Haha. 50 years is naively optimistic. There’s going to be widespread civil unrest due to food costs and shortages within the next 20 years, in most countries.
Agricultural productivity requires stable, predictable weather. As the weather and seasons continue to grow more extreme and less predictable, the global output of most crops will fall. This can only lead to inflation unless demand reduces proportionally to supply (many tens/hundreds of millions of excess deaths per annum). When I plan for retirement, I assume a rate of inflation double what it has been the last 30 years at the very least - that’s my most optimistic scenario.
If the rain stops falling where the farms are, or where the lakes and dams can capture it, we’re fucked. We can’t desalinate the amount of water agriculture or cities require, without releasing significantly more GHG’s, anytime in the foreseeable future.
The problem is not to do with safety in a human health sense, but rather genetic safety, ie, is it safe and wise to allow these modified plants to breed with other natural crops? I would prefer not, it’s something we cannot estimate the effect of. Also as the article rightly says, they have no need for this stuff from a large multinational corp, they can just grow other vegetables like tomatoes, squash, taro, etc. According to the article to get the right amount of Vitamin A, you’d have to eat 8 kg of rice in a day, whereas squash has significantly high concentrations of beta carotene (vit. A precursor). Don’t let the corporations control your food supply. Even though Syngenta has apparently donated this rice, they may pull other shady stuff. Letting a corp have a licence to the food you are growing is insanity.
Its a little strange to think about, but there’s nothing ‘natural’ about modern crops.
For millenia selective breeding was used to get desired traits, with who knows how many other mutations along the way.
More recently radiation has been used to induce mutations in crops to wider diversity.
GMOs are just the next step in more precisely editing a plants genome with only the changes we want.
Now the corpations making them like Monsanto can get fucked, they should still be treated like every other plant. If you have seeds you should be able to plant them.
Yeah, for me the issue with GMOs is less with the concepts of genetic engineering and more with the legal rights. Should be impossible to copyright or patent a fucking plant, and if that means that big corporations don’t want to do it anymore then that’s absolutely fine.
I probably shouldn’t have used the word natural, it’s too broad. I just feel there is a risk with allowing an artificial gene (for example the bacterial beta carotene gene) to spread through a population it never would have been in. Now I can’t think of any particular reason this might actually be bad, but we are still introducing a variable into a system we do not understand fully. When that system is what feeds us, I’d rather not mess with it without complete understanding.
Generally I agree with you, but in the case of Golden Rice the corporation has zero control over it. Now I’m not saying that the government of the Philippines should mandate it being grown, just that if a farmer wants to grow it, they should be free to do it, and there shouldn’t be any reason to protest against it. If you want to grow it, go ahead, if your neighbor wants to grow it, no one should care.
Reducing meat/dairy consumption seems to be one of the easiest changes we can make to lower GHG output, since it doesn’t require major infrastructure changes.
But it also means changing habits, which is hard for other reasons.
It’s a lot harder to drop carbs out of my diet but I have to. I let any of them in my body and now I’m dying again woo! Yall can do what you want but I will find a source of animal products if I have to eat the local quails and their eggs. When you can’t eat legumes or tubers or fruit or grains, you’d be better off starving to death if you can’t even have a steak with your green beans. I just wish I weren’t addicted to carbs. I need to get back on keto to get my body back again… 😩
I have Coeliac's and things with gluten are out for me unless I want a lot of misery for a couple of days (which sucks because I love bread). This cuts out a lot of things for me. I also typically do a very low-carb diet because, for whatever reason, it vastly improves my mood and how my body feels.
That said, I am moving to grow a lot more of my own food with plans to have my own chickens for eggs and eventually raising most of the meat my wife and I consume. The rest we plan on sourcing from local hunters (wild boar and overpopulated deer are big issues where we're moving) and farmers We also eat a lot of seafood, so probably less land-based meat than most already (definitely less than when I lived in the US).
I think it is higher, the current food production is something like 25% of the global GHG emissions, 2/3 are from the animal industry. Besides the direct impact there is less land use and the opportunity to re-nature large areas.
OK this article is infuriating, as is the product it’s hyping up.
If 2.5% of our emissions is going toward feeding 4 billion people then I’m totally fine with letting those emissions continue. This isn’t a thing we need to “solve,” this reeks of a capitalist looking at graphs of our emissions and going “we could cut emissions by 1% here and not have to actually change our habits at all!” This isn’t the problem causing climate change.
The energy sector accounts for over 70% of our emissions. Instead of trying to stop emitting less than 1% by pouring money into genetically manipulating plants to need less fertilizer, why don’t we instead cut 30% or more by replacing coal plants with solar, wind, and nuclear power?
Electric cars are here to save the car industry. They still do significant damage to humans. Car tires are the number 1 cause of microplastics in the ocean.
100% agreed, to reduce the environmental impact of the transport sector, the top priorities need to be investing in public transport and moving cargo by rail rather than by road.
This is the cause of global warming right here and why it will continue to happen. It happens because the governments DO NOT CARE about global warming. The climate conferences, media personalities like Greta, “green initiatives” all pale in comparison to the material support that current fossil fuels receive. If a politician is not publicly advocating for cutting off these subsidies at the very least, they are lying to you about their opinion on the environment. Do not vote for them.
Wonder when people will start targeting the CEOs and other high ups of these companies instead of chaining them self to a tree, gluing themselves to a road, or whatever misdirected action.
Soulless BMAs are s dime a dozen, and their lives are already so disconnected from the public I don’t know that’s the best action. Infrastructure is slow and costly to fix.
Definitely interesting that these honey bee keepers ended up pushing back against the bee crazy. Good for them.
In the US, honey bees are not native.
Plant native plants. Re wild parts of your yard. It’s sad to see our bumble bee population diminishing, especially given how they are far superior pollinators.
We’ve been letting some of the gardens that came with our house get wild rather than just veggies everywhere. We’ve gotten SO many bumblebees showing up the last 2 years. It’s been great. Love those little guys. Plus, far less effort than the previous owners had with their need for constant landscaping.
Why am I not surprised? Every big industry is trying to undermine any change that would cost them money or power. It’s fucking criminal yet no government will do anything because money and jobs
At this point you gotta put quotes around jobs because there’s only money flowing via lobbying / legal bribery. The Fed wants higher unemployment and employers are happy to oblige.
There’s something we humans seem to not understand: not everything has to be a gain. There are things that need to change, whether we like it or not. I eat meat, I could never be a vegetarian. Yet if the government did something about the meat industry and meat gets really expensive I would complain for a bit and then keep on living, eating other things.
Every change people act like it’s the end of the world. And corporations know that, and push against change and regulations. What we need is strong politics but that’s a utopia nowadays
It is obvious that I disagree, not only because you yourself disagree with you:
I could never be a vegetarian … then keep on living, eating other things.
Where I presume other things would simply be plants. So you could but a strong government has to force you.
The last government in the Netherlands wanted to force the animal industry to reduce the nitrate strain on the earth and groundwater. A new conservative “farmers” party was formed which was elected then. They have a massive industrial animal complex which powered this party that ran on fear and bullshit.
There are things that need change, but the most important part is to change what we have power over, our self. Every government in the world has to face the problem of animal industry, just like coal and fossile fuels. China already has plant based protein in their latest five-year agricultural plan, but they don’t have to fear the voters as much. So if you live in a democracy and you value it you have to live the change you want to see. It takes money from the industry, it supports alternatives and it shows the government that they will not be replaced by industry powered fearmongers if they propose changing the system.
Eating meat and dairy supports the industry
A plant based diet is the passive way of not supporting it
Fighting against the industry is the active way
You position is not neutral, at the moment you support what is “uncovered” in the article, you might consider changing that 💚
I don’t believe change comes from just freedom. Sometimes it does, but we are like kids. If we don’t have limits we do what we want. Nobody wants to change their habits. My point was that I can adapt. I can eat much less meat, discover new recipes and so on. But I’m comfortable now and I don’t want to change. The same goes for the majority of people, and we will never solve climate change if we are not forced to change habits. We, individually, will never have the same impact as governments passing regulations. We disagree, and that’s exactly why we can’t change by doing things alone
So your are working more in the direction of authoritarian governance? Authoritarian left I guess because the right still even hold strong on fossile fuels.
What do you propose to do with those how don’t comply with your rule of force, gulag?
Can you think of any change in history where that worked out? Most rights we have fought for in history: voting rights, women voting, abolishing of slavery, human rights, all that came from the people and there have been wars for it. Animal rights and the rights of future generations are tied into each other. We can’t have one without the other We should not need governance or bibles to take responsibility for our own actions.
Animal agriculture will raise the temperature even if we had stopped 2 years ago with all fossile fuel by 2°C. Since we still burn fossile fuel the temperature will raise above +4°C, a point where all animal agriculture will fail because the animals will die from heatstroke and starve from global crop failure.
And your position is “if you force me I will comply daddy president beloved leader” instead of joining the millions who have gone already vegan? Are you really like a kid?
Jezz you went completely to the extreme without addressing any of my points. I’m not saying we should have an authoritarian government. Just one with regulations. Are you an anarchist? Because you sound like one. All the big things are done organized, be it in a government or an association. Do you think women’s rights were done by a group of people? Governments passed laws. So you need laws to help society. Whether you like it or not
Absolutely, stuff happens, no protests, no civil war, people just don’t care and then it happens. How could I not have seen that.
Do you have no respect towards those who fought for your rights? All the marches and protests that brought us to where we are now? It would be great if you join a association or organization, you don’t have to do it alone!
Yes, I am leaning towards veganarchism, I would prefer not to have a government having to force people what they eat. Maybe its a kink of yours, don’t know. I am 40, I am vegan for 5 years. I don’t think I would have excused my earlier actions with a too weak government. That’s real sad is all I am saying
It’s kind of funny that you attack me for just stating my opinion and then get mad for something I didn’t say. You are too extreme. Next time think about the laws that allow you to live peacefully in your country. If you think you will have any impact without government action then good luck!
I have impact, on other and on the government, I don’t support what I am against and I work actively against it. I don’t lay back and wish for others to act without doing something myself. I don’t wait for others. I understand that from your position, where a strong government should fix you, that sounds extrem.
I’d like to see it divided up even more on the top 10%. To be in the top 10% of household income in the US, you would need to earn $184,000/year. That’s just two people earning $92k/year, which is reasonable for mid career or early mid career in or near a city.
I’d like to see it divided up even more on the top 10%.
Well the boy howdy do I have good news for you! If you read the article linked (and even better, the open access Journal article linked) you may find some cool nuggets like:
“Among the highest-earning 1% of households (whose income is linked to 15-17% of national emissions), investment holdings account for 38-43% of their emissions,”
And
Then there were “super-emitters” with extremely high overall greenhouse gas emissions, corresponding to about the top 0.1% of households. About 15 days of emissions from a super-emitter was equal to a lifetime of emissions for someone in the poorest 10% in America.
Clicking into the journal article you may even find cool figures like this one, showing breakdown of emissions by category for each income group:
Yea I read that. I said divided even more. I should have been clearer on that. I’d really like a top 7.5, top 5, top 2.5 and then top 1 and 0.1. There’s a HUGE gap between top 10 and top 1. Like 3-4 times more income.
I’d love for a statistician (or someone that remembers way more about statistics than I do) to give us an equation which allows us to more easily assign blame. My intuition tells me that the yacht-owning class would be a significant portion.
Yep. I’m barely in the top 10%, but I’m in a city and take transit and ride my bike, my wife uses the electric car to drive 5 mins uphill and gains about 60% back coming downhill. We eat local and do recycling and compost. The top 5% living in Texas or in suburbs driving trucks and SUVs are doing way more than me. I don’t think I’m an outlier in modern cities.
Every time I read about the ultra rich the exceed my negative expectations. 15 days = 1 lifetime is waaay more than I thought. My guess would have been like 1 year to build up that much. Wtf are they doing
TIL I'm in the top 10%. Yeah I can't believe I pollute any more than the other 90%. I work 100% from home, only my wife commutes 3 days a week. House is a modest 2200 sq ft. I don't have a boat or RV or plane or anything. I have some modest investment in hotels, cruise lines, and airlines (like under $5k all in). So yeah, this study leaves a lot to be desired.
EDIT: I guess my 401k or other managed investment accounts may have money in fossil fuels, but I'm not sure how I would know that or what exactly I would do about it. I have zero choice for the 401k as it's through my company. Other accounts maybe but how would one even track down managed investment accounts that don't include the largest pollution contributors?
What I got from the study is source of your wage and investments have more to do with how much of a high polluter you are than what you choose to do individually. So you could be a high wage earner who lives in a tent and bikes and invests a majority of their money that grows in profit, and that because of the growing investments and employer make you a higher polluter than someone who lives in a huge house and drives suvs and pick ups and doesn’t see their net worth grow due to so much of their stuff being financed.
With the money source being weighted this kind of feels more like an industry analysis despite the individual focus with how indirect it is, and based on some of comments here I guess people didn’t read the article either not realizing it has less to do with individual efforts like solar or private jets. At least that’s what I got from my attempt to understand the study.
Conclusion seems to be more that companies that pollute pay higher wages than a study of direct household pollution.
Like lots of data, it’s an average. There are lots of people, similar to you, who are not absolute gas guzzlers I’m the top 10%. The top 10% also includes the 1% and the .1%, which will greatly increase the average for the entire category.
Similarly to how an average doesn’t tell the whole story, neither does how you invest. Assumptions have to be made to come up with these articles, such as how much carbon emissions are created through investments, which isn’t exactly cut and dry.
TL;DR just because an article says that a group of people are the cause of something, it doesn’t mean that everyone in the group is causing it.
It also depends on how the data is being used. For this study source of wages is being heavily weighted as well as what companies an individual chooses to invest in. So while household is the focus of the headline companies are more the focus, since by the metric used it seems as though someone who lives a green life style on paper living in a tent and biking but invests majority of their money and sees it grow would be a heavier polluter than someone who makes less but lives in a big house, drives suvs and pick ups, but doesn’t see their net worth increase with most money not being used towards investments but paying off debt.
holy shit people stop fucking talking when you dont grasp a concept, nuclear energy is genuinely the most green energy there is by a longshot when all factors are considered.
Do you vote? Because it’s the same principle - how one person votes might be irrelevant, but millions of people voting is powerful. This is true even though corporations have outsized influence on the political process.
Likewise, a single person deciding to not eat meat one day a week or replace one car journey with cycling is nothing in the global scheme of things, but a billion people all doing it will have more impact on the environment than any corporation ever could.
I see your point, though I think the comparison isn’t quite accurate. My one vote doesn’t get canceled out many times over by the vote of a billionaire (though I suppose you could argue that lobbying by that billionaire could indeed cancel it out.
I guess I’m just growing pessimistic. For as much as I personally do, I feel its a drop in the water that is negated 1000 times over by corporations and wealthy individuals. I’m also tired of the narrative being focused on individual effort instead of pressuring corporations etc. to take more responsibility. But both individual and corporate/government action are needed, I suppose, if we’re going to save ourselves…
That billionaire doing the right thing is going to force the same lifestyle changes anyway. Meat tycoon shuts down operations. Now no meat is available for purchase- vegan is the only option. Coal plants shut down. Blackout hours are enforced while battery infrastructure catches up. Auto makers shut down operations. Public transit is clogged until capacity increases, more people start biking. Airlines drastically cut available flights. No long distance travel for you until high speed rail can be built. Shipping magnates vessels are decommissioned. Many goods are either more expensive or entirely unavailable.
I keep reading that. But it’s not that simple. Corporations provide what individuals want. Their exploitation of the world’s resources and the damage to the climate is a side product of that. They aren’t a completely separate entity that do what they do just to be evil.
Governments need to heavily restrict corps and how they operate. Which will come with increased prices and limitations to the people. Which is unpopular and will mean that those politicians won’t get back into office…
Which is why nothing will happen and we are all fucked
I am not a vegetarian, but I buy the Impossible Burger meat sometimes. It’s close enough that you would have a difficult time telling it apart from real meat. Not perfect, of course but I don’t mind eating it.
I find it personally difficult to eat a meal without meat at all, and I enjoy some of the plant based meats. They aren’t all great, but beyond chicken is better than some chicken nuggets, and I forget which brand it was but one of them does better brats than most grocery stores.
Edit: Hard agree on hoping for lab grown meat to progress. That feels like the actual future of meat consumption to me.
It won’t. At least, it probably won’t. Here’s a good high level explanation as to why. I’ve worked on software used by some of these pharm industries and have some understanding of the scale of these types of operations. Everyone who talks about carbon footprints of animal farms will have to accept the carbon footprint of a synethic meat calorie is going to be a LOT higher due to dozens of factors. If you care about the environment, even 50 years from now it’s probably cheaper to have cows AND spend margins to become carbon neutral than it would be to do lab meats.
If it’s about saving animal lives, that’s an ethical issue and where I’m learning to stop getting involved. I have enough knowledge in ethics to stand my own on that topic, and enough experience arguing ethics with vegans to know it’s time to stop trying to discuss that with them.
Now that’s just incorrect. The people who enjoy the taste of plant based meat probably liked the taste of meat a lot, that’s why they’re seeking to replace it, but environmental and/or ethical considerations are important enough to them to justify a small loss or simply change in flavor.
I love the taste of meat. There are very few things in world that taste as good as raw beew strips or or raw venison with a dash of salt and pepper.
Still, about 10 years ago I started eating less red meat for health reasons (both sides of my family have long history with high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases). I’ve always loved vegetables as well, so the change wasn’t so hard.
Maybe 5 years ago a lot of plant based protein products started to show up in the supermarkets here, so I decided to give them a try. And I found out they were pretty good. I actually now prefer plant based burger steaks over the real ones, and my spaghetti bolognese is far better when I make it with the fake minced meat.
My dad used to work in the dairy industry in the early 80’s and he told me thst he got to taste the early fake meat products while visiting some production plant in Denmark or Sweden. All the guests were served two minced meat steaks, of which the other one was plant or dairy based. None of them could tell the difference even back then.
For me it is the texture far more than the flavor that makes most plant based "meat" less than fun. Like how turkey bacon is a mockery of actual bacon.
That said there are a couple chicken nugget subs that are good and the impossible burger is decent with strong condiments. But most are just sad pretenders like turkey bacon.
Dishes that are not pretending to be meat are the best vegetarian dishes.
I eat meat and whitecastles impossible sliders are better than their meat ones. The impossible whopper is about as good as a whopper. Of course some of this is due to the quality of the meat burgers to begin with.
green
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.