@bioemerl@usernamesAreTricky@blazera lol. The problem is humans keep artificially up a cow population to satisfy their apetite for meat. One cow's emissions is fine, 20 billion cows' emissions is not, regardless of the plants capturing CO². Nature is artificially out of balance.
@bioemerl@usernamesAreTricky@blazera wrong. The more cows releasing gas, the more saturated becomes the atmosphere. One thing is the carbon they eat and a very different story is capturing it back, or do you think the carbon problem from the oil industry is happening just because we drill the oil out?
@bioemerl@usernamesAreTricky@blazera a couple of cars won't make a difference, billions of cars do. Just like cows. No wonder why you are having a hard time understanding
@bioemerl@usernamesAreTricky@blazera picture this. You have a glass of water and a spoon of salt. The water has a concentration of ions, when you pour the salt in it you move the balance to a higher concentration of salt. Basically you have an atmosphere with X concentration of CO² and lets say a population of a billion cows and a billion trees. What happens if you double the amount of cows and half the amount of trees? Do you think the CO² concentration remains unchanged?
@bioemerl@usernamesAreTricky@blazera they are during active growth. Also my example was only to illustrate how the balance tilts, and even if you keep on denial, cows methane emissions can be measured, and are a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
@blindbunny@inasaba they're indeed driving global warming to the extreme with their cattle ranches and ignorance. They have a lack of education since primary school, most of them have no idea what evolution is, much less would they know what carbon emissions are!
ps. America is not a country but a Continent. It might be ok to call it like that within its limits, but we're in an international platform here, so please...
@tetraodon you'll hear from the oil industry that quitting oil is unrealistic as well. You just say that because you're engulfed into the meat industry, but meat is not oxygen, it's not necessary to live
@zShxck eating meat does not give you freedom, it's an irresponsible habit since you and many others are polluting the planet. The problem is it's still not regulated. There will come a time when emissions will be taken seriously. Right now the younger ones will pay for your reckless actions.
@zShxck@tetraodon the problem is you're mixing up survival with capitalism. If you only have the option of eating fish bc you live in extremely poor conditions then eat fish, no choice unfortunately. If you live in a rich country, you earn big bucks and have the option of eating meat vs something else, the right thing to do is eating something else
@zShxck good for you. Btw I've been vegan for around 10 years and basically you don't need meat for a balanced diet, whatever that means, I find a vegan diet quite balanced
When emissions get regulated it will be everybodys business, so enjoy your meat while you can
This land isn’t for you or me. It’s for the meat industry. | Almost half of the continental US is used for meat production. There’s something better we could do with it. (www.vox.com)
Halving reliance on meat and dairy could cut land-use emissions ‘by 31%’ (www.carbonbrief.org)
Missouri may allow meatpacker to release wastewater into already-impaired river (missouriindependent.com)
TL;DR:...
Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts - Nature Food (www.nature.com)