121–130 of 179 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like that you can still buy Birdseye brand frozen foods in the Grocery store.
Nitpick: the brand is Birds Eye. After a series of mergers it's owned by Conagra, which also owns a dizzying array of brands, including Chef Boyardee and PF Chang's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fish fingers sounds funny to me as an American, but actually it's more consistent. Chicken fingers in the US are the same product but with chicken instead of fish.
As an aside, I grew up with “chicken fingers” everywhere, on restaurant menus, etc. but now I can’t think of the last time I didn’t see them called “chicken tenders” outside of one regional fast food chain where I am now. I live in a different region now so I wonder if that’s a regional thing or just an overall trend
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a cop out that needlessly encourages people to not try to find sustainable solutions. Yes, the road to sustainability is hard and long, but a path does exist that achieves sustainability without population reduction. Discouraging people from seeking that path does nobody any good.
Can we improve things? Sure. Should we invest in improving things? Absolutely. Neither of those permits the kind of pervasive magical thinking people have where we can somehow raise even a fraction of our 7 billion people to anything approximating a typical Western lifestyle without further accelerating environmental collapse. Or even maintaining the number of people with such a lifestyle that we currently do. Our pl…
We are hundreds of years from that thermodynamic limit at our current exponential growth rate, but that growth may be slowing as population growth slows. It is also quite likely that extraplanetary energy sources could be available by then.
I'm sort of unclear where you are goin with your argument? Are you arguing we need to kill of people or economically retard developing countries energy use? Neither of those seem reasonable stances so I am left wondering what you see as the path forward and what value you see in advancing your argument.
And here I am amazed that British schoolchildren in the 70s apparently ate on proper plates with cutlery.
Do kids in the US use plastic cutlery and paper plates or something (and drink from red solo cups)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a cop out that needlessly encourages people to not try to find sustainable solutions. Yes, the road to sustainability is hard and long, but a path does exist that achieves sustainability without population reduction. Discouraging people from seeking that path does nobody any good.
Does that path exist? I am not entirely convinced that you can have our current population living with our current standards -- especially if the standards spread from say that USA to the poorest nations, sustainably.
I wholey believe that we can replicate the aspects of our standard of living that have the biggest impacts on our quality of life. We can have nice clothes, we just need clothes that last a decade rather than a month or a year. We can travel, we just have to travel a bit slower using electric power. Education is a huge factor in our quality of life and can be done very sustainably. We can still have plenty of food, we just might not have year round cheap access to stuff that doesn't grow locally.
So there is definitely a path to a very good aproximation of our standard of living that is sustainable for the entire planet. We just aren't currwntly on that path, or even really headed in that direction .
> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produces over 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide per kilogram. These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60. For example this estimate is 26 [1]…
This also depends on what you count as carbon dioxide production. For example, cattle produce methane through gut fermentation, which is a strong greenhouse gas. However, it contributes to warming only to the extent the cattle stocks are growing. If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time, than the methane produced by them does not contribute to new warming, as it forms closed cycle: methane decomposes to C…
There is a total amount of emissions in a year and it leads to a certain amount of atmospheric forcing.
Let's say the algae food amendment works out and cattle methane can be eliminated with it. Some cattle are completely pastured, let's say you can get a 70% reduction in total methane emission from cows, just mandate that lot-fed cattle must receive this feed amendment and maybe subsidize it.
That's huge. That reduces a big source of emissions. It's less atmospheric forcing in total for the year. That's the only thing that matters.
It's an open-and-shut scenario for "shut up and calculate".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can’t you apply this logic to other things too though? We have two ICE cars for the household, and as long as that remains stable the CO2 produced will be used by the plants in our garden.
No, because cows run on biofuel that is recently captured carbon, while your car is burning fossil fuel that is long ago captured carbon. Your houseplants aren't recapturing anywhere near that much.
They turn that carbon from carbon dioxide into methane, which has a 27x multiplier in warming over its lifetime in the atmosphere.
It's not carbon neutral, it's equivalent to 26 extra tonnes for each tonne of CO2 which goes into the feed.
> In 1953, 13 companies produced 3.4 million kilograms of fish sticks. A year later, four million kilograms were produced by another 55 companies. This surge in popularity was partly due to a marketing push that stressed the convenience of the new food: “no bones, no waste, no smell, no fuss,” as one Birds Eye advertisement proclaimed. A dirty lie, at least when it comes to "no waste", when you consider that the skin…
Here, this link will set you straight, and it has a real discussion of the actual downsides and consequences of this practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_meal
Rather than what you said, which is complete nonsense. I'd accuse you of lying, since you used that word, but I'll be charitable and assume you were exhibiting ignorance.