Cathrine Dyer and Bernard Hickey talk through the week's big climate news, including anger over the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's handling of a report on plant-based diets
Excellent discussion as usual, thank you Cathrine and Bernard. My thoughts are, that the tobacco industry lies were a cynical attempt to profit at the expense of the health of countless human beings.
Those same tactics being used by the oil companies and other carbon producing industries will ultimately destroy the planet and all life. That has to be insanity.
Here's a potentially controversial thread starter - it's a bit hypocritical to think climate change is one of the biggest threats facing humanity, and not be vegan (bar some major health issues). It's something I had to admit to myself before making the switch a few years ago. Especially so if you think the focus for change needs to be governmental/regulatory, since you're putting money in the pockets of the people lobbying against progress.
Do you drive a petrol or diesel vehicle? Buy electricity or gas? Use plastic?
We are all consumers and as individuals can make no difference to change the course of NZ Inc - unless you have a public image and influence.
By all means do what you think is right but the magical thinking around an individuals carbon footprint being meaningful I believe is harmful not helpful to the cause. As BP wanted it to be.
Nope, no car, get around by bike or bus. Of course I use electricity, and we're lucky to live in a country with a high renewable percentage. I would argue the appeal to futility here is also harmful to the cause. I agree that the change that one consumer can make is minimal, but do you not think it's important to live in line with your principles as much as possible? I think a lot of people have taken the minimal consumer change angle as an excuse to be apathetic, and excuse their harmful habits.
I also think the changes that need to come on the governmental level towards big polluters will inevitably need to result in big lifestyle changes for the general public. May as well start advocating for those changes now.
I agree with you when say ‘as much as possible‘. My concern is with the approach that says we all need to make dramatic changes (go vegan) order to meet climate goals or care about making change happen. There are a few issues with this - the way it will get twisted by opponents, put off those on the fence etc but he big thing is for many people - both global north and global south - making a living, and getting enough calories is tough enough as it is.
We need systemic change and I believe we are best to focus our energy on this. For that reason I find the govt ‘gen-less’ program frustrating.
Agreed, there are levels to it. Infrastructure changes, for example, obviously happen very slowly and, are out of individual control, so if the only way to work is by car, I couldn't fault anyone for that. But if you are in range of any NZ supermarket, you can immediately make a major change to your impact.
I would stand by saying that if people aren't willing to make changes to their own lifestyle, their concern is at least partially performative. This is a bit of a trite slogan that gets thrown around in vegan climate change discussions, but how are we going to change the system if we can't be bothered changing what's for dinner?
I would say to, and this a different point to my original one - there are other potentially more impactful ways of reducing your carbon footprint than going vegan. That’s a whole topic I don’t have the expertise to go deep on but I have linked Hannah Ritchies book here before, which is one useful reference.
Hi Bernard and Cathrine. I was a Senior Fishery Officer with the FAO in Rome (its headquarters) during 2009–10, and for me, the key thing to understand is that the FAO is not a research institute, but a UN organisation that offers specific food (and forestry)-related support and capacity to its member nations. As such, some areas are more political than others.
It is also very important to understand that the officers (i.e., employees) are technical, yet the member representatives that decide or approve or not its guidelines, policies, high-level publications, and so on are bureaucrats… generally from Foreign Affairs, that usually come with an agenda.
For instance, USA representatives famously censored a publication while I was there because it discussed the health risks associated with sugar consumption.
On the fisheries side, Argentina makes a point of reading with great detail every policy publication we did, objecting and deleting any mentions of the critical need for Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) for sustainable fisheries management of international waters, since they see this as a requirement to sit on the same table with the Falkland/Malvinas government to set an RFMO in the disputed waters of the South Atlantic, which they object to, as the consequence is the last area of the oceans without an RFMO and no management.
So, to judge FAO as an institution for those issues may be partly fair, but it does not see the other good things that they do… I was trained by an FAO programme when I was a fisherman in my late teens and open my eyes to study fisheries. In synthesis, yes, parts of FAO are prone to political manipulation, yet they also have a fundamentally positive role in the developing world.
Why did I leave FAO? Well… Bernard, you know my place in Waiheke… Why would I change Palm Beach for Rome in terms of quality of life, particularly with young kids?
‘The wealth of the world is being destroyed by money markets’
The solution to runaway global heating requires achieving net zero, and then removing CO2 , thereby reducing the overshoot to ‘ecologically healthy’ levels.
In other words the solution must see CO2 emissions reduce globally to circa 20% of current gross . On a per capita basis this equates to reducing from c. 5t/CO2 to 1t.
The focus needs be achieving this level of reduction… super fast.
As Dieter Helm stresses, the world, nations, businesses, and we as individuals need focus , and be accountable for the emissions caused by our choices… which at its core requires a spiritual ethos change … a tough journey ahead against the headwinds and pushback from our current market materialist construct.
Peoples need to well fed, and sense social justice is the prevailing societal ethos, and be happily preoccupied for this reductions goal to be attained and maintained.
Eric Fromm.. book title ‘To Have or to Be’ lays out the challenge
Wow, it’s hard not to be overwhelmed by the enormity of the challenge… given the DNA limitations of our species, and entrenched habits of behaviour.
90% of global emissions stem from decisions,life style choices, of the wealthiest 10%. And the remaining other (8B) are battling to have more, consume more,
We humans all of us, need make this transformation happen, and it is rooted in individual responsibility, intelligent informed ethical lifestyle choices, … the question being at each moment of choice, what emissions will result? Is it within my personal responsibility emissions budget… of 1 t/yr.?
Pai tēnei korero. I'm not a scientists backside but if I'm passionate about a kaupapa I like to explore the information available. I'm currently working my way through a book titled 'The Climate Crisis and other animals' author Richard Twine (lots of new words and referencing dictionary.com) In a nutshell it lays out the content of your korero. It joins many dots so that one can understand the extent of emissions from animal agriculture versus eating vegan and a whole lot more. The education system, capitalocene etc etc. We can't just get and feel hoha, we need to understand what it is we are getting and feeling hoha about! p.s i have reduced my meat consumption and will continue to do so.... :) just saying
Excellent discussion as usual, thank you Cathrine and Bernard. My thoughts are, that the tobacco industry lies were a cynical attempt to profit at the expense of the health of countless human beings.
Those same tactics being used by the oil companies and other carbon producing industries will ultimately destroy the planet and all life. That has to be insanity.
Here's a potentially controversial thread starter - it's a bit hypocritical to think climate change is one of the biggest threats facing humanity, and not be vegan (bar some major health issues). It's something I had to admit to myself before making the switch a few years ago. Especially so if you think the focus for change needs to be governmental/regulatory, since you're putting money in the pockets of the people lobbying against progress.
Do you drive a petrol or diesel vehicle? Buy electricity or gas? Use plastic?
We are all consumers and as individuals can make no difference to change the course of NZ Inc - unless you have a public image and influence.
By all means do what you think is right but the magical thinking around an individuals carbon footprint being meaningful I believe is harmful not helpful to the cause. As BP wanted it to be.
I should say too - it’s an important conversation! Apologies if I came across as negative, a)this should be discussed more b) I might be wrong
Nope, no car, get around by bike or bus. Of course I use electricity, and we're lucky to live in a country with a high renewable percentage. I would argue the appeal to futility here is also harmful to the cause. I agree that the change that one consumer can make is minimal, but do you not think it's important to live in line with your principles as much as possible? I think a lot of people have taken the minimal consumer change angle as an excuse to be apathetic, and excuse their harmful habits.
I also think the changes that need to come on the governmental level towards big polluters will inevitably need to result in big lifestyle changes for the general public. May as well start advocating for those changes now.
I agree with you when say ‘as much as possible‘. My concern is with the approach that says we all need to make dramatic changes (go vegan) order to meet climate goals or care about making change happen. There are a few issues with this - the way it will get twisted by opponents, put off those on the fence etc but he big thing is for many people - both global north and global south - making a living, and getting enough calories is tough enough as it is.
We need systemic change and I believe we are best to focus our energy on this. For that reason I find the govt ‘gen-less’ program frustrating.
Agreed, there are levels to it. Infrastructure changes, for example, obviously happen very slowly and, are out of individual control, so if the only way to work is by car, I couldn't fault anyone for that. But if you are in range of any NZ supermarket, you can immediately make a major change to your impact.
I would stand by saying that if people aren't willing to make changes to their own lifestyle, their concern is at least partially performative. This is a bit of a trite slogan that gets thrown around in vegan climate change discussions, but how are we going to change the system if we can't be bothered changing what's for dinner?
I would say to, and this a different point to my original one - there are other potentially more impactful ways of reducing your carbon footprint than going vegan. That’s a whole topic I don’t have the expertise to go deep on but I have linked Hannah Ritchies book here before, which is one useful reference.
Hi Bernard and Cathrine. I was a Senior Fishery Officer with the FAO in Rome (its headquarters) during 2009–10, and for me, the key thing to understand is that the FAO is not a research institute, but a UN organisation that offers specific food (and forestry)-related support and capacity to its member nations. As such, some areas are more political than others.
It is also very important to understand that the officers (i.e., employees) are technical, yet the member representatives that decide or approve or not its guidelines, policies, high-level publications, and so on are bureaucrats… generally from Foreign Affairs, that usually come with an agenda.
For instance, USA representatives famously censored a publication while I was there because it discussed the health risks associated with sugar consumption.
On the fisheries side, Argentina makes a point of reading with great detail every policy publication we did, objecting and deleting any mentions of the critical need for Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) for sustainable fisheries management of international waters, since they see this as a requirement to sit on the same table with the Falkland/Malvinas government to set an RFMO in the disputed waters of the South Atlantic, which they object to, as the consequence is the last area of the oceans without an RFMO and no management.
So, to judge FAO as an institution for those issues may be partly fair, but it does not see the other good things that they do… I was trained by an FAO programme when I was a fisherman in my late teens and open my eyes to study fisheries. In synthesis, yes, parts of FAO are prone to political manipulation, yet they also have a fundamentally positive role in the developing world.
Why did I leave FAO? Well… Bernard, you know my place in Waiheke… Why would I change Palm Beach for Rome in terms of quality of life, particularly with young kids?
Excellent discussion
‘The wealth of the world is being destroyed by money markets’
The solution to runaway global heating requires achieving net zero, and then removing CO2 , thereby reducing the overshoot to ‘ecologically healthy’ levels.
In other words the solution must see CO2 emissions reduce globally to circa 20% of current gross . On a per capita basis this equates to reducing from c. 5t/CO2 to 1t.
The focus needs be achieving this level of reduction… super fast.
As Dieter Helm stresses, the world, nations, businesses, and we as individuals need focus , and be accountable for the emissions caused by our choices… which at its core requires a spiritual ethos change … a tough journey ahead against the headwinds and pushback from our current market materialist construct.
Peoples need to well fed, and sense social justice is the prevailing societal ethos, and be happily preoccupied for this reductions goal to be attained and maintained.
Eric Fromm.. book title ‘To Have or to Be’ lays out the challenge
Wow, it’s hard not to be overwhelmed by the enormity of the challenge… given the DNA limitations of our species, and entrenched habits of behaviour.
90% of global emissions stem from decisions,life style choices, of the wealthiest 10%. And the remaining other (8B) are battling to have more, consume more,
We humans all of us, need make this transformation happen, and it is rooted in individual responsibility, intelligent informed ethical lifestyle choices, … the question being at each moment of choice, what emissions will result? Is it within my personal responsibility emissions budget… of 1 t/yr.?
There have been quite a few stories online recently about people giving up vegetarianism/veganism - the big agriculture PR machine at work?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13370781/Martin-Freeman-reveals-given-vegetarianism-38-years-concerns-meat-replacements-processed.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13374795/vegetarian-three-years-eats-thanksgiving-turkey-martin-freeman.html
Pai tēnei korero. I'm not a scientists backside but if I'm passionate about a kaupapa I like to explore the information available. I'm currently working my way through a book titled 'The Climate Crisis and other animals' author Richard Twine (lots of new words and referencing dictionary.com) In a nutshell it lays out the content of your korero. It joins many dots so that one can understand the extent of emissions from animal agriculture versus eating vegan and a whole lot more. The education system, capitalocene etc etc. We can't just get and feel hoha, we need to understand what it is we are getting and feeling hoha about! p.s i have reduced my meat consumption and will continue to do so.... :) just saying