1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice
Cookies Donations 2021

How 'green' are you?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Craven Morehead, Aug 30, 2011.

Page 4 of 4
  1. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah, protein is virtually a non-issue for vegans. There's a running joke among many vegans about the question they often get: "Where do you get your protein?"* The question is particularly annoying when it's spoken with a tone of concern or incredulity. The article you posted is great, snowy , thanks.

    Hemp seeds, for example, contain just as much protein (if not more) as meat. They have a complete protein, just like soy and quinoa, that is highly digestible (more so than soy, which already rivals whey). The protein content is about one third albumin (the same protein found in egg whites) and two thirds edestin, both of which have common forms in our blood plasma. But on top of that add an "almost perfect" omega-6-to-omega-3 ratio (including the rare GLA type), a host of vitamins and minerals (including iron), and fibre, and you have yourself a great plant-based food source.

    You want to know what else? Hemp is highly sustainable as a crop, let alone comparing it to meat production.

    The fact is, eating way more protein than we actually need is far more common than not getting enough. Protein deficiency (aka kwashiorkor) is usually only a problem in developing nations where malnutrition and starvation are the wider problems.

    * Answer:
    Plants
     
    Baraka_Guru, Jan 31, 2012
    #61
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Daval

    Daval Getting Tilted

    I don't go to extreme's like some people but I do try and do the little things like use energy efficient lights, use green cleaners, prefer less packaging, recylce etc.
     
    Daval, Jan 31, 2012
    #62
  3. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Wait, what? What!?

    Living in Singapore, without aircon?
     
    Remixer, Jan 31, 2012
    #63
  4. chevyjunky77

    chevyjunky77 New Member

    No, just an example of eco friendly products that are harmful. Standard light bulbs can also be recycled. I work in the electrical field and know what dirty energy can do to a persons body even if one "does not sit so close". It is not that simple. Ever heard of EMF? Do you know what these bulbs do to people with certain conditions?

    I did not disagree that this type of production was harmful. I do agree that people in general eat to much. Is reducing your caloric intake also "going green"? I was merely pionting out that you do not have to stop eating meat to "go green". You have choices on where your meat comes from. You can purchase free range, anti steroid, locally grown beef from small production farms. If the situation allows you can even raise your own.
    Rigorously managed it should be and in some states it is. Do you realize we have an over poulation problem in the states with wild game? Hunters are becoming fewer and are unable to keep the numbers down. In some states you can take as many as 25 deer a season. You either hunt or you allow the animals to suffer (PETA folks can kiss my behind). Over population of a species has a major effect on the environment also.
     
    chevyjunky77, Jan 31, 2012
    #64
  5. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I've read summaries, some of which indicate that being further than a foot or two away reduces the risk substantially. Of course, if you're susceptible because of a preexisting condition, you need to accommodate that. It's not just the bulbs that are a concern. As for EMFs, there are a number of risk factors. Which is worse, having one of these bulbs four to six feet away from me, or using a cell phone? What about those power lines outside some people's homes? What about the computers into which many of us stick our faces all day? What about all the wireless/satellite/radio signals flying around in downtown cores?

    How dangerous are these bulbs compared to all that other stuff?

    Reducing your meat intake is essentially "going greener." I'm not sure where you'd draw the line separating green/not green. Some cultures look at meat as a condiment. They may eat fish once a day and then a serving of beef or chicken once a week. The rest is plants, eggs, and dairy. That's far more "green" than the typical American diet, whose menu is built around categories of meat—where the question of what's for dinner usually contains the implication of asking what kind of meat there will be.

    As for free range, organic, locally grown meat, that's greener, but not nearly as green as simply eating plants instead. That meat is still subject to the resources required to produce it.

    I don't doubt for a second that there are population problems among some commonly hunted species. What I'm unsure of is whether this is a result of natural circumstances or the result of mismanaged reserves. Overpopulation is often a result of a lack of predators. Perhaps the overpopulation problem is a result of purging predators. Deer and other "wild game" aren't supposed to be the top of the food chain in the absence of humans, but people tend not to be too comfortable with living around predatory animals.

    "You either hunt or you allow the animal to suffer." Mercy killing? Are you trying to paint hunting as a noble sport? Why not let the overpopulation take care of itself, then it wouldn't be a problem.

    Also, besides deer, what animals have an overpopulation problem? Do you know why this is?
     
    Baraka_Guru, Jan 31, 2012
    #65
  6. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    You read it correctly. It's not as difficult as you might think.
     
    Charlatan, Jan 31, 2012
    #66
  7. spindles

    spindles Very Tilted

    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Are halogens that much better, in terms of energy consumed? You end up adding more halogen down lights to light the same space than incandescent bulbs - and depending on the globes these have quite a hefty wattage, don't they? I'm genuinely not sure, so happy to be corrected.

    In Oz they banned incandescent bulbs anyway (you can't buy them at all), so everything is CFL/flouro/halogen/led now. I wish the recycling of CFLs was easier - why can't they be collected like everything else? Our local council has a depot where you can drop them off, but it is a 20 minute round trip in the car to go there - I have quite a pile of 'broken' ones, and haven't raised the energy to drop them off yet. The worst bit is that the cost of a CFL far outweighs the cost (to buy) of an incandescent - it isn't a great incentive to do the 'right' thing if the cost is actually higher and the recycling isn't easy.
     
    spindles, Jan 31, 2012
    #67
  8. Stan

    Stan Resident Dumbass

    Location:
    Colorado
    The ones I have laying around are 40 watts, with the same light output as a 60 watt incandescent. CFL does better; but there are a few rooms in the house where CFL are annoying.
     
    Stan, Jan 31, 2012
    #68
  9. spindles

    spindles Very Tilted

    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I remember the first halogens we had - we replaced one incandescent with a track system with 4 halogens - the room was lit more brightly, but we actually increased our power output. I don't think a like for like comparison is that easy either - halogens tend to be a 'single direction' light, whereas a cfl or incandescent lightbulb basically sends light in all directions. You generally need more halogens to light the same area.
     
    spindles, Jan 31, 2012
    #69
  10. Candle

    Candle Vertical

    Location:
    Winnipeg, MB
    I think you mean selection silviculture, not selective silviculture. Selective harvest is the practice of selection the tallest, largests, best form factor trees and leaving the rest standing i.e introducing a selection pressure for the least desirable trees. Selection harvesting is the process of harvesting a standing volume across all merchantable size classes, such that there is no preference for trees of a certain size, form, or volume. Selective = bad, selection = good.

    That said clear cutting (properly called clear felling) is a valid and appropriate harvesting method for a large chunk of the forested area of Canada and Western USA forests. It is appropriate in that it is fitting with the disturbance ecology of that forest type. The vast majority of the boreal forest should be harvest by clear felling, or similar types like seed tree. The latter probably makes up any movement away from the popular notion of clear felling but is much the same.

    And now you know.
     
    Candle, Feb 1, 2012
    #70
    • Like Like x 1
Page 4 of 4