91–100 of 413 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Now, what uses more fossil fuels: 8 billion humans or 100 billion animals? It is shocking most people cannot recognize this simple imbalance. The question doesn't even make much sense; the animals raised for eating are a form of human usage of fossil fuels. Even if they didn't, a single human and a single chicken don't have anything like the same carbon footprint. No animal uses fossil fuels independently of human…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there have been campaigns and articles for years attacking wind energy on the basis of protecting birds.
May I introduce you to our lord and saviour nuclear energy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks a lot less like "cognitive dissonance" and more like "bad faith arguments from fossil fuel industry-linked groups" when you dig a bit. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds > A 2012 study found that wind projects kill 0.269 birds per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced, compared to 5.18 birds killed per gigawatt-hour of electricity from fossil fuel projects.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The alternative to domesticated animal use isn’t happy cows prancing through the prairies, it’s the extinction of those species. Yes, factory farming is awful. But a pasture raised cow has a pretty nice cow life all things considered. Sure it comes to an abrupt end and becomes food, but so what? Coming to an abrupt end and becoming food is the fate of all living things. There’s no avoiding it.
Almost every cow used to extract milk and meat in industrial farming - which is most of them in the west - is living in deprivation, agony and pain.
The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.
The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.
I know that is both an idealistic and hyperbolic take on things. The bigger point is that when people say "affordable", they often really mean "profitable". But we cannot afford not to fix the problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May I introduce you to our lord and saviour nuclear energy.
I'm genuinely curious, why are there so many extraordinarily pro-nuclear people on this forum? And how many of them have greater than zero experience with nuclear anything? I worked in the nuclear power industry for a decade and people in the industry are not as maniacally pro-nuclear as the people in this forum.
Perhaps you were working with people who don't feel the need to talk about how great nuclear is all the time because you all work in the industry and understand that already.
[flagged]
The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.