Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, hang on. Which was the correct climate? At various times, the planet has apparently completely encased itself in ice and then thawed itself out. According to the climate historian Scotese, the average temperature has varied between 10C and 25C for two billion years. "Recently" it's been about as cold as it ever gets. Is it actually sad that it's warming up? What was it supposed to do, stay cold forever or get e…
This bad take reminds me of an old George Carlin joke about environmentalism: people often use(d) the term "save the planet", but it's in fact us that need saving - "the planet" will go on regardless. So yes, there is no "correct"\"natural" temperature for the Earth. But there very much exists a correct temperature for human (and many others) organized life, and that is basically the temperature of ~200 years ago. As…
Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
131–140 of 188 posts
Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
#132Sorry for being off topic here: I get pushback on this opinion from my friends, so I expect this to be an unpopular opinion here also: the cost of meat should be priced to also cover external costs of water and harm to the environment. I enjoy a steak once or twice a month, so I am not talking from a vegan-purity perspective. I think that there should be a tax on meat that directly supported research and infrastructu…
I think that should apply to everything, and not just meat. Air travel, vegetables, plastic, you name it.
> I think that there should be a tax on meat that directly supported research and infrastructure for water and energy efficient farming, lower cost desalinization, etc.
I don't agree with that. As long as you pay the full cost of everything, adding a tax over it seems unfair to me.
> In some ways I think that “meat hurting the environment deniers” are even a little worse than climate change deniers because industrial meat production hits chaotic climate change and water resources.
I think you're oversimplifying things. For example, nuts use a lot of water. More than sheep, goat, pig and chicken according to this https://www.statista.com/chart/9483/how-thirsty-is-our-food/. Vegetarians and vegans both consume more nuts than omnivores (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707691/). We should take that into account to.
I also wonder, how much of the water consumed by animals is just rainwater on non-arable land? Animals put on land where you can't grow anything but grass anyways is a smart utilisation of resources. Animals put on land where you could grow cereals, vegetables, or legumes is a waste. Having a way to make the distinction between the two when buying meat would be great.
Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
This bad take reminds me of an old George Carlin joke about environmentalism: people often use(d) the term "save the planet", but it's in fact us that need saving - "the planet" will go on regardless. So yes, there is no "correct"\"natural" temperature for the Earth. But there very much exists a correct temperature for human (and many others) organized life, and that is basically the temperature of ~200 years ago. As…
> As it will get hotter, hundreds of millions will die of heat stroke and water and food shortages We used to die in droves from heatwaves and water and food shortages, but we don't anymore, because of technology. Is increased CO2 going to harm crop yields? No, it's the opposite. Was increased CO2 bad for life on ancient earth? No, it was the opposite -- earth used to be an endless jungle teeming with life. It seems…
Increased CO2 is creating higher temperatures, which in turn is disrupting temperature-regulation mechanisms everywhere on earth - leading not only to higher temperatures, but to more temperature variability throughout the year, more than has been seen in 10,000 years. It's also leading to more water remaining trapped as vapor, creating longer and more devastating droughts.
> Was increased CO2 bad for life on ancient earth? No, it was the opposite -- earth used to be an endless jungle teeming with life.
This only happens if forests and jungles are allowed to grow to use up the extra CO2. The opposite is happening today: everywhere in the world, jungles and forests are being actively cut down and the land cleared for agricultural use - capturing significantly less CO2 than an entire forest ecosystem.
> because they insist that the warming is the fault of humans, despite the fact that the climate seemed due to warm up anyway
They insist on this because we can actually quantify almost precisely how this is the fault of human activity. The rate of global warming is almost perfectly matched to greenhouse gas emissions. Historical ice age / warm age models entirely fail to account for this miraculous coincidence, and are in fact propaganda held up by massive industrial and financial interests that have an institutional lack of care for the long-term viability of current societies.
Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
This bad take reminds me of an old George Carlin joke about environmentalism: people often use(d) the term "save the planet", but it's in fact us that need saving - "the planet" will go on regardless. So yes, there is no "correct"\"natural" temperature for the Earth. But there very much exists a correct temperature for human (and many others) organized life, and that is basically the temperature of ~200 years ago. As…
George Carlin, maybe?
Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Le…
> C. S. Lewis Figures. Back then, corporations weren't such a huge thing. Now we've got growthism. No matter how much money a megacorp makes, it's always gotta make more for its shareholders. If the CEO and board are not going along with that, they will be replaced. Corporations are stuck on a hedonistic treadmill divorced from the finite capacity of a human stomach to be sated. Conscience? Since when did a corporati…
Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
#136Canada, Russia and China seem to be the big winners of climate change. It will be interesting how that changes geopolitical dynamics.
Overall, perhaps, but on the local level it's causing a lot of problems. The region I grew up in, in eastern Ontario, is an area with fairly thin soil. Fortunately, summer rains were generally frequent and mild- light rain all day a few days per week, and sunny and warm otherwise. This balanced out the thin soil, and made it work well for certain crops, corn especially. The last 15 years have seen a huge shift to dry…
This whole ordeal is a lesson in fucking yourself over… Making up your own "thruth" may work for some things, but does not for most.
Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
#137Sorry for being off topic here: I get pushback on this opinion from my friends, so I expect this to be an unpopular opinion here also: the cost of meat should be priced to also cover external costs of water and harm to the environment. I enjoy a steak once or twice a month, so I am not talking from a vegan-purity perspective. I think that there should be a tax on meat that directly supported research and infrastructu…
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Le…
Or were you going the other way, and absurdly suggesting that not subsidizing the costs of meat would be tyranny?
Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
#138Stage 5 climate denialism: "It's too Late!" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... Isn't HN an "ideology free" zone? Why do they allow nonstop ideology from The Economist? Not to mention the paywall.
Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
This bad take reminds me of an old George Carlin joke about environmentalism: people often use(d) the term "save the planet", but it's in fact us that need saving - "the planet" will go on regardless. So yes, there is no "correct"\"natural" temperature for the Earth. But there very much exists a correct temperature for human (and many others) organized life, and that is basically the temperature of ~200 years ago. As…
> As it will get hotter, hundreds of millions will die of heat stroke and water and food shortages We used to die in droves from heatwaves and water and food shortages, but we don't anymore, because of technology. Is increased CO2 going to harm crop yields? No, it's the opposite. Was increased CO2 bad for life on ancient earth? No, it was the opposite -- earth used to be an endless jungle teeming with life. It seems…
Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
One friend in particular eats met every day and doesn’t want to pay more for it.
What people don‘t realize is that they ARE paying the price either way, just indirectly.