What is the vegan agenda?

I often wonder what it is that is the real Vegan Agenda. 

A quick look around shows that involves grandstanding, putting "their message" out there in a highly visible way (like this model chick in an Asian city)

(seeming to biggyback of another quasi religious organisation called PeTA) and aligning with "saving the earth".

Now I know that vegetarians have been around for most of recorded history, but Veganism is something new. Vegans go beyond vegetarian and will often make a fuss about even the merest amount of "pollutants" in foods, yet that same vegan can be observed eating non-vegan foods (if one is careful because its often in in seclusion).

Why is it so?

The answer in my view is that Vegans seek beyond all other things to be noticed, to be special, to be apart and to signal their virtue. Interestingly this is the exact realm of the narcissist.

Lets take a look at what a narcissist is first.

further that because Vegans have an agenda and look to a systematic belief system it also ticks many boxes of "Cult"

The question of "religious" style motivations is already examined by some papers on the psychology of Veganism. For instance this one which explores how people inclined towards a religion are indeed also inclined towards Vegan ideals.

Results show that religiosity exerts some effect on consumer environmental predisposition, and that, in turn, such predisposition determines vegan purchasing intentions. A split model is then proposed considering Christian and Buddhist consumers. Results of multigroup analysis show that religious influxes on consumer environmental predispositions might vary according to different religious faiths.

Someone who is religious is often more inclined towards "magical thinking" (and do recall that religion has been the #1 enemy of Science since Science really started).

Vegans will have you believe that their "teachings" are the only way towards the (holy) goal of a Sustainable World for humanity.  Yet that claim really does not bear examination; indeed closer examination will reveal that title belongs squarely with good old vegetarians (and especially if they make a few concessions to dairy and eggs). 

This study for instance 

found that the vegan diet would feed fewer people than two of the vegetarian and two of the four omnivorous diets studied.

So any moral high ground would only be apparent if you don't actually test the claims. 

Interestingly this is exactly in line with Malignant Narcissists who love control and hate facts.

but wait ... there's more

The Vegan agenda goes beyond just "sustainable" and well into control for controls sake. While turning a blind eye to the amount of animals killed in the harvesting of their soya bean crops (or even the entire eco-systems laid waste in clearing habitats to plant them); Vegans will decry medications for their excipients , refuse beers or wines because of miniscule components used in manufacture and even tell you what shoes to wear.

Whats even more amusing is that numerous health studies have shown that being Vegan (and probably vegetarian) is not universally good for health and involves many complex tricks to make sure you're not setting yourself up for a deficiency disease (link to a University Publication). An amusing anecdote is that a person I know was getting sick, so she consulted her Doctor. Blood tests were done and the Doctor suggested that the problem was her Iron content was low. He suggested a small serving of red meat weekly. ... NOPE ... not for the faithful. So he suggested a glass of Stout or Guinness (evidence for that), but again NOPE ... its not Vegan 

Sounds a bit like "its not Catholic" or "its not Halal" or some other non scientific impractical and often cruel religious view doesn't it.

Lastly Vegans (much like religions) seem to feel its OK to bring violence to bear because of "what's at steak" (oh, steak ... mmmm).

From that article:

• Animal activists who brought central Melbourne to a standstill recently have vowed to step up their campaign of civil disobedience and raids on abattoirs and farms.
• Activists say they will risk big fines and possible jail terms for privacy and trespass offences
• Chris Delforce, said animal rights activism was a natural extension of the growth of veganism, as people became more aware of the treatment of animals raised for food, fibre, entertainment and research.
• The extremists and the radicals that we've seen invading farms and businesses, it's unlikely they'll ever have reasonable conversations.

Extremists and radicals ... fits the picture.

It gets even more ridiculous...

...when you consider that quite a lot of Vegans don't want to make substantial changes to the food that they eat. so rather than just "don't eat it" they want to eschew eggs and have their mayonnaise ... talk about Marie Antoinette 

and manufacturers (who just want to sell stuff) place VEGAN in big letters (perhaps for the morons) on what is obviously a vegan product anyway.

What's even more ironic is that (aside from wanting to have their views but not make any changes) these products are often more expensive to make, release more CO₂ and other areas (study):

The vegan mayonnaise had a significantly (p < 0.05) lower impact across 4 categories, but a significantly higher impact across 8 categories out of 16, including climate change and resource-use-energy-carriers.

Laugh ... I nearly shat.

Long ago I wrote a whimsical piece about the Zombies of Moronity ... I see that Vegans are forming up as a group and taking that crown by force (along with say, QAnon).

The King is dead, long live the King. King Wang, King Wang, Wanking...

My position on Electric Cars

I did my masters research in Environmental Science, my focus was on sustainable development and I believe strongly in the viewpoints of Ecological Modernisation.

So that being said I have nothing against Electric Cars (EC) per se.

Modernisation should be undertaken in a stepwise manner which is consistent with Sustainable Development. I do not see evidence that the EC industry is sustainable, but it is quite happy to ride a wave of public sentiment which is essentially based on the idea that it is a panacea for climate change. It is not. Instead we see Government "picking a winner" (that'd be EC's) and pushing that agenda. This is a bad idea.

What I am against is what I see as the following list problems.

Why do it?

Well first there is the idea you're saving the planet with reduced CO₂ emissions, lets work an example.

In a recent test on the Mini SE (electric) it used about 32kWh to cover 190km. This is about 17kWh/100km which is pretty typical. However if you charged that in Queensland apparently that results in about 26kg of CO2 (according to this site  https://www.powershop.com.au/carbon-calculator/).  

Now if you drove the regular Mini (based on its claims) it will use 11 liters of fuel which is about 2.4kg of CO₂ per liter or 26.4kg of CO₂

"I just shit my pants" (laughing), because you just spent $10,000 dollars more to virtue signal on something that does not achieve the objectives you imagined it would. Does that make you a fool or a zealot?

Motivation of Governments should always be viewed with scepticism (see this older post), as should the motivations of industry. When I see things such as the following I find it hard to not be sceptical about the actual motivations.

Such things in the points as diesel cars, curiously touted by governments and backed by fuel price advantages previously, are now bad news; this in a matter of a few years. I understood that the incentives to get into a diesel car are now dwindling ... will that happen to ECs? Well yes, we already are seeing that in places that began adopting them.

While arguments are made for the reduction in "tail pipe" emissions from cars in cities the drive to replace hydrobarbon based conversion of energy into motion in the car to only storage of electricity in the car is not backed up by similar clear spending on generation sources and transmission sources of  electricity.

Its well understood that most generation is not without pollution (even CO₂) and the best studies have shown that its at best about 30% reduction of CO₂ depending where you live and how your electricity is generated. Yet we do not see a proliferation of ECs in the lower power demands, we instead see them in the higher power demand areas. Tesla leading the charge and BMW and others coming on board.

The prices are certainly not something the average person is going to afford, with them being priced in the order of over AU$100,000.

Top Down Driven:

Meaning that in the "top price tier" there isn't so much of a difference between the xDrive and the older X5 BMW, but for "people's cars" the bill is very high. This is not news to me, as my recent comparison of "like for like" EV vs regular (now called) ICE cars shows you pay more than double (nearly 3 times) down at the lower end for the same thing. 

There is no mention anywhere of how many kW hours per 100km these BMW's consume. Which is even something that the average person (the one expected to make decisions) barely understands. Even when it comes to liters per 100km in their car ICE car. 

For reference my eScooter consumes less than 2kWh per 100km and the most generous figures you can expect from an Electric Car is more than 10 times that, but that comes with the issues of recharging (soon).

Fairly clearly these Electric Cars are not aimed at the masses (even the Hyundai EV, for who on the low end can afford 3 times the price for a basic car), nor it seems aimed at doing anything more about reducing CO₂ than virtue signalling. Remember, electricity often depends on stuff which generates CO₂.

However it goes deeper in my view, because the central (yet to be solved) issue is the cars battery pack. Currently this is Lithium, which while itself abundant currently relies on elements which are certainly not, NOR is there a certain supply of it (places such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and China being the world top two suppliers).  Lets side step the supply and ethical issues involved right there, but expect wars over this. Just like wars are over petroleum right now.

Its commonly touted that battery prices are falling (but ignored that the battery packs in cars are requiring more and more battery), with even reputable institutions putting out "public fluff" in blog posts selling the idea that  lithium batteries are getting cheaper.

I personally love the projection into the future ... suggesting it will continue falling, but their point of "look out, auto industry" is perhaps the storm that will drive prices UP not down.  Its quite certain that there is not enough battery being made (probably in any short time being able to be made) to supply the volume of batteries the ECs (which apparently we all need) will require. 

Fun Fact:

Did you know that while your laptop has maybe 3 lithium cells in it, my scooter 78 that a Tesla has over 7000? So if we consider the battery an essentially non recyclable component, and indeed a representing a scarce resource its important to make good use of it. We can make 100 eScooters per Tesla just on batteries alone ... so which would make more impact for reducing emissions? Tesla on the road or 100 more people in (say) London using an eScooter for last mile?

Yep. We are going to need a LOT of batteries. I read recently that a major Italian conglomerate is stepping into the ring:

which may sound encouraging but will this actually reduce prices or will a massive demand increase drive the price higher? 2Giga-Watt hour ... it seems a big number, but how many EC's is that? Assuming that an "average" EC needs a 50kWh battery that's about 40 Thousand cars. Currently the EU buys about 1 Million  cars a year ... so thats enough to give 4% of new car sales. Piffle innit.

Perhaps they are only in there because of government distortion of the market?

What do I mean? Well apparently Europe has now decided that even Hybrids are not sufficient to satisfy their regulatory requirements

which pretty much leaves EC's which means more battery sales and probably because of demand higher prices for the makers (who are already in a tight margins game).

What is Power

So, if we have an Electric Car we have to charge it right?

The power needed needed by EC's is best understood in Watt hours ... like if you run a bulb for an hour, or a car for an hour you need Watt hours. Most people (or so it seems) do not understand their power bill, so lets have a little look at mine:

So last month I used 168 kWh, if I'd had an EC and was charging it at home, and lets say it was one of the better EC's that uses 17kWh/100km and I did 20km per day (getting to and from work)  that's 100km or 17kWh per week (just to and from work) that's about 70kWh per month. That's a lot less than the average distance driven per week, which is much closer to 260km per week or about 176kWh per month, meaning double my draw from the grid.

Notice I didn't talk about the money ... just the draw from the grid.

So the grid will need to account for at least something like that in order to cope with the load.

Sure, we'll do it in stages, but you know ... somebody has to pay money for all the increased power generation, all the increased grid capacity and probably this will come in the form of increased power costs (so you'll pay more for your power). Also you'll probably have to pay something in the short term because power (measured in Watts) is underlied by two factors (sorry, again the general public is going to have difficulty with this because many failed science); Amps and Volts. Indeed its simple its exactly a multiplication. 

If you are going to pull 1000Watts (that's 1kW) from the grid then (assuming you have 240Volt power as Australia, Europe and the UK do; but America doesn't) you'll have to pull about 4 amps. For every 1Kw you want you'll need to add another 4 amps.

If your battery (like the BMW is 77kWh; go back up and check) and you want to charge it in 10 hours you'll need to pull 7.7kW from the grid for those 10 hours. This equates to about 30amps ... 

So?

Well the average house is wired to cope with pulling about 80 amps from the grid, so I hope you aren't using your AC or Electric Heater, Boiler or other electrical appliances because if you are you'll trip a fuse that's INTO your house and you'll be "off grid"

Clearly unless of course we get some magic solution we will be setting ourselves up for problems.

So back to Sustainable Development to me

1. none of this seems sustainable ecologically
2. it does not work economically for the masses
3. it is a lot of effort for a smaller return, perhaps even a negative return when all the adaptations are counted in.

Alternatives?

To me the Sustainable Development is to do the following

1. work at actually reducing your driving, get a bicycle or maybe an eBike, a  small motor-scooter (perhaps electric?) or an eScooter for those smaller trips (like getting to work). Myself I've cut my petrol consumption in half using the above.
2. use public transport as much as possible, perhaps get a folding bike or an eScooter for the "last mile" (*as eScooters are not legal yet in some places (yes, I'm looking at you UK) then perhaps agitate for that?)
3. try to think deeper and really grapple with the problems and the knock on effects

Friends of mine will know this is not my first post on Electric Vehicles, indeed I've had a few (see here, which will include this). Interestingly this whole thing really hasn't changed in the last ten years, as my first post on Electric Scooters was just over 10 years ago (think Vespa, not the stand up type you can take on the subway). In that post I clarified that it makes no economic sense and returns little benefit to the consumer. Nothing has changed, and all that has happend is we've clarified that without cheaper electricity that is not polluting there is little benefit to the environment then or now for EC's.

Indeed if batteries are wasted (like the 10 year old Nissan Leaf rotting up my street) then the advantages of an EC are quickly negative. I fear that in the hands of "the general public" (because right now its only enthusiasts) we'll see lots more "lost resources" with people stuffing up their EC's by misoperation and general neglect.

Its a path we need to consider carefully before rushing into. Ecological Modernisation isn't just about what technology Society uses, its about how Society thinks and operates ... this isn't just about consuming, about buying more (but Tesla and BMW would love you to think it does), it means you need to engage, you need to understand and you need to act!

because in reality we are fighting for our childrens lives (so make sure you understand the basics).

Superglue as a wound dressing

For those of us on warfarin (and maybe some others) abrasions and mild cuts bleed like stuck pigs (as the saying goes). As I age my skin seems more inclined to be broken by impacts than at a younger ages and forearms often bear the brunt of this. The other day I caught my arm on something and opened up a wound which of course bled all over my shirt (fuck).

So after I treated the wound basically (clean, apply pressure to reduce bleeding) I mix in a drop of superglue with the fluids coming out of the wound (plasma as well as a bit of blood) and allow to dry. This is what it looked like:

The opening (a skin tear) is a bit under a cm.

The next advantage from Superglue comes the next day when it is much more stable than a scab is and even after a shower you don't need to worry about "wiping off the scab and bleeding again"

Works well and will fall off as the underlying skin exfoliates naturally.

Remember:

1. apply pressure (with a bit of absorbent paper covering the wound) first
2. when its not oozing as much (should be no more than a few minuets) apply super glod
3. DO NOT apply pressure with your finger then ... unless you want a comedy to ensue

HTH