|
Oh, whew. False alarm, everybody! The apocalypse is cancelled! https://bgr.com/science/mit-scientists-think-theyve-discovered-how-to-fully-reverse-climate-change/ 
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/status/1545345583262695424 Coal must burn
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 06:18
|
|
|
We got a Man of the People Says "Keep hope alive" Got fuel to burn Got roads to drive
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 08:37
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Oh, whew. False alarm, everybody! The apocalypse is cancelled! "The idea revolves heavily around the creation and deployment of several thin film-like silicon bubbles. The “space bubbles” as they refer to them, would be joined together like a raft. Once expanded in space it would be around the same size as Brazil" lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 12:32
|
|
|
The lengths people will go to to avoid giving up dead animal flesh!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 12:35
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:The lengths people will go to to avoid giving up Gonna keep pointing this out: Your personal choice which is doing exactly nothing to actually get the major polluters to stop polluting, by the way, is not everyone's choice. You are demanding system changes that would require EVEN MORE lifting than addressing key issues like public transit > cars, etc, and would likely require a straight up fascist state to enforce. We don't even have a food system that ensures people can get enough to eat and you want to cut that out from under them in some misguided desire to solve climate change through your personal feelings about prey animals, which by the way will have to be mass culled as part of your transition away from meat as protein since they've been specifically bred and created for that purpose through artificial selection and would not survive well without human intervention anymore. We have much bigger CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Gonna keep pointing this out: Your personal choice which is doing exactly nothing to actually get the major polluters to stop polluting, by the way, is not everyone's choice. You are demanding system changes that would require EVEN MORE lifting than addressing key issues like public transit > cars, etc, and would likely require a straight up fascist state to enforce. I'm not demanding systemic changes right this instant, I'm just demanding the people reading my post stop paying for the abuse and death of sentient beings, a process which is responsible for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions CommieGIR posted:We don't even have a food system that ensures people can get enough to eat and you want to cut that out from under them in some misguided desire to solve climate change through your personal feelings about prey animals, which by the way will have to be mass culled as part of your transition away from meat as protein since they've been specifically bred and created for that purpose through artificial selection and would not survive well without human intervention anymore. Mass culling of animals sounds terrible! Remind me how many animals are killed for food every year? Oh, 70 billion PS chickpeas, beans and lentils are much cheaper sources of protein than meat, and plant foods already give humanity two thirds of its protein and four fifths of its calories
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 13:25
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:I'm not demanding systemic changes right this instant, I'm just demanding the people reading my post stop paying for the abuse and death of sentient beings, a process which is responsible for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions And yet meat remains a key protein source for millions of people. This isn't about emissions for you, this is your personal thing. And like the last time we discussed this: You are being a little misleading, the protein from plants is less dense versus protein from meat. You are picking and choosing what favors your personal crusade. And again, unless you are suggesting a total facist regime to enforce the end of meat consumption, its a lofty goal that is unlikely to happen. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
Stopping subsidies of environmentally destructive agriculture practices, particularly beef and pork ranching, would be a good place to start. The US spends $38 billion each year propping up agribusiness (with the vast, vast majority going to major corporations rather than the ever elusive “small farmer” - 75 percent is given to the biggest 10 percent of farming companies). Most of it goes to beef, pork, poultry, corn, wheat, and soybeans (corn, wheat, and soy are mostly used for livestock feed). Less than one percent of subsidies goes to fresh fruit and vegetables. One Berkeley study estimated that a $5 Big Mac would cost $13 without those subsidies. The health impacts of obesity and diabetes represent a hundreds of billions of dollars in additional economic and environmental cost every year. We basically fund both sides of the nation’s biggest health epidemic. And this is a global issue, with the UN estimating that 90 percent of the $540 billion in global farm subsidies go to activities that harm people’s health, the climate, and drive inequality. https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-farm-subsidies-damage-people-planet-un-climate-crisis-nature-inequality https://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/CopyofFINALSavingThePlanetSustainableMeatAlternatives.pdf https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cognitive-dissonance-around-animal-agriculture https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/91749 https://www.businessinsider.com/billions-in-tax-dollars-subsidize-the-junk-food-industry-2012-7 https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2017/08/farm-safety-net-payments-first-three-years-2014-farm-bill-crs-report/ https://theweek.com/articles/461227/farm-subsidies-welfare-program-agribusiness?amp Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And yet meat remains a key protein source for millions of people. What does nutrient density have to do with anything? You're saying you pay for the unsustainable abuse and death of animals because it takes you a few extra seconds to eat lentils than steak?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
It’s really weird that CommieGIR is pushing back so hard on plant based diets. The science is really drat clear on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And again, unless you are suggesting a total facist regime to enforce the end of meat consumption, its a lofty goal that is unlikely to happen. You could literally use this same sentence and replace “end of meat consumption” with: “End of car culture” “End of fossil fuel power generation” “End of oil extraction” Etc. Do I think planetary vegetarianism is likely? No. But to yank out the fascism card on meat but ignore it when pimping nuclear for all doesn’t make sense. You are picking and choosing projects you like or dislike to tar with fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
I didn't know a Big Mac exceeded $10 of materials and labor before what's essentially a tax prebate for getting terrible health problems, Jesus loving Christ Obviously we can't force people to stop eating meat, but we sure as hell can stop subsidizing it. Also, make sure the two of you are not talking past each other with respect to industrialized, subsidized agribusiness versus a family in a rural part of a backwater of a country most people can't point to on a map raising a couple livestock that really do constitute a significant fraction of that family's actual nutrition. For populations that lack food security, meat is an important shortcut for a diverse diet. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:It’s really weird that CommieGIR is pushing back so hard on plant based diets. The science is really drat clear on this topic. I'm not denying the science, and I agree with it. I'm arguing that in a country where starvation is still a major issue, where we cannot even deal with the very basics around climate change, demanding a full transition to vegan only is up there with hoping we'll spontaneously jump into a utopian society. Its pie in the sky levels of things that should be achieved. There's very basic stuff that we have to tackle before we get to that level. This is the problem: I do not disagree with what Enjoy is saying, I disagree with his demand that it is something we can do right now. This is distant future achievables. Kaal posted:Stopping subsidies of environmentally destructive agriculture practices, particularly beef and pork ranching, would be a good place to start. The US spends $38 billion each year propping up agribusiness (with the vast, vast majority going to major corporations rather than the ever elusive “small farmer” - 75 percent is given to the biggest 10 percent of farming companies). Most of it goes to beef, pork, poultry, corn, wheat, and soybeans (corn, wheat, and soy are mostly used for livestock feed). Less than one percent of subsidies goes to fresh fruit and vegetables. One Berkeley study estimated that a $5 Big Mac would cost $13 without those subsidies. The health impacts of obesity and diabetes represent a hundreds of billions of dollars in additional economic and environmental cost every year. We basically fund both sides of the nation’s biggest health epidemic. And this is a global issue, with the UN estimating that 90 percent of the $540 billion in global farm subsidies go to activities that harm people’s health, the climate, and drive inequality. Agreed, same goes with fossil subsidies but there will be fallout from ending both, and achieving that is going to take significant effort, that's before we even get to demanding society transition to vegan only. We're talking about addressing food waste, ensuring transit, ensuring social welfare that enables people to get food, etc. There's a multitude of steps before "Everyone go vegan". Its a vast oversimplification to say that's all it would take. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
We talk about the need for a just transition to a carbon free future. In regards to food, I think that will necessarily involve subsidies to the cultured meat industry. That seems like a great direction to head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm not denying the science, and I agree with it. I'm arguing that in a country where starvation is still a major issue, where we cannot even deal with the very basics around climate change, demanding a full transition to vegan only is up there with hoping we'll spontaneously jump into a utopian society. Which climate measures are more attainable in your eyes? Developing mass transit in order to reduce personal automobile use is way more of a moonshot than reducing animal product consumption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
Guess we're going to need massive resolutionary changes across multiple sectors of society. Maybe someone should start a political party about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
One way to consider subsidy reform is to make them demand-side rather than supply-side, or rather to give money to the people rather than to corporations. That $38 billion agricultural subsidy represents $115 per citizen - is it really effective food scarcity policy to give that money to Monsanto and hope it trickles down rather than providing a $10 monthly food benefit to every American? The same could be said for the $62 billion in direct fossil fuel subsidies that is distributed every year in the US. Wouldn't that be better spent on a $20 a month energy benefit? Certainly it would be more popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Do you have any other cards to play? There’s also using a bicycle for local travel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Guess we're going to need massive resolutionary changes across multiple sectors of society. Maybe someone should start a political party about it. Sure just don't expect to mobilize the masses if you promise to take away cars and burgers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:There’s also using a bicycle for local travel. Bikes are good. But in the US: Might as well sign a death certificate if you do it on public roads or are long distance commuting. Without public transit to replace cars, it least a lot of people in the lurch. Nobody is gonna bike 15+ miles to work on US roads and assume its safe. And what about people that cannot bike? Are we just gonna make an ableist assumption about accessing services via bike?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Bikes are good. But in the US: Might as well sign a death certificate if you do it on public roads or are long distance commuting. This is sadly true. In Texas, we have designated bike lanes on most major city streets, but people still use them as turning lanes regardless of whether they're occupied with cyclists or not. It's a relatively short commute from my home to work on a bike, but I've see so many fatalities in the news that it's not worth risking it. There was one particular incident where a drunk driver hit a cyclist so hard that they went airborne and landed in the back of their pickup's flatbed and then he and his passenger tried to dispose of the body in a canal. Luckily, they were caught and got sentenced to 18 years in prison: https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/a-horrific-cycling-hit-and-run-in-the-valley/
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Paratransit is great and should be supported more than it is. High costs and inefficient service plague public transit agencies across the nation, who are required to foot the cost of paratransit and help disabled people navigate a road network that is fundamentally opposed to public transit, multiuse streets, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Car advocates in DOTs may interpret "disabled access" as placing a parking lot and a highway outside of every building, but ADA needs like platform-level rapid transit, on-demand paratransit, protected multiuse paths, or safe pedestrian spaces, often get little attention. There's a lot of disabled folks who would get a lot of value out of being able to safely travel a couple kilometers to the grocery/doctor and back on their electric mobility scooters, but instead have to schedule paratransit rides or beg neighbors to drive them due to a lack of protected cycle lanes or even sidewalks. Transferring funding and oversight authority away from DOTs and towards public transit systems is a critical element for reforming that area. Disabled people are simultaneously used as justification for the rampant growth of expensive highways and car-centric development, and yet are some of the biggest victims of those policies. The requirement to have a car or be driven in order to do anything, and the limitations and danger of being a pedestrian in the US, represents a massive accessibility barrier for many disabled people, and it's one of the reasons that European countries tend to have far more multigenerational public spaces. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Bikes are good. But in the US: Might as well sign a death certificate if you do it on public roads or are long distance commuting. Without public transit to replace cars, it least a lot of people in the lurch. Nobody is gonna bike 15+ miles to work on US roads and assume its safe. eBikes have become the most frequent bikes I see on my trips to the market for precisely that reason. It's a hilly area. Yes, very few will commute 15 miles to work (I did in the late 1990's but I'm into it). The interesting trend is that parents here (north San Diego county) are buying children eBikes in impressive numbers. Where I used to never see kids cycling anywhere, now I see them everywhere. I even see them riding to the coast with fishing poles or surfboards. Besides the obvious savings in parents not driving them all over the place in ginormous SUV's, there's also delaying driver licenses. One year of that more than pays for an eBike in insurance savings, What's interesting is the sociological impact. The kids have an independence I've not seen since the days before helicopter parenting. As a cyclist this is a very good thing. More bikes on the roads are making drivers very aware of their presence (lets just say they are assertive) and it makes my cycling less stressful. Environmentally they may be having a bigger effect here on CO2 emissions than even Electric Cars. The typical eBike I see seats 1 or 2 passengers on the back. Rad Powerbikes seems to have won the market.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Speaking of agriculture, is anyone able to summarize what the hell is going on in the Netherlands with farmers protesting? I really there are a ton of emissions with cultivation and fertilizer but from what I am able to gather alternatives do exist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Speaking of agriculture, is anyone able to summarize what the hell is going on in the Netherlands with farmers protesting? I really there are a ton of emissions with cultivation and fertilizer but from what I am able to gather alternatives do exist? American Republicans discovered that using their trucks to block roads and disrupt cities was fun and politically successful, which then spread to Canadian Conservatives and then to right-wing reactionaries globally. The merits of their arguments are the same as any anti-ecological movement: regulating emissions means they'd have to change their wasteful practices. Everything is cheaper when you can externalize your costs. Fertilizer in the region mostly comes from German petrochemical plants that convert Russian gas into ammonia and nitrogen. Fossil fuel alternatives exist, but they cost a bit more. Fertilizer constitutes 20 percent of overall agriculture emissions, or 1,250 million tonnes of CO2 globally in 2018 (that's double the emissions of American passenger cars). Farm runoff has devastated fishing and tourism industries around the world. There's a lot of people paying a terrible price for these people's cheap commodities. And yet despite synthetic fertilizer usage increasing by more than 800 percent since 1970, farm corporations still have the gall to complain that their “traditional heritage” is being stolen from them because of a requirement to reduce nitrogen usage by half in 2030. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/dutch-farmers-protest-by-blocking-supermarket-distribution-centres-2022-07-04/
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
going vegan is the single best individual action a person can take not because it has a big direct carbon impact (because up until certain critical masses of ppl are hit that's basically impossible to quantify anyway) but because it will let you skip right past anger, bargaining, depression and right to 'lol, lmao' when the meat industry does inevitably collapse  but seriously as has just been pointed out if you're not conceptualizing the american CAFO meat system as anything other than the biggest, longest-running, most bipartisan populist underwriting program to deliver a sought-after political good in exchange for buy-in to the political system you're not really conceptualizing it at all (tied with and inextricable from oil & gas of course) "a chicken for every pot" wasn't a promise of protecting quotidian stability but of granting access to luxury
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
One thing to remember with dietary changes is that small targeted reductions are actually pretty effective. The majority of GHG emissions in American diets come from beef specifically - chicken has a quarter of the climate impact, and shellfish has 2% of the impact (that’s less than lentils). 20% of Americans eat beef at least once a day, and they constitute 46% of the dietary emissions. If they exchanged that beef for turkey, it would reduce their emissions by 48%. Medical News Today posted:Climate change: Substituting food items rather than whole diets can still make a big difference https://twitter.com/OurWorldInData/status/1222396900491612161?s=20&t=14FpP0b_pRi_GnVBCnaXTQ NCBI posted:The age-and-sex-adjusted mean (95 % confidence interval) GHG emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per day (kgCO2e/day) were 7.19 (7.16, 7.22) for high meat-eaters ( > = 100 g/d), 5.63 (5.61, 5.65) for medium meat-eaters (50-99 g/d), 4.67 (4.65, 4.70) for low meat-eaters ( < 50 g/d), 3.91 (3.88, 3.94) for fish-eaters, 3.81 (3.79, 3.83) for vegetarians and 2.89 (2.83, 2.94) for vegans. In conclusion, dietary GHG emissions in self-selected meat-eaters are approximately twice as high as those in vegans. It is likely that reductions in meat consumption would lead to reductions in dietary GHG emissions. If you’re a pescatarian five days a week, have a burger when you go out on Saturdays and have chicken for your family meal on Sundays, your climate impact* is reduced by more than 40 percent from that of a daily meateater. It’s a very achievable way to improve your diet and reduce your climate impact. *3.91*5 + 4.67 + 5.63 kgCO2e/week or 29.85. Someone who has two meat meals per day (high meat eater) will be emitting 50.33, while a vegan emits 20.23. https://foodprint.org/blog/climate-change-diet/ https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jul 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2022 02:51
|
|
|
Kaal posted:American Republicans discovered that using their trucks to block roads and disrupt cities was fun and politically successful, which then spread to Canadian Conservatives and then to right-wing reactionaries globally. The merits of their arguments are the same as any anti-ecological movement: regulating emissions means they'd have to change their wasteful practices. Everything is cheaper when you can externalize your costs. Fertilizer in the region mostly comes from German petrochemical plants that convert Russian gas into ammonia and nitrogen. Fossil fuel alternatives exist, but they cost a bit more. Fertilizer constitutes 20 percent of overall agriculture emissions, or 1,250 million tonnes of CO2 globally in 2018 (that's double the emissions of American passenger cars). Farm runoff has devastated fishing and tourism industries around the world. There's a lot of people paying a terrible price for these people's cheap commodities. And yet despite synthetic fertilizer usage increasing by more than 800 percent since 1970, farm corporations still have the gall to complain that their “traditional heritage” is being stolen from them because of a requirement to reduce nitrogen usage by half in 2030.  So basically rich farmers don't give a gently caress and would rather act like children while loving over children than pay a bit more for alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
 Ada Limon Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Just watched a festival documentary called Atomic Hope, which is about the fringe pro-nuclear environmental movement. I guess maybe they would want you to be hopeful about the nuclear future, but to me it was just extremely blackpilling that our best hope of avoiding annihilation is only being promoted by a tiny group of super-dweebs who are hated by all the other environmentalist groups. Pandora's Promise was a 2010s pro nuclear doc and well lol *screams into the void* its probably my own youtube bubble, but pop science youtube has been trying to be slightly more pro nuclear and I think have finally grown out of wanking to wind/solar and some other cringy science/fetish, like yeah its still too drat slow, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:
Voice of a generation, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
Kaal posted:One thing to remember with dietary changes is that small targeted reductions are actually pretty effective. The majority of GHG emissions in American diets come from beef specifically - chicken has a quarter of the climate impact, and shellfish has 2% of the impact (that’s less than lentils). 20% of Americans eat beef at least once a day, and they constitute 46% of the dietary emissions. If they exchanged that beef for turkey, it would reduce their emissions by 48%. Nuts have negative carbon eh? I will eat only nuts from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:Nuts have negative carbon eh? I will eat only nuts from now on. Plants literally eat carbon from the atmosphere so that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:Nuts have negative carbon eh? I will eat only nuts from now on. According to the image (in small blue print on the bottom left), the reasoning they use is that nuts have a negative land use impact because nut trees are currently replacing croplands, and carbon is being stored in the trees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Kaal posted:One thing to remember with dietary changes is that small targeted reductions are actually pretty effective. The majority of GHG emissions in American diets come from beef specifically - chicken has a quarter of the climate impact, and shellfish has 2% of the impact (that’s less than lentils). 20% of Americans eat beef at least once a day, and they constitute 46% of the dietary emissions. If they exchanged that beef for turkey, it would reduce their emissions by 48%. red meat is fun to do the math on cuz its such a screamingly small tradeoff for large effect but also then compare it to flying for extra luls that graph is saying 1kg of beef = 60kg co2e a wendy's double cheeseburger is 220g of beef patty, so 13.2kg co2e flying in a jet plane is roughly 150 (long haul) to 225 (domestic/short) g/km co2e so roughly every 60 to 90 km is one double cheeseburger. at a crusing speed of 900km/h you'd have to eat a (double) burger every 7 or 8 minutes to keep up one single roundtrip new york to LA is ~110 double cheeseburgers. thats eating at wendy's twice a week all year. MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jul 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
Yeah figuring out the math for this sort of stuff is fun and worth doing. Another way of thinking about this is that an international flight from New York to London (5,500 km) emits as much CO2E (666 kg) as about 13 weeks of a high meat diet (50 kg/week). Short domestic flights are even less efficient. But taking a high speed train over that distance emits only 16 kg - or about two days of steak and burgers. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566.amp
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 04:27
|
|
|
So where’s bison fall on this burger chart?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
Oracle posted:So where’s bison fall on this burger chart? Still has to be transported, so I can't imagine it's much better than beef.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 06:18
|
|