[LeeE]

Farming meat on land that could otherwise be planted with crops is indeed less efficient, in terms of weight of food produced, than growing those crops upon it.  However, even with all land turned over to farming crops it seems as though it will still be insufficient to meet the projected needs at some point in the future.  Remember too that not all of the land used for grazing meat animals is suitable for growing crops and if we're to return back to forest the land that was cleared for meat animal feedstock production, which would seem like a good idea from the CO2 reduction point of view, it seems as though there still won't be enough food for everyone.

On top of that, if global climate change is now inevitable it'll be likely to severely disrupt crop production.  Sure, as some productive regions become unproductive it is likely that some new regions will become productive, but even if the new regions do balance the regions that will be lost, and the new state is stable, allowing recovery, the transition period will see serious shortages.

[Make it Lady]

Jonathan Porrit described this time as the tipping point. This means radical change now can help. But Lee, I think you are right in saying it could all end in tears. I'm hoping we can afford ourselves much more time in order to fix things. I'm affraid I don't hold out much hope but I'd like to go down fighting and I hold onto hope. The sad thing is that people are ignoring the problems and blaming others. Other people just shrug their shoulders and carry on regardless. Ho Hum.

[LeeE]

Jonathan Porrit described this time as the tipping point. This means radical change now can help.

No disrespect to Jonathan Porrit, but unless he's in possession of clear and unequivocal data to support his assertion that it's not too late for radical change to alter the outcome, and there appears to be no such unequivocal data, then I'm afraid that what he claims has no certainty of being true.  Mind you, if he is trying to gain support and get people to change their habits then it would do no good to admit that it may already be too late to avert disaster; people would be more likely to just give up than trying to fight a battle that they simply cannot win.

But Lee, I think you are right in saying it could all end in tears. I'm hoping we can afford ourselves much more time in order to fix things. I'm affraid I don't hold out much hope but I'd like to go down fighting and I hold onto hope.

Well, I suppose that in view of the fact that no one knows what the outcome will be there is always hope, and that even if we cannot avoid the outcome then there is the possibility of mitigating the severity of the outcome, so it is worthwhile trying to do something.

The sad thing is that people are ignoring the problems and blaming others. Other people just shrug their shoulders and carry on regardless. Ho Hum.

I'm not sure that people are just ignoring the problem because they don't care about it.  No, instead I think that most people feel impotent and believe that they are incapable of doing anything effective about it, and furthermore they feel this way not because of the scale or magnitude of the problem but because it is symptomatic of a feeling that they are increasingly not in control of their own lives, let alone the future of the world.

The problem, I believe, is that the master/servant model, where society is the master, and who is served by government and commercial organisations, has been turned upside down; people now feel that they are expected to serve and be controlled by government and commerce.  Borrowing a quote from 'V for Vendetta': "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"...  but people are now scared of their governments.  By and large, I think the people, for society is nothing without the people who comprise it, now resent government and commerce and will do as little as possible to support them, especially if it means suffering increased hardship.

I think that all people have an innate sense of fairness, yet the world has become an incredibly unfair place, a fact that has not escaped many, even if they feel they can do nothing about it.  It's not because the majority of people don't care; it's because they've given up.

[Make it Lady]

Again, I agree Lee but even after talking to someone about the militia in the Congo exploiting farmers and their land where a mineral used in mobile phones is abundant, they still said "Well everyones got an i-phone. I work hard so I deserve one too. I explained that if people boycotted companies that had murky ethical backgrounds and wrote to companies stating their concerns things would get done. They still shrug.

I think people are more apathetic because of the current culture and climate but ignorance can no longer be bliss. Information and using that information is key. Children in most schools now are being introduced to global citizenship which teaches them how to look at information critically, how to make good life choices, what impact their choices can have and how the world works. It is also part of the OFSTED inspected community cohesion orders for all schools. This looks at the interdependence we have both locally and globally.
My hope is that our children won't just shrug and walk away.
Take a look at this:

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/gc/files/education_for_global_citizenship_a_guide_for_schools.pdf
 

[LeeE]

I'm not so sure that people are apathetic.  Rather, I think they're just being understandably cynical.  Their cynicism is understandable because just about all of the information available comes from one advocacy group or another, but because they're all advocacy groups none of them can really be considered to be impartial.

The CRU affair really highlighted this, when instead of being impartial it became apparent that it was being selective about what data it accepted and what it rejected because it was trying to prove one particular argument over another.  The work of the CRU may or may not still be valid, but that work is now pretty much valueless, as far as the general public is concerned, because the CRU was clearly not impartial.