51–60 of 152 posts
There probably isn't an incentive to reduce methane emissions for farmers right now though, right? We'd have to pass regulations mandating a reduction, or an emissions tax or something.
No, and that's not going to happen soon. But companies can start marketing their products as carbon neutral and selling them at a premium at retailers like Whole Foods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, and that's not going to happen soon. But companies can start marketing their products as carbon neutral and selling them at a premium at retailers like Whole Foods.
We're talking about methane not carbon.
Can eating seaweed make human farts smell less offensive?
"At room temperature and standard pressure, methane is a colorless, odorless gas. The familiar smell of natural gas as used in homes is achieved by the addition of an odorant, usually blends containing tert-butylthiol, as a safety measure."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest producers are and will always be the mass market stuff, though. Who cares if 1% of beef is produced carbon neutral? It's nice, but it makes no tangible difference. Sadly this method of encouraging better behaviour won't work unless a costco or a mcdonalds, for some insane reason, wants to cut their profit margin and buy more expensive beef.
Like how it would be insane of McDonald's to unilaterally agree to use cage-free eggs?
http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/food-quality/eggs.html#clo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your knowledge is all correct (I researched leaving tech to farm seaweed).
What were the conclusions of your research?
It's very hard to pass this analysis, since "high tech" is almost universally more valuable to humanity, per unit, that something low tech like farming.
If you're already in tech and you want to "help the world", giving money is almost always the best choice.
http://www.givewell.org/ is a good resource for where to give effectively.
Can eating seaweed make human farts smell less offensive?
There probably isn't an incentive to reduce methane emissions for farmers right now though, right? We'd have to pass regulations mandating a reduction, or an emissions tax or something.
In Europe a country is fined if it doesn't meet it's targets. The measurement of emissions includes agriculture and is a big problem for some countries. So if they can monitor and prove that this method will reduce emissions then I think they will consider it.
The relevant part is from 13:58 (Andrieu, Eric) to (including) !4:00 (Eck, Stefan). I'm not sure if there ever existed software that worked on that site, so you probably have to skip to 1:48 in the stream mms://vod.europarl.europa.eu/wmv/nas/nasvod02/vod0910/2015/wm/VODChapter_20151028_12104300_14320200_509dc321150aee25e47-337f.wmv?wmcache=0
It's not like that voting is directly relevant in the legislative process but that's another discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worst move the environmental movement did is let the environmentally sensitive product be associated with consumption by a rich liberal urban elite. Until someone can fix this and disassociate ecological efficiency from the limousine liberal, these programs are unfortunately going to only be marginal. Minimizing environmental externalities can't be seen as optional. Lots of reasonable things increase cost - such…
Yes agree, just look at canned tuna. How is it acceptable to sell products that kill dolphines? Yet "dophin friendly" is treated as a marketing thing. It is like having a note saying "no kittens strangled" on a bottle of milk. It would be better to require objective ethical discolsure upfront on products. So you have "child labour may have been used" alongside the fat content and ingredients.
If seaweed eliminates methane it likely will affect some gut bacteria more than others. We would not blindly swallow antibiotics affecting what is happening in our gut. There will be side effects one way or another - usually the more effect the more side effect. Seaweed is worth studying and has promise but I'm skeptical when it comes super food claims.