Selfsufficientish.com

Just found this site http://www.cat.org.uk/carbongym/carbong ... =reception

have a look around it and see how much carbon you produce. Mine was above the levels that we should be trying for at 3089kg of co2 a year so looks like I should stop eating meat. and cut down on my train travel. Maybe if only eat road kill, I could still eat meat. Mind you I am a third of the average so I guess that is not too bad.

Funnily enough, I was looking at a couple of similar sites the other day. They gave me wildly different scores, but they were both way above what we apparently should all be aiming for.

One was www.carbonfootprint.com and the other was www.southampton-sustainability.org/carboncalc.

I rarely fly but I drive too much. I need to get a grip!

I see what you mean that one says that my footprint is 1,353 kg - well happy with that as it is over 1000 kg below the recomended level.

i was over the recommended amount too....

BUT... i think the questions in the CAT one were unfair - and in fact all of the surveys generalise in some way or another.

I do eat SOME meat... but not as much as I used to do... I eat organic and (where possible) locally produced fruit and veg...

I do drive... but if I were to rely on public transport where I live I would go out shopping one day and return the next!! Oh, and I'd have to walk for 4 miles to get to the bus stop too.

I also like Robbie Williams... does this mean I'm bad?? LOL

We are carnivorous, but I was reading a book (pinched with my computer, so I can't remember the name and author) that made a pretty good argument for being vegetarian or even better vegan, purely from a health perspective. We are looking at cutting our meat consumption down. It also makes it easier to be more self sufficientish because meat production in the back yard is difficult. There are obviously the enviro benefits too!

Nev

This makes interesting reading. Jonathon Porritt is fairly well respected as Someone Who Knows What He's Talking About.

Good one Stew! It seems the pollies have got it wrong...................again!

Nev

Quite enlightening stew, cheers.

I guess I can sit in the eat less meat catagory as I really only have meat on adverage about once a week. And that is bacon (generally) or chicken both from the south west and organic, but possilbly not fed on local grown produce. Although I imagine the pig at least would be, really don't know.

Perhaps there is another new market to be made, organically reared animals fed on local produce?

I always think we should reduce meat consumption to the level that all that's required can be produced in areas that are not suitable for producing anything that could be eaten "directly" by humans, i.e. hills, catch crops, bad soils etc. Livestock should be reared extensively without feeding grain (except waste grain, what's left after cleaning etc). It would be a huge change in consumers' habits; my friend (farm with barley, sheep and goats) thinks the human race would never adapt to that, but I'm less pessimistic. I think folk will have to adapt in the long run.

Pigs would, of course, be drastically reduced, as they are direct competitors to humans in the food stakes! No more bacon?!

Ina

PS: For those that don't know yet - I'm vegetarian anyway, and have been for a long time, so it wouldn't make much of a difference to me - although dairy and poultry production would, of course, also be affected.

John Seymour always thought that, if correctly set up, animals and cropping were complementary. Pigs to plough the land, cows to graze the grassland, followed by horses and sheep, followed by the chooks etc. Also if you are going to keep animals, the males are generally slaughtered to provide food, just as you say, not so much meat.

Nev

Yes, I know farms where pigs and hens are part of the rotation - but that is sadly the exception! They are good at weed control, too, plus fertilising. It's just all this "factory feeding" of livestock that I think is superflous.

Ina

You won't get any arguments from me, Ina.

Nev