181–190 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we really need is cap-and-trade for offspring. Everyone gets one each (so two to a couple), and if you need more, you can buy permits from someone who doesn't, at market price. That adds an economic incentive to have fewer children!
what a disgusting and disturbing idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All companies exist to serve customer demand, or to serve companies that serve customer demand. Sure, they should be regulated (... thus increasing the price of consumer goods?) On an individual level, traveling less, buying less stuff, or buying less damaging stuff is the best that most people can do.
I think non-essentials and some types of food via an emissions tax would be a great thing. For example, flying is so cheap I would say people "over do it" just because they can. I often think it would be great if there was more cost associated with air fair to factor in the environmental damage each flight causes. Yeah people will be inconvenienced slightly but what is the alternative? Holiday in locations closer to…
One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this? Think about a nation going full green and the effect it could have on neighbouring countries? Or a president understanding, that this problem was of highest importance could be a leader of a global change! Think about the fame! But what do we have instead? Ignorance, unwillingness, a dangerous continuation of the status quo on the state level…
Any reasonable effective top-down action on climate change would require significant short-term restrictions on how common people live their lives - either as direct prohibitions or through taxation e.g. pricing in environmental externalities. A political leader who'd force their nation "go full green" would be ousted at the next election, if not quicker - immediate riots on the streets would be likely. One of the tr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll pass on the phytoestrogens, though. This doesn’t really address the fact that there are ways to still eat meat but minimize the greenhouse effects. For example, chicken and pork is dramatically less directly impactful than beef. There is still the feed efficiency problem, but America’s love of red meat is a better place to start than no meat at all. https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-m...
The soy/phytoestrogen scare is not scientific/fact-based. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/soy/ > Results of recent population studies suggest that soy has either a beneficial or neutral effect on various health conditions. Soy is a nutrient-dense source of protein that can safely be consumed several times a week, and is likely to provide health benefits—especially when eaten as an alternative to red and…
The scale of human activity has become so large that what may seem like fairly trivial variations can be quite impactful thanks to the multiplication factor. Until we substantially reel in the global population size the situation will continue to be rather precarious.
I think this viewpoint originates from a stunning lack of imagination.
Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…
It would help if you read the article which explicitly states that more than 40% of the emissions come from fuel production. Agricultural emissions can be managed by changing the diet of the animals.
Well managed cattle herds can sequester carbon in the top soil. There is absolutely no need to go vegetarian to save the planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The soy/phytoestrogen scare is not scientific/fact-based. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/soy/ > Results of recent population studies suggest that soy has either a beneficial or neutral effect on various health conditions. Soy is a nutrient-dense source of protein that can safely be consumed several times a week, and is likely to provide health benefits—especially when eaten as an alternative to red and…
There are too many studies that indicate either way with Soy. Maybe it is just over studied and other common sources of nutrition are under studied. Nutritional discussions devolve into a drain circling effect of studies with no one really convincing anyone else. I monitor my blood and know what keeps me healthy. Why risk it with potentially questionable nutrition?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cattle doesn’t convert plant based protein into animal protein. Also cattle eats crop that humans can’t eat and which grows in significantly more tough conditions than those required for crops used as feed. Eating lots of soy is not healthy. It’s a very weird and unconvincing argument on your part, to suggest humans should just start eating crops fed to cattle and that would somehow work in terms of sufficiently heal…
Eating lots of soy is not a requirement of a diet without red meat. Cattle can eat grass, but most of them in North America eat very little grass. They eat a lot of grain that is intensively farmed. That feed farming has a significant impact on the environment through regular agriculture practices. By growing food for humans instead, the impact would be reduced simply because not as much crop is needed. Red meat does…
You obviously missed my explicit position against corn-fed cattle and went on to attack some straw man. Please re-think and re-state your argument such that I don’t get an urge to dismiss it based on irrelevancy from the very first statement?
In fact in your following two paragraphs you just repeated the same things I already said just using different words.
We don’t disagree on much.
Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…
It’s a nice thought, but even if we accept that the global population doing this would stem the tide of climate change (which I am doubtful it would), one quickly realizes that there is no way that the entire global population is going to stop eating animals, and we are back to feeling hopeless. I’m increasingly convinced that carbon sequestration on industrial scales is the only serious way to solve this problem.