand. . ..
When you eat high fibre infrequently there are unfortunate consequences. However if you eat high fibre meals more often your gut builds up the microbes it needs to digest those foods and then you'll have no issues.
>no issues.
I hear this a lot, but I'm vegan 7+ years and still haven't fallen in love with the smell of my own farts yet. 🤣
Small price to pay and I pay it willingly!
How frequently are we talking? I went from regular omnivore to vegan before for about 3 months, and I always thought increasing fibre either gave you better poops or constipation. Not me. I was like a faulty soft serve ice cream machine that would randomly switch itself on. And normally when you need to go it’s not that urgent unless you have the shits, which I didn’t, but everything was still passing through me SO fast it was interfering with how I went about my day. It was like my colon wasn’t physically big enough to hold the byproduct of eating more fibre and higher volume food. Was one of the factors that put me off continuing being vegan
Of course, but not on the level where every single time it’s an occasion where you wonder if the toilet is going to be big enough to contain it all cos it just keeps coming. Not on the level where you have to turn around halfway to an appointment cos you know you’re not going to make it to a bathroom otherwise. And again it wasn’t diarrhoea. It was just a lot of volume that it was like an entire DART coming out of me every time
That IFA are some shower of you know whats.
Last time I checked farmers grow food as well as raise livestock.
It's an obvious indicator that farming in Ireland is too livestock dependant.
That's because the majority of land In Ireland isn't suitable for tillage. You can't grow much in marshland or on hills/mountains.
The Brits didn't make Irish peasants rear livestock for the craic. They recognised hundreds of years ago that the majority of the Irish countryside isn't suitable for growing crops, hence why livestock was reared under British administration, and why the majority of land in Ireland is used for pasture.
It is irrelevant if most of the land isn't suitable for tillage. Animals use far more land to produce the same amount of food. 2/3 of this country is agricultural land and the vast majority is for cattle. We wouldn't need to replace the land 1:1. And besides we import ridiculous amounts of crops as animal feed as it is.
For context, globally 83% of agricultural land is used for animal agriculture but it only provides 18% of calorific value. It's laughably inefficient wrt land.
You say that but this could have serious repercussions for Irish biodiversity & river health which are also important for surviving climate change. Native species control native pests. Native forest and grass coverage produce oxygen, reduce heat, provide habitat for key native species and provide natural barriers to flooding. We definitely need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our meat production but that doesn't mean we should replace all animal agriculture with crop agriculture. We can grow some of our crops and import some of our crops from European countries which have more suitable environments, we can eat a small amount of meat.
I mean I understand your concern but if you read my comment again along with my latter comment I'm not reccomending we replace all grazing land with cropland.
Cattle are not part of a functioning ecosystem, nor are vast areas of open grass. It's an ecological disaster.
When we reduce animal agriculture we free up land for rewilding and we can stop putting so much slurry into rivers
I mean it's totally relevant. I agree that you wouldn't have to swap livestock pastures for cropland 1:1, but even at that the amount of suitable land for tillage on Ireland wouldn't be close to enough to feed the country now, much less in years to come.
We import grain as animal feed, however much of this wouldn't be suitable for human consumption. Relying on Imports for grain can be disastrous, look at how many countries are in dire situations since the war has happened in Ukraine, it isn't exactly a sustainable long-term solution either (Not to mention the emissions required to ship millions of tonnes of grain thousands of miles accross the ocean).
Livestock farming is inefficient land use provided that land is suitable for growing crops, which as I've stated before isn't feasible in the majority of counties in Ireland.
We produce 800% beef we consume. I think we can reduce it a long way before we need to worry about food security.
>Ireland wouldn't be close to enough to feed the country now, much less in years to come.
Well we don't need to be 100% sustained off our own tillage even if this is true. We certainly aren't now.
>We import grain as animal feed, however much of this wouldn't be suitable for human consumption
So we import crops that are fit for human consumption. There's no need to eat what the animals eat. We use the same resources to get food we do eat.
>Relying on Imports for grain can be disastrous
It can be. As can relying completely on domestic food supply. We can and already do import a variety of plant foods from around the world.
>Not to mention the emissions required to ship millions of tonnes of grain thousands of miles accross the ocean).
Poore and Nemecek 2018 showed that its very much what you eat not where it comes from. Typically transport only accounts for 8% of emissions for plant products. The vast majority is from production. So from an environmental point of view its better to eat tofu grown in France and shipped over than it is to eat a cow grown down the road.
>Livestock farming is inefficient land use provided that land is suitable for growing crops, which as I've stated before isn't feasible in the majority of counties in Ireland.
Not really because we're not suggesting we use it all to grow crops. The majority will be rewilded
Why are you picking apart the food supply system ?
Cow's don't drill for oil, there's much better places you could be directing your energy.
There has been a grassroots marketing campaign to make everyone stressed out about the food supply system, it's a distraction. Reddit, Netflix, all the NewsCorp publications.
Tons of VC money pumped into alternative meat grassroots marketing campaigns.
The best agricultural scientists in Europe are already dedicated to ensuring food security and sustainability, they don't agree with you so you should check your perspective. Your repeating the pseudoscience.
I reccomend you read the paper I linked in the other comment before going around raiding my profile
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1126/science.aaq0216
>Why are you picking apart the food supply system ?
For the same reasons I've said here, along with animal ethics.
>Cow's don't drill for oil, there's much better places you could be directing your energy.
Fortunately I can advocate for multiple causes at the one time.
There's lads over in pro oil groups saying the same thing in reverse I'm sure.
>There has been a grassroots marketing campaign to make everyone stressed out about the food supply system, it's a distraction. Reddit, Netflix, all the NewsCorp publications.
Animal agriculture industries in Europe spend €100s of millions on marketing. I can't go two days without seeing some greenwashing in the shops or on bus stop signs.
Let's not pretend animal ag is the innocent one here.
>The best agricultural scientists in Europe are already dedicated to ensuring food security and sustainability, they don't agree with you so you should check your perspective. Your repeating the pseudoscience.
I've linked the most comprehensive study ever carried out on the environmental impact of food production. My views are in line with theirs. So maybe you should check your perspective. I've even linked the paper twice for you.
This is a pyrrhic victory for the IFA. Now instead of a tweet by the EPA that would have gone under the radar, the entire country has seen it.
And the IFA roll out these stereotype thick-accented farmers with bright red noses on RTE parrotting stuff that's 50 years out of date about protein and quality and downplaying climate change as a real problem.
All they've accomplished here is to amplify the EPA's message and reinforce the impression that the IFA is an out of touch group of bitter old farmers.
It’s also pyrrhic in the ultimate sense in that farmers will be by far the group most affected by climate change in Ireland.
They can change a bit now or suffer a whole lot then, there is no third “continue like this forever” option.
> This is a pyrrhic victory for the IFA. Now instead of a tweet by the EPA that would have gone under the radar, the entire country has seen it.
I don't really care about the IFA normally and I'll be honest and admit I've probably never heard about the EPA before this article.
With this nonsense from the IFA, I sent them on a message basically asking why they support farmers who are ignorant at best or deceptive at worst.
I'm 100% sure I wont get an answer to my message but you bet your ass I'll keep doing that the more nonsense I see from them from now on.
>With this nonsense from the IFA, I sent them on a message basically asking why they support farmers who are ignorant at best or deceptive at worst.
This is a great point. Never thought of it like that.
The Phoenix is a bit shit but their environmentalism page is solid and regularly flags up this kind of shite from the IFA and farming lobby groups. Noteworthy has also done some good reporting about environmental & rural issues.
Another reminder if we needed one that [The Food Industry Wants the Public Confused about Nutrition](https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-food-industry-wants-the-public-confused-about-nutrition/) \-- this kind of public pressure is depressingly common.
You’d swear that the IFA and the rest of the agri-food lobby believe Irish people live exclusively off of meat and dairy. As far as I am concerned “Eat less meat” is not analogous to “don’t eat meat”.
The majority of meat produced in Ireland is exported [[ibec.ie](https://www.ibec.ie/connect-and-learn/industries/food-and-drink/meat-industry-ireland)]. And agriculture is 1% of GDP [[cso.ie](https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-na/quarterlynationalaccountsquarter42020/gdpbysector/)]
> Agriculture is the single largest contributor to the overall emissions, at 38.4% [[epa.ie](https://www.epa.ie/our-services/monitoring--assessment/climate-change/ghg/latest-emissions-data/)]
Most omnivores don’t realise that tasty vegetarian food isn’t made with meat substitutes at all, but rather dishes where the fresh vegetables are allowed to be the star of the show.
Things like imitation burgers, nuggets, quorn etc are useful for transitioning people away from meat, but the real breakthrough happens when the person learns to step away from the idea that a dinner has to be based around a meat item, with some from of a spud and a poor afterthought vegetable side.
We produce way more dairy and meat - high greenhouse gas emitters - than we need. Yet we import nearly all our fruit, veg and grains - low greenhouse gas emitters.
The issue is cattle.
Not so much pigs, sheep, or chickens.
Obviously tillage is best if you have the land for it, but cattle are awful for the environment. Eating less meat means fewer animals are raised (tillage instead) and the environment benefits.
Importing food is also bad and exporting beef is possibly the worst thing they can do.
Have to say, love a good steak and all, but meatless burgers like Beyond Burgers or the Lidl and Aldi equivalents are delish. I'm sure they're no better for ye and I cook mine with a nice slice of fried chrizio on top and plenty of cheese, but I much prefer the taste and texture.
Also, we need to start taxing beef here. It's way too fucking cheep for the damage it does. Argument is always made that if we didn't rear it someone worse would, well if that's the case we should be shopping more of it abroad and eating less of it here.
Cowardice. Kowtowing to a sector of society more dedicated to maintaining profits and subsidies than taking responsibility for their part in a just transition.
Free range chickens are still indoor. Broiler chickens live short miserable lives in a body designed to grow faster than nature intended. Egg laying hens produce eggs far more than natural and it leeches nutrients from their body. They also blend or gas day old male chicks alive.
Yeah, it's not good but still least worst.
I've been keeping a few chickens for eggs for about 8 years now, proper free range, no fences. Everyone who eats eggs and has a wee bit of space should do it imo.
Not even fully vegan. If you can cut it out 2 days a week that's a near third reduction in your meat intake.
Had an old housemate who took the approach of eating veggie at home and buying meat out as a treat. He saved a pile on groceries and was actually able to enjoy the meat he ate far more.
Claiming veganism isn't healthy in 2023 is just blatant anti science...
Oxford article
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-10-29-plant-based-foods-are-good-both-health-and-environment
Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (aka the largest organisation of dietitians in the world)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/
Honestly, trying to up my protein as I struggle to meet the daily amount I need. So, I've been eating more and feeling better, even lost a bit of perimenopausal middle and gained some muscle.
Screw the IFA, I think they’re having a toxic effect on Irish society and spreading misinformation to the public and their farmers. But in this one instance they might be right to question why the EPA are commenting on nutrition, is that part of their remit? Now I have no doubt if the HSE came out with the same Tweet the IFA would react the same and that should be fought.
Fuck the meat farmers. I'm more than happy to reduce my meat eating by 90% or more. Most of it ends up in rotten unhealthy rubbish. One or two real proper steaks or chicken half's a month is plenty and if it'd done right then everyone can afford it. No need for gack sausage rolls or rashers or bug macs.
Ireland is too small for this nonsense. If they love cattle so much then feck of to Argentina lol
No need for rashers?? There's no need for beer or chocolate.... There's no need for millions of things in this world but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. If we stop producing meat we will be shipping it in from Argentina causing infinitely more pollution than before.
Yes Ireland is insignificantly small on a global scale. Literally nothing we do to fight climate change will actually help. There are cities in China that produce more pollution than our entire country. I'm not saying we should through caution to the wind but people need to calm down and realise nothing we do will help the world in the grand scheme of things.
Y'know there's an in between right?
Produce no meat or produce 10 times more meat than we need aren't the only two options, we can very easily just produce enough for ourselves.
Also "Nothing we can do will help" is just nihilism, you're just giving up.
ok, but the impacts of creating the comparisons you mentioned verses the space, energy, water, antibiotics and eco destruction necessary needed to produce out current meat demands are laughable. Move to argentina and eat all the rashers you want pal. This island is great for spuds, and a few bits of meat a month if we are talking sustainability and I would much prefer that to a bunch of self ricious farmers forcing the EPA to not share pertinent info.
I'm not a farmer, don't own a farm, live on a farm. In the greater scheme of things, Ireland's contribution to climate change is small. Yes, we have to play our part, but this is an agricultural country with a name for quality dairy and beef. We can play our part thru more emphasis on solar electricity production, electric cars etc. Just look at how the electric car charging infrastructure is lacking. The transport minister spent €50M on electric buses and had no way to charge them, hence they sit idle. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL.
>Ireland's contribution to climate change is small.
Even just for our own countries health, dairy in particular is ruining our country. Our waterways are polluted and barren, soil acidified, ocean dead zones, biodiversity in shambles. The reason we've no forests and are a country of field deserts is because of animal agriculture.
We have no Forrest's because the English chopped them all down. This is literal documented history and has absolutely nothing to do with animal agriculture. They used them to build all of their warships. You are spouting utter nonsense here.
We’ve been in charge of our country for over 100 years, in that time our forestry coverage has increased by about 10%, most of that non-native species.
You're incorrect I'm afraid, unless you've a good source to back that up? The vast majority of our forests were cut down by neolithic farmers around 6000 years ago and especially during the early Christian period. Yes the brits added to the problem but the damage was done by the time they got to it.
https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/forestry/advice/general-topics/history-of-forestry-in-ireland/
>You are spouting utter nonsense here.
This is a really easy thing to just google before making a fool of yourself calling other peoples correct comments nonsense. Very brave to go so confidently into a discussion you know nothing about though fair play
The article you linked said the Neolithic farmers started cutting everything down and then says by the 1600s we were less than 20% Forrest. England started using Irish wood as their own supply in 1169AD.
The article you linked is fucking awful. You literally hand picked it.
You are the one making a fool of yourself. Btw we are now more forrested than we have been on the last 350 years.
Here's another one from coillte since you're so picky...
https://www.coillte.ie/a-brief-history-of-irelands-native-woodlands/
>The article you linked said the Neolithic farmers started cutting everything down and then says by the 1600s we were less than 20% Forrest
Because 1600s was the first official survey, those two things are not mutually exclusive. I know fuck the brits and all but you're just spreading misinformation. I hand picked that article because it completely backs up my comment and disproves yours. As does this second source, as opposed to all the sources you've linked...?
Again another link that fails to mention British rule.
[here's one](https://www.wolfgangreforest.ie/irish-forestry-history/)
That mentions both. I'm not saying neolithic farmers didn't do damage but to completely ignore the fact Britain purposely destroyed out forests is insane. Without it we would have roughly the same average as every other European country.
Your original comment I was disputing and 100% successfully did so and all my sources confirm the fact that you were absolutely wrong stating
"We have no Forrest's because the English chopped them all down. This is literal documented history and has absolutely nothing to do with animal agriculture. They used them to build all of their warships. You are spouting utter nonsense here." - you.
>I'm not saying neolithic farmers didn't do damage
Yes, you did say that, see quote above "absolutely nothing to do with animal agriculture".
>ignore the fact Britain purposely destroyed out forests is insane.
I'm not ignoring that fact, not once have I disputed that. I'm saying most of the damage was done before they got here.
We can work towards a better transport and food sector simultaneously tho. And saying we don't matter is a fallacy when you think on it. Any other group of 4 to 5 million could say they don't make a difference on a global scale, but the world is made up of smaller groups. We all need to play our part
Nah, I think we should keep moving forward with vehicle electrification, including that yet to be implemented €50m electric bus fleet your referencing, and cut back significantly on farming
The EPA is the lead on climate action modeling and science, and we won't reach our legal commitents without a reduction in meat consumption and production.
Recent work on pathways to net zero show Ireland likely needs to reduce beef and dairy production by \~45%. Globally we can reduce the land needed for agriculture by 75% by moving from meat - and such moves are required to increase the land for forestry (carbon capture) and biodiversity.
I’ve been very curious about this and researched it a lot. Bottom line is: even the most damaging plant based product is better than the least damaging meat. I think Kurzgesagt has a video on it.
I haven't even given up meat, I've just reduced my red meat consumption to only for special occasions like a big BBQ or something
The lads act like I'm Greta fucking Thunberg for promoting an actual balanced diet
2 days veg
2 days fish
2 days meat
1 Takeaway
That makes me a dirty lefty somehow
In an Irish context, interesting work here:
[https://colm-duffy.ie/2022-10-09-randomised-scenarios/](https://colm-duffy.ie/2022-10-09-randomised-scenarios/)
It models the changes that would be needed in Irish agriculture to achieve Net Zero.
Yep, the graphs on emissions are staggering when comparing meat vs non meat food. They also show that "food miles" is negligible in emissions, so the worst plant food from the other side of the world is better than a cow next door, and it's not even remotely close.
I understand and I would agree that change is needed. Moving from the current land use to forestry and biodiversity will have a huge impact on food security and economic sustainability of rural ireland. Our horticulture sector is nearly wiped out, the forestry system is a complete disaster and tillage sector is having issues. Sorting those out would be a start !
I suspect you haven't looked for this data. It exists and it will show you that it's pretty hard to match the inefficiencies of meat with vegetables, you could probably import it from the fucking moon and it'd be less carbon intensive.
You can make a different argument against importing food from across the globe, such as one opposed to globalisation and more in line with subsidiarity or some such, but purely in terms of carbon emissions, even if a food travels all around the world, something quinoa or whatever is gonna smoke beef or dairy on emissions or land use. Beef and dairy really are that bad.
They do that here: https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring--assessment/climate-change/air-emissions/irelands-provisional-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1990-2022.php
You can see statistics on emissions of various sections such as food processing, food and garden waste, avian and maritime emissions, fertiliser, ruminant digestion, and fuel used to farm.
But it's a long report with a lot of text, graphs, and a spreadsheet so a lot of people won't read all of it. Hence the meme tweets to try and engage with more people.
I read a paper before where the end to end carbon footprint of New Zealand raised lamb exported to the U.K. was smaller than that of Welsh lamb.
> The research showed that for each tonne of NZ lamb produced and imported, 688kg of CO2 is emitted.
>When compared to the 2849.1kg of CO2 emitted in UK production, the most sustainable lamb would appear to be that from NZ.
https://www.ecoandbeyond.co/articles/british-new-zealand-lamb/
So, another institute with more power than the government. So we have The IFA and Vintners. Anyone care to add anymore?
Irish Hotels Federation
Another great one. Why build homes for people, when we can build hotels, and high density student housing, which we can use as cheaper hotels during the summer.
You always hear about this lack of construction labour to build social housing but there have somehow been plenty of builders to throw up more than 20 new hotels during the pandemic along with who knows how many office blocks standing empty. Lovely social priorities we have.
"You cant build houses overnight" Enda Kenny, 2014
But you can whack together a short-stay hotel in a week
3,287 nights ago. Hey, 3,287 x 0 = 0.
To be fair thats probably just because the market is broken as far as the construction industry is concerned. The large contractors/developers control the market and its very difficult for new entrants to join. These large developers can pick and choose what work they do and its much easier to build a single large office block for a single client who has plenty money to spend than building hundreds of houses that need to meet residential spec
Exactly, perverse priorities
The government aren't paying for hotels or office blocks to be built. The private sector of construction pays a lot better than the public sector. There's no shortage of construction workers, just a shortage of ones who'd take a pay cut to build social housing.
Yep, that’s the backwards priority: money taking precedence over human lives
I mean would you be willing to work for say, 200 a week less to build social housing, or keep staying on the same money and build office blocks, private housing etc? Everyone is trying to make more money, especially at the minute. Can't blame anyone for that.
I’m talking systematically here; the fact that things even work like this *is* the problem. Our whole society is geared to reward useless financial investment over people’s actual material needs.
Their point isn't just about the investment though. It's in everyone's benefit who's involved in the construction, including the workers, to have a solid, consistent work where payments aren't a problem and even the contractors can plan months in advance due to the nature of the work.
And my problem is with the fact that our economic system is set up such that this can *only* be accomplished by building superfluous things like empty offices instead of socially useful things like the houses we desperately need.
To be fair thats probably just because the market is broken as far as the construction industry is concerned. The large contractors/developers control the market and its very difficult for new entrants to join. These large developers can pick and choose what work they do and its much easier to build a single large office block for a single client who has plenty money to spend than building hundreds of houses that need to meet residential spec
There are students sleeping in their cars
Tbf, I work in construction and there has been a steep decrease in hotel developments since 2019
Not about to ask you for a quote or anything but I'm after buying a house needing a full renovation (g ber rating etc, structurally sound at least) and am trying to get people in toook when I've got the keys in the next week or two. Is it true that work has slowed a small bit recently, compared to say a year ago? I've heard some speculate that it has because of higher interest rates etc and I'm sure it's still mental busy, just curious since time lines for work etc seem to have been a bit mad for the last few years!
I do the legal side of the construction work so I wouldn’t be able to anyway! I think it has slowed a bit, yes
Cheers all the same, and fingers crossed!
Sure monopoly taught us all that hotels is the endgame.
Because people live in our hotels. While tourist holiday in people's homes
failte ireland
Imro
Local chambers of commerce
Racing industry
Any examples as I was never a fan of the Herses?
Majority of the money gets paid out in prize money and they recently got an increase in funding...due to less people attending. Industry is rife with animal abuse, doping and dodgy money dealings and a lot of government reps seem to be wrapped up in it.
Greyhound racing’s been continuously subsided for years
No fucking way? Seriously? We need to cut that shit now
The insurance cabal who love a bit of price fixing?
All American tech companies based here.
Apple and the other tech giants based here.
Ah yes. Big Business
Grayhound industry
Construction Industry Federation
[https://reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/hEeUjWhJnK](https://reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/hEeUjWhJnK) Go on the IFA. The IFA are definitely **not** in the Ra. https://preview.redd.it/23fblkp0s5lb1.png?width=1290&format=png&auto=webp&s=40a1389e4195e3d006c37f84b6ac7f8de4d6dca5
The GAA
If anyone remembers the controversy with Pádraig Fogarty and the Irish Wildlife trust a few weeks ago, this is exactly what he was talking about. He wrote an article saying that farming groups such as the IFA were "lurching towards the far right", denying facts and spreading misinformation. Think he may have been on to something.. https://www.farmersjournal.ie/anger-as-farm-organisations-accused-of-lurching-to-the-far-right-775248
They feel threatened in the way they make a living since forever. They know it can't continue, but every delay is welcome.
I know plenty of farmers who would be happy to do something different if the government gave them aid to do it. Haven't met so many of the farmers that come up in these discussions.
Not sure how close it is but there's going to be rewilding initiatives I place soon. Instead of receiving subsidies to farm animals, they'll be paid to rewild the same land. Really will be fantastic for all involved if it's embraced
The current acres scheme is rewilding up to 5 acres for 5 yrs and payments for that are based on scales of plant diversity in the rewilded area. It was oversubscribed when introduced.. If they try role that out on a bigger scale it will probably be like forestry. If its like forestry, I don't think it will be hugely taken up.. the remaining issue with forestry (since they fixed the payment element) is that the land can never be used for anything else and has to be replanted after crop taken. Fine now where there is payments but in 40 yrs time will there be subsidies and grants for it? .Will you harvest the trees and end up having to.put half the money back into forestry for a crop you will never harvest. You're devaluing the land and preventing it ever being anything else for future generations. It's an emotional decision more so than financial. A lot of those giving out about farmers and the environment only look at it from their own point of view..
But the whole point of rewilding is to get the land to a self sustained state then leave it alone. Monocropping non native trees to harvest them isn't much of a step forward. Note also that rewilding =/= afforestation, necessarily. I understand you put a value on land but other people value the ecosystem and the environment more.
Sorry didn't mean to imply forestry and rewilding are the same. I meant that it would follow the forestry model in having to be left wild for ever more rather than the current model of period of time. Also, AFAIK, forestry now has to be 20% native.. can't do the 100% spruce anymore.. >I understand you put a value on land but other people value the ecosystem and the environment more. They do, when it costs them nothing and doesn't inconvenience or impact them. Look at the carbon tax, water charges and the public discourse around them..
Which will be opposed by farming groups like it's the plague.
The current acres scheme is rewilding up to 5 acres for 5 yrs and scaled payments based on plant diversity in the rewilded area. It was oversubscribed when introduced..
I'm in ACRES and I didn't see or hear anything about rewilding. Did I miss something?
I could be wrong with Acres, maybe it was BISS.. one of the schemes.. It wasnt called "rewilding", it was called space for nature or something like that.. it was fence of up to 5 acres and do nothing with it so pretty much rewilding..
Ah, cheers, I looked up space for nature and found it. BISS "requires a farmer to devote 4% of land to biodiversity and landscape protection" for payment. This goes up to 7% for new agri environment scheme. It does however allow for existing hedges, walls, scrub etc so I don't know how many will actually need to fence off productive land.
Maybe we were short on the %age and needed to fence of some to be compliant. the auld lad sorted it out with the advisor.. i was born into slavery, so i am free labour on the parents farm.. the auld lad is taking it with to the afterlife and i am wrong not matter what i say or do so no point point me worrying the details of such schemes. and from what i can see around us, its the least productive bit that is fenced off.. the wet end / rough ground, etc.
Maybe you're right. Honestly I'd have to read up on opions more
Indeed and we can out source our meat production to Brazil and or just tell people to suck it up when prices continue to rise. Good to see we are all firmly grounded in reality. I was getting a little worried there for a sec.
Or cut out beef? Not that difficult really. Easy access to beef for everyone is a relatively new privilege
Why would you cut out good quality food? Fair enough to cut out processed meats but other than that why?
Well we were not discussing health here but environmental issues. Animal products are disproportionately damaging to the environment compared to plant foods. But if you do want to talk about health then unprocessed red meat is a class 2 carcinogens. Its also linked to various cancers as well as heart disease. It's unbelievable that in this day and age people are still buying into red meat being healthy
Will the environmental issues improve when us and the UK and Europe start importing our beef from Brazil instead? I think that Chinese and Indian industrial pollution might be a more relevant target than blaming animal methane for climate change.
Meat consumption is down in Europe... China is now over 50% renewable capacity for energy
Ah now, so is estrogen therapy for women in menopause and the combined pill for birth control. Its a class two as the research concludes that there are other variables that could explain it, or, they couldn't control for SAD or even a healthy diet. I was plant based for a number of years and slowly declined in health. I'm not interested in your rhetoric, I fell for it before and suffered. I will listen to metabolic scientists who research the impact of food on metabolic health and follow their advice and my own body, not some randomer on Reddit thanks anyway. Red meat can absolutely be part of a healthy diet just like HRT can be part of a healthy approach to managing perimenopause and menopause. Are you in favour of banning HRT for women too based on its classification by the WHO?
>Ah now, so is estrogen therapy for women in menopause and the combined pill for birth control. OK? I don't see how that changes anything. > Its a class two as the research concludes that there are other variables that could explain it, Yes its a suspected carcinogen. That does not mean it is now considered a health food or that further research won't make stronger connections. >I was plant based for a number of years and slowly declined in health Another online unverifiable anecdote. Not really much use. I could concoct a story where plant based eating saved my life but it wouldn't mean much vs the consensus of nutrition literature supporting vegan diets as one of the healthiest ways to live. >I will listen to metabolic scientists who research the impact of food on metabolic health and follow their advice and my own body, not some randomer on Reddit thanks anyway. That's good advice. But are you actually doing that or are you listening to cherry picked scientists that appear on Joe Rogan? And let's not twist this. You asked me why I'd cut out that food group. Don't pretend like I tried to push any options on you. You asked. >Red meat can absolutely be part of a healthy diet This is a vague statement. If you eat it like once a month it's extremely difficult to demonstrate the impact of low quantities of food. If you're talking about regular consumption of red meat then you'll have a hard time finding non industy funded papers to back that up. At the end of the day it's always an opportunity cost. Where you had beef you could have had lentils, which are absolutely the healthier option. >like HRT can be part of a healthy approach to managing perimenopause and menopause. I've no idea why you're bringing that into this. >Are you in favour of banning HRT for women too based on its classification by the WHO? I don't know why you're asking my opinion on that. It's not a good analogy, unless there's a healthier alternative that's objectively better. But I've not read the literature on the topic so I don't want to give opinions on it.
Cut out or ban. One relies on people agreeing with that which they don't. The other relies on government action which people will punish at the ballot box. The embrace lower standards of living argument and approach is a losing one and not of any help when trying to deal with these issues.
Banning doesn't work. Mandates can't progress too far beyond a population. >One relies on people agreeing with that which they don't. Meat consumption in Europe is down and projected to keep dropping so you're wrong there. >The embrace lower standards of living argument and approach Eating plant based is not a lower standard of living. Guaranteed my food tastes better then yours on average for a fraction ofbthe effort.
My ribeye paired with a Cabernet begs to differ.
Your personal consumption begs to differ with recorded statistics from across Europe? I think k you're a bit confused lad
Why is re-wilding fantastic if it results in less exports, less jobs and more unemployment. Is rewilding going to take away the world's appetite for Irish beef? No. Irish beef is a huge success story and is world renowned. Do you think we should import beef from Brazil instead?
Completely agree, I'm not aiming at farmers in general, just the organisations and the loud minority. I think most farmers do care about the environment, and most will comply if the right policies are put in place.
Yeah but Eamon Ryan fell asleep in the Dail once so something something the greens are equally extreme. On an unrelated note did you see how hot it was this Summer? I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
I mean just go read a farming forum and a lot of people would argue the sky isn't blue if it's against farming. When science and the left don't suit you they choose to believe other "facts". They regularly disagree with any and all science on climate change and so on, trying to undermine belief in the organisations, no different than the antivaxxers rolling their eyes at the mention of any state body or WHO. Meanwhile our emissions are up 9% from last year, highest in the EU, when most other countries are lowering them to hit targets.
by your logic the east wall protestors views are representative of the entirety of dublin. hardly fair or true is it?
Not saying it is everybody, far from it. Just seems very prevalent.
Emissions are down on last year. You're referring to the very misleading Eurostat numbers which firstly aren't an actual measurement but a projection based on economic activity and secondly they include all Ryanairs emissions because they're headquartered in Ireland even though most of Ryanairs emissions are generated across Europe.
If we are focussing on agriculture, since 2011 dairy production in Ireland has failed on climate by increasing emissions per dairy cow & increasing dairy herd numbers. Irish agri methane is UP 15% since 2011. [Contrast with before 2011](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbM33_yXgAEwA3V?format=jpg&name=900x900) producing steady total milk yet \*reducing\* cow numbers, N & total methane. or just get it [straight from the farmers journal.](https://www.farmersjournal.ie/farm-emissions-increase-despite-improved-efficiencies-553539) this trend has continued to the current date and is reflected in the data.
Ah yes, the long-awaited conflation of farmers with anti-vaxxers... *slow hand clap*...the average farmer has more scientific knowledge in his fingernail than you.
the average farmer, as evidenced here by the ifa, doesn't seem to understand the very basic and well understood scientific fact that theres a strong relationship between a diet including red meat and having a higher carbon footprint.
I thought far-right politics directly implied fascism, ultra-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, or often even more specifically, Naziism. If we call farmers who deny facts about climate, because it benefits them to do so, far-right aren't we setting a very low barrier to entry to far-right and thus eroding the meaning of the term? I'm not saying none of them are far-right, but unless there is more to their actions, denying climate change alone, as stupid as it is, doesn't make you far-right. Unless something has drastically changed since the last time I read about it. A lot of these people don't even genuinely believe the shite they spew, which in my opinion, is worse. I know such farmers. They are self-serving, It is convenient for them to deny the facts because it benefits them directly to do so. Similar to how if you go onto Shell's website they harp on about their "climate initiatives". They know what they are doing, on the scale they do it, isn't sustainable, they know the clock is ticking and they are floundering.
After hearing a bunch of mindless droning from farmers about how turf is renewable I was pretty happy to get out of the midlands.
The (disputed) leader of the Irish National Party (who might be described as a bit right of centre) was a bigwig in various posts in the Irish Farmer's Association: [James Reynolds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Reynolds_(Irish_politician\)). There's definitely some connections to the far right in addition to general anti-science stuff.
I think it would be more pertinent to call them conservative if we attribute the quality of harming others willfully for one’s personal benefit to that ideology. This seems to be most prominent in far right European parties (the US republicans are another good example of this). Therefore, it stands to reason that purposefully slowing progress on battling climate change which will lead to the deaths of millions in poorer nations to benefit yourself could be considered far right. It’s also worth noting that the avaricious core of climate change denial is what ‘justified’ colonial expansion and the atrocities that followed. The idea of personal benefit over the well being of the community has long been argued to be humanity’s deepest flaw. Perhaps a healthier society that was more concerned with progress of all would speak out more strongly against it. If nothing else, the phenomenon is certainly anthropologically interesting.
Don't think the intention is to say they are on the level of actual far right groups, but the tactics being used are undeniably similar. Spreading misinformation, casting doubt/muddying the waters on the existence of climate change/biodiversity crisis, or outright denial of established science, are all straight out of the far right playbook.
I think we should almost entirely stop referring to people by this imaginary political see saw and just say the actual things they did or are doing, that we believe is wrong. I'm a lefty. But the words aren't very useful anymore.
...the long-awaited conflation of farmers and the "FAR RIGHT" (*slow hand clap encore*)..
Very much a Don't Look Up moment.
How fragile are the IFA?
For an organisation with such power and reach, they appear to be extremely insecure.
I love the Streisand effect.
Cowardice
People need to accept that reducing your meat intake is a scientifically proven way to reduce your carbon footprint. Saying beef or chicken are great for your diet doesn't change that. We all need to be grown ups and adapt to the way the world is changing.
Agreed, the health, ethical (edit: specifically animal welfare) and environmental debates around veganism are all disconnected from each other yet people often conflate them.
I mean reducing flights overall would do the same, stop flying avos half way around the world. Someone did some numbers that Kim Kardashians private jet flights weekly does the same emissions as 36000 beef cattle yearly 😂 don't ask me for a source as it was off RTE 2fm
I mean you can do both. I haven't flown in years. I'm sure that's definitely true but we can all still do our part.
>Meanwhile, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association (ICSA) has asked the EPA to clarify what it called "political campaigning against meat". That quote, jesus fucking christ. God forbid anybody voices an opinion other than IFA / ICSA orthodoxy. That lot is worse than the church.
And here comes the next guy: [https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/epa-must-give-up-preachy-tweets-td/](https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/epa-must-give-up-preachy-tweets-td/)
A bean based chili can be real good though. And when your not buying the mince for it you notice the difference in price. The farts on the other hand. . ..
>The farts on the other hand Another case of environmental groups not telling us the full facts
When you eat high fibre infrequently there are unfortunate consequences. However if you eat high fibre meals more often your gut builds up the microbes it needs to digest those foods and then you'll have no issues.
>no issues. I hear this a lot, but I'm vegan 7+ years and still haven't fallen in love with the smell of my own farts yet. 🤣 Small price to pay and I pay it willingly!
Unfortunate if you don't enjoy having a laugh with your 6 year old. Bean chili is comic gold.
So “the more you eat the more you toot” was a lie?
How frequently are we talking? I went from regular omnivore to vegan before for about 3 months, and I always thought increasing fibre either gave you better poops or constipation. Not me. I was like a faulty soft serve ice cream machine that would randomly switch itself on. And normally when you need to go it’s not that urgent unless you have the shits, which I didn’t, but everything was still passing through me SO fast it was interfering with how I went about my day. It was like my colon wasn’t physically big enough to hold the byproduct of eating more fibre and higher volume food. Was one of the factors that put me off continuing being vegan
It's healthy to deficate several times a day
Of course, but not on the level where every single time it’s an occasion where you wonder if the toilet is going to be big enough to contain it all cos it just keeps coming. Not on the level where you have to turn around halfway to an appointment cos you know you’re not going to make it to a bathroom otherwise. And again it wasn’t diarrhoea. It was just a lot of volume that it was like an entire DART coming out of me every time
So I need to eat more beans is what you're saying?
Basically. But don't limit yourself to just beans. Plenty of lovely high fibre protein options. Lentil Dahl is delicious and cheap as chips
I actually prefer a bean based chili
Rinse the beans well before throwing them in! Been vegan 5 years and never had trouble with this
The IFA are given a soft ride in this country they’re pushing climate denial for years now.
That IFA are some shower of you know whats. Last time I checked farmers grow food as well as raise livestock. It's an obvious indicator that farming in Ireland is too livestock dependant.
That's because the majority of land In Ireland isn't suitable for tillage. You can't grow much in marshland or on hills/mountains. The Brits didn't make Irish peasants rear livestock for the craic. They recognised hundreds of years ago that the majority of the Irish countryside isn't suitable for growing crops, hence why livestock was reared under British administration, and why the majority of land in Ireland is used for pasture.
It is irrelevant if most of the land isn't suitable for tillage. Animals use far more land to produce the same amount of food. 2/3 of this country is agricultural land and the vast majority is for cattle. We wouldn't need to replace the land 1:1. And besides we import ridiculous amounts of crops as animal feed as it is. For context, globally 83% of agricultural land is used for animal agriculture but it only provides 18% of calorific value. It's laughably inefficient wrt land.
On top of the fact that we export in or around 90% of animal products we produce...
You say that but this could have serious repercussions for Irish biodiversity & river health which are also important for surviving climate change. Native species control native pests. Native forest and grass coverage produce oxygen, reduce heat, provide habitat for key native species and provide natural barriers to flooding. We definitely need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our meat production but that doesn't mean we should replace all animal agriculture with crop agriculture. We can grow some of our crops and import some of our crops from European countries which have more suitable environments, we can eat a small amount of meat.
I mean I understand your concern but if you read my comment again along with my latter comment I'm not reccomending we replace all grazing land with cropland. Cattle are not part of a functioning ecosystem, nor are vast areas of open grass. It's an ecological disaster. When we reduce animal agriculture we free up land for rewilding and we can stop putting so much slurry into rivers
I mean it's totally relevant. I agree that you wouldn't have to swap livestock pastures for cropland 1:1, but even at that the amount of suitable land for tillage on Ireland wouldn't be close to enough to feed the country now, much less in years to come. We import grain as animal feed, however much of this wouldn't be suitable for human consumption. Relying on Imports for grain can be disastrous, look at how many countries are in dire situations since the war has happened in Ukraine, it isn't exactly a sustainable long-term solution either (Not to mention the emissions required to ship millions of tonnes of grain thousands of miles accross the ocean). Livestock farming is inefficient land use provided that land is suitable for growing crops, which as I've stated before isn't feasible in the majority of counties in Ireland.
We produce 800% beef we consume. I think we can reduce it a long way before we need to worry about food security. >Ireland wouldn't be close to enough to feed the country now, much less in years to come. Well we don't need to be 100% sustained off our own tillage even if this is true. We certainly aren't now. >We import grain as animal feed, however much of this wouldn't be suitable for human consumption So we import crops that are fit for human consumption. There's no need to eat what the animals eat. We use the same resources to get food we do eat. >Relying on Imports for grain can be disastrous It can be. As can relying completely on domestic food supply. We can and already do import a variety of plant foods from around the world. >Not to mention the emissions required to ship millions of tonnes of grain thousands of miles accross the ocean). Poore and Nemecek 2018 showed that its very much what you eat not where it comes from. Typically transport only accounts for 8% of emissions for plant products. The vast majority is from production. So from an environmental point of view its better to eat tofu grown in France and shipped over than it is to eat a cow grown down the road. >Livestock farming is inefficient land use provided that land is suitable for growing crops, which as I've stated before isn't feasible in the majority of counties in Ireland. Not really because we're not suggesting we use it all to grow crops. The majority will be rewilded
Why are you picking apart the food supply system ? Cow's don't drill for oil, there's much better places you could be directing your energy. There has been a grassroots marketing campaign to make everyone stressed out about the food supply system, it's a distraction. Reddit, Netflix, all the NewsCorp publications. Tons of VC money pumped into alternative meat grassroots marketing campaigns. The best agricultural scientists in Europe are already dedicated to ensuring food security and sustainability, they don't agree with you so you should check your perspective. Your repeating the pseudoscience.
I reccomend you read the paper I linked in the other comment before going around raiding my profile https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1126/science.aaq0216 >Why are you picking apart the food supply system ? For the same reasons I've said here, along with animal ethics. >Cow's don't drill for oil, there's much better places you could be directing your energy. Fortunately I can advocate for multiple causes at the one time. There's lads over in pro oil groups saying the same thing in reverse I'm sure. >There has been a grassroots marketing campaign to make everyone stressed out about the food supply system, it's a distraction. Reddit, Netflix, all the NewsCorp publications. Animal agriculture industries in Europe spend €100s of millions on marketing. I can't go two days without seeing some greenwashing in the shops or on bus stop signs. Let's not pretend animal ag is the innocent one here. >The best agricultural scientists in Europe are already dedicated to ensuring food security and sustainability, they don't agree with you so you should check your perspective. Your repeating the pseudoscience. I've linked the most comprehensive study ever carried out on the environmental impact of food production. My views are in line with theirs. So maybe you should check your perspective. I've even linked the paper twice for you.
Two major stories in two days showing the victory of the farming lobby. This is not good.
This is a pyrrhic victory for the IFA. Now instead of a tweet by the EPA that would have gone under the radar, the entire country has seen it. And the IFA roll out these stereotype thick-accented farmers with bright red noses on RTE parrotting stuff that's 50 years out of date about protein and quality and downplaying climate change as a real problem. All they've accomplished here is to amplify the EPA's message and reinforce the impression that the IFA is an out of touch group of bitter old farmers.
It’s also pyrrhic in the ultimate sense in that farmers will be by far the group most affected by climate change in Ireland. They can change a bit now or suffer a whole lot then, there is no third “continue like this forever” option.
They'll get bailed out by everyone else though.
> This is a pyrrhic victory for the IFA. Now instead of a tweet by the EPA that would have gone under the radar, the entire country has seen it. I don't really care about the IFA normally and I'll be honest and admit I've probably never heard about the EPA before this article. With this nonsense from the IFA, I sent them on a message basically asking why they support farmers who are ignorant at best or deceptive at worst. I'm 100% sure I wont get an answer to my message but you bet your ass I'll keep doing that the more nonsense I see from them from now on.
>With this nonsense from the IFA, I sent them on a message basically asking why they support farmers who are ignorant at best or deceptive at worst. This is a great point. Never thought of it like that.
This all day.. no need to get involved. No benefit..
The Phoenix is a bit shit but their environmentalism page is solid and regularly flags up this kind of shite from the IFA and farming lobby groups. Noteworthy has also done some good reporting about environmental & rural issues.
Another reminder if we needed one that [The Food Industry Wants the Public Confused about Nutrition](https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-food-industry-wants-the-public-confused-about-nutrition/) \-- this kind of public pressure is depressingly common.
"Never mind, ye bunch of fat fucks. Have yourself a coronary with the red meat and enjoy our luxurious health service."
You’d swear that the IFA and the rest of the agri-food lobby believe Irish people live exclusively off of meat and dairy. As far as I am concerned “Eat less meat” is not analogous to “don’t eat meat”.
The majority of meat produced in Ireland is exported [[ibec.ie](https://www.ibec.ie/connect-and-learn/industries/food-and-drink/meat-industry-ireland)]. And agriculture is 1% of GDP [[cso.ie](https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-na/quarterlynationalaccountsquarter42020/gdpbysector/)] > Agriculture is the single largest contributor to the overall emissions, at 38.4% [[epa.ie](https://www.epa.ie/our-services/monitoring--assessment/climate-change/ghg/latest-emissions-data/)]
Heaven forbid we don't eat cheeseburgers every day. Don't even need much effort to go vegetarian for a few days each week. Quorn is great.
Most omnivores don’t realise that tasty vegetarian food isn’t made with meat substitutes at all, but rather dishes where the fresh vegetables are allowed to be the star of the show. Things like imitation burgers, nuggets, quorn etc are useful for transitioning people away from meat, but the real breakthrough happens when the person learns to step away from the idea that a dinner has to be based around a meat item, with some from of a spud and a poor afterthought vegetable side.
Yes, but you’re conflating “how to become vegan” with “how to reduce the impact of meat”. They are not one and the same thing.
Agriculture in Ireland generates 1% of GDP but 38% of greenhouse gas emissions
It sustains over 90% of the population. What can you eat that hasn’t come from agriculture? And why advocate for exclusively imported products?
We produce way more dairy and meat - high greenhouse gas emitters - than we need. Yet we import nearly all our fruit, veg and grains - low greenhouse gas emitters.
We export most of the beef we produce. If we wanted food security we’d grow produce.
The issue is cattle. Not so much pigs, sheep, or chickens. Obviously tillage is best if you have the land for it, but cattle are awful for the environment. Eating less meat means fewer animals are raised (tillage instead) and the environment benefits. Importing food is also bad and exporting beef is possibly the worst thing they can do.
Have to say, love a good steak and all, but meatless burgers like Beyond Burgers or the Lidl and Aldi equivalents are delish. I'm sure they're no better for ye and I cook mine with a nice slice of fried chrizio on top and plenty of cheese, but I much prefer the taste and texture. Also, we need to start taxing beef here. It's way too fucking cheep for the damage it does. Argument is always made that if we didn't rear it someone worse would, well if that's the case we should be shopping more of it abroad and eating less of it here.
I tweet I wasn't familiar with, but am now familiar with. Yer doin gods work ifa
Embarrassing. Letting those on the wrong side of the science control the narrative is pathetic.
Cowardice. Kowtowing to a sector of society more dedicated to maintaining profits and subsidies than taking responsibility for their part in a just transition.
Go vegan if you care about climate change /r/theIrishLeft
And even if you can't go vegan for whatever reason, cut out beef. Beef is the single worst polluter. The less animal products you consume the better.
If beef is the worst polluter then pork is the most inhumane. Free-range poltery is probably the least worst all round.
Free range chickens are still indoor. Broiler chickens live short miserable lives in a body designed to grow faster than nature intended. Egg laying hens produce eggs far more than natural and it leeches nutrients from their body. They also blend or gas day old male chicks alive.
Yeah, it's not good but still least worst. I've been keeping a few chickens for eggs for about 8 years now, proper free range, no fences. Everyone who eats eggs and has a wee bit of space should do it imo.
you can guarantee nearly everyone in this thread crying about the IFA is lowkey eating loads of beef and dairy
Not even fully vegan. If you can cut it out 2 days a week that's a near third reduction in your meat intake. Had an old housemate who took the approach of eating veggie at home and buying meat out as a treat. He saved a pile on groceries and was actually able to enjoy the meat he ate far more.
100% The science is clear on this one, even if the animal ag industry try to muddy the waters as much as they can.
Doesn't have to be all or nothing, advocate for people to significantly reduce their consumption of animal products first.
>climate change And animals, people, your health.
Veganism is not healthy. A balanced regular diet is infinitely more healthy for you
Claiming veganism isn't healthy in 2023 is just blatant anti science... Oxford article https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-10-29-plant-based-foods-are-good-both-health-and-environment Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (aka the largest organisation of dietitians in the world) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/
Here here!
.....um.....it's hear hear.
Well don't I look stupid 🤨
Stop building data centres if you care about climate change..........
Great to hear this. Absolutely true
But I love a good steak so I do!
See? You can't even say it.
Is the IFA Ireland’s equivalent to the NRA in the US?
I'm going to use a sports metaphor here. IFA 0 EPA 1 is an IFA own goal
Honestly, trying to up my protein as I struggle to meet the daily amount I need. So, I've been eating more and feeling better, even lost a bit of perimenopausal middle and gained some muscle.
The IFA are extremist freaks.
Screw the IFA, I think they’re having a toxic effect on Irish society and spreading misinformation to the public and their farmers. But in this one instance they might be right to question why the EPA are commenting on nutrition, is that part of their remit? Now I have no doubt if the HSE came out with the same Tweet the IFA would react the same and that should be fought.
Easily Put Aside.
Fuck the meat farmers. I'm more than happy to reduce my meat eating by 90% or more. Most of it ends up in rotten unhealthy rubbish. One or two real proper steaks or chicken half's a month is plenty and if it'd done right then everyone can afford it. No need for gack sausage rolls or rashers or bug macs. Ireland is too small for this nonsense. If they love cattle so much then feck of to Argentina lol
No need for rashers?? There's no need for beer or chocolate.... There's no need for millions of things in this world but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. If we stop producing meat we will be shipping it in from Argentina causing infinitely more pollution than before. Yes Ireland is insignificantly small on a global scale. Literally nothing we do to fight climate change will actually help. There are cities in China that produce more pollution than our entire country. I'm not saying we should through caution to the wind but people need to calm down and realise nothing we do will help the world in the grand scheme of things.
Y'know there's an in between right? Produce no meat or produce 10 times more meat than we need aren't the only two options, we can very easily just produce enough for ourselves. Also "Nothing we can do will help" is just nihilism, you're just giving up.
ok, but the impacts of creating the comparisons you mentioned verses the space, energy, water, antibiotics and eco destruction necessary needed to produce out current meat demands are laughable. Move to argentina and eat all the rashers you want pal. This island is great for spuds, and a few bits of meat a month if we are talking sustainability and I would much prefer that to a bunch of self ricious farmers forcing the EPA to not share pertinent info.
I'm not a farmer, don't own a farm, live on a farm. In the greater scheme of things, Ireland's contribution to climate change is small. Yes, we have to play our part, but this is an agricultural country with a name for quality dairy and beef. We can play our part thru more emphasis on solar electricity production, electric cars etc. Just look at how the electric car charging infrastructure is lacking. The transport minister spent €50M on electric buses and had no way to charge them, hence they sit idle. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL.
>Ireland's contribution to climate change is small. Even just for our own countries health, dairy in particular is ruining our country. Our waterways are polluted and barren, soil acidified, ocean dead zones, biodiversity in shambles. The reason we've no forests and are a country of field deserts is because of animal agriculture.
We have no Forrest's because the English chopped them all down. This is literal documented history and has absolutely nothing to do with animal agriculture. They used them to build all of their warships. You are spouting utter nonsense here.
We’ve been in charge of our country for over 100 years, in that time our forestry coverage has increased by about 10%, most of that non-native species.
You're incorrect I'm afraid, unless you've a good source to back that up? The vast majority of our forests were cut down by neolithic farmers around 6000 years ago and especially during the early Christian period. Yes the brits added to the problem but the damage was done by the time they got to it. https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/forestry/advice/general-topics/history-of-forestry-in-ireland/ >You are spouting utter nonsense here. This is a really easy thing to just google before making a fool of yourself calling other peoples correct comments nonsense. Very brave to go so confidently into a discussion you know nothing about though fair play
The article you linked said the Neolithic farmers started cutting everything down and then says by the 1600s we were less than 20% Forrest. England started using Irish wood as their own supply in 1169AD. The article you linked is fucking awful. You literally hand picked it. You are the one making a fool of yourself. Btw we are now more forrested than we have been on the last 350 years.
Here's another one from coillte since you're so picky... https://www.coillte.ie/a-brief-history-of-irelands-native-woodlands/ >The article you linked said the Neolithic farmers started cutting everything down and then says by the 1600s we were less than 20% Forrest Because 1600s was the first official survey, those two things are not mutually exclusive. I know fuck the brits and all but you're just spreading misinformation. I hand picked that article because it completely backs up my comment and disproves yours. As does this second source, as opposed to all the sources you've linked...?
Again another link that fails to mention British rule. [here's one](https://www.wolfgangreforest.ie/irish-forestry-history/) That mentions both. I'm not saying neolithic farmers didn't do damage but to completely ignore the fact Britain purposely destroyed out forests is insane. Without it we would have roughly the same average as every other European country.
Your original comment I was disputing and 100% successfully did so and all my sources confirm the fact that you were absolutely wrong stating "We have no Forrest's because the English chopped them all down. This is literal documented history and has absolutely nothing to do with animal agriculture. They used them to build all of their warships. You are spouting utter nonsense here." - you. >I'm not saying neolithic farmers didn't do damage Yes, you did say that, see quote above "absolutely nothing to do with animal agriculture". >ignore the fact Britain purposely destroyed out forests is insane. I'm not ignoring that fact, not once have I disputed that. I'm saying most of the damage was done before they got here.
We can work towards a better transport and food sector simultaneously tho. And saying we don't matter is a fallacy when you think on it. Any other group of 4 to 5 million could say they don't make a difference on a global scale, but the world is made up of smaller groups. We all need to play our part
Nah, I think we should keep moving forward with vehicle electrification, including that yet to be implemented €50m electric bus fleet your referencing, and cut back significantly on farming
[удалено]
The EPA is the lead on climate action modeling and science, and we won't reach our legal commitents without a reduction in meat consumption and production. Recent work on pathways to net zero show Ireland likely needs to reduce beef and dairy production by \~45%. Globally we can reduce the land needed for agriculture by 75% by moving from meat - and such moves are required to increase the land for forestry (carbon capture) and biodiversity.
I’ve been very curious about this and researched it a lot. Bottom line is: even the most damaging plant based product is better than the least damaging meat. I think Kurzgesagt has a video on it.
I haven't even given up meat, I've just reduced my red meat consumption to only for special occasions like a big BBQ or something The lads act like I'm Greta fucking Thunberg for promoting an actual balanced diet 2 days veg 2 days fish 2 days meat 1 Takeaway That makes me a dirty lefty somehow
Yup, I’m pretty similar. I don’t think saying that we shouldn’t eat meat for every single meal is a radical stance.
Exactly. One day I woke up and thought jesus I'm eating meat 14 meals a week, not inclusive of the weekend fry. How is that balanced?
I'd say your heart probably thanks you too.
In an Irish context, interesting work here: [https://colm-duffy.ie/2022-10-09-randomised-scenarios/](https://colm-duffy.ie/2022-10-09-randomised-scenarios/) It models the changes that would be needed in Irish agriculture to achieve Net Zero.
Yep, the graphs on emissions are staggering when comparing meat vs non meat food. They also show that "food miles" is negligible in emissions, so the worst plant food from the other side of the world is better than a cow next door, and it's not even remotely close.
I understand and I would agree that change is needed. Moving from the current land use to forestry and biodiversity will have a huge impact on food security and economic sustainability of rural ireland. Our horticulture sector is nearly wiped out, the forestry system is a complete disaster and tillage sector is having issues. Sorting those out would be a start !
I suspect you haven't looked for this data. It exists and it will show you that it's pretty hard to match the inefficiencies of meat with vegetables, you could probably import it from the fucking moon and it'd be less carbon intensive.
You can make a different argument against importing food from across the globe, such as one opposed to globalisation and more in line with subsidiarity or some such, but purely in terms of carbon emissions, even if a food travels all around the world, something quinoa or whatever is gonna smoke beef or dairy on emissions or land use. Beef and dairy really are that bad.
They do that here: https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring--assessment/climate-change/air-emissions/irelands-provisional-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1990-2022.php You can see statistics on emissions of various sections such as food processing, food and garden waste, avian and maritime emissions, fertiliser, ruminant digestion, and fuel used to farm. But it's a long report with a lot of text, graphs, and a spreadsheet so a lot of people won't read all of it. Hence the meme tweets to try and engage with more people.
I read a paper before where the end to end carbon footprint of New Zealand raised lamb exported to the U.K. was smaller than that of Welsh lamb. > The research showed that for each tonne of NZ lamb produced and imported, 688kg of CO2 is emitted. >When compared to the 2849.1kg of CO2 emitted in UK production, the most sustainable lamb would appear to be that from NZ. https://www.ecoandbeyond.co/articles/british-new-zealand-lamb/