41–50 of 63 posts
In practice non-western countries will keep on using fossil fuels to enable their development and nothing will stop them till they burn the last drop of oil. Denmark is a tiny country and their emissions are frankly, negligible. So, just another emotional decision from western politicians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can phrase anything in a negative light. Food which fuels 100% of Denmark’s population causes only 33% of Denmark’s emissions. This is a wonderful achievement.
> Food which fuels 100% of Denmark’s population causes only 33% of Denmark’s emissions. Are you saying that Danish eat a 0% of fish, seafood and vegetables?
I'm not sure if farmed fish would be counted, since that is not traditional agriculture.
Yikes. All this is is a successful attempt by the ruling class to convince the subjugated to give up even more rights and freedoms. “It’s for your own good” on steroids. If you want to see clear proof of this, just note that on the strict numbers, this practice won’t meaningfully move the needle on the climate issue. In fact, will it even move the needle overall? Once you feed the animals better, namely with some seaweed incorporated into cow feed in particular, this total emission from these sources drops by some 80% or more. But of course that solution won’t do, because the entire point of these co2 laws is to have more control over people’s lives rather than to solve problems. If climate change ended tomorrow, these same people would try to push the same laws because the intention is to control the masses and to tax people more to feed the bureaucracy machine.
People should be wary of hall monitors and bureaucrats aiming for “restructuring” of food systems, especially for moral posturing reasons. In history that tends to lead to starvation.
Insane to try to blame ruminants for climate change.
Not so insane given that they are far more numerous due to agriculture than they would be as wild animals. This ultimately is a human-caused problem not a natural one. And there is the issue that what we feed livestock affects how much gas they produce. It's a serious research topic https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-do-cattle-produce-m...
So maybe that is the problem. /s
But, hey, why not fix anorher problem and blame the first one. /s
> “We have succeeded in landing a compromise on a CO2 tax, which lays the groundwork for a restructured food industry -– also on the other side of 2030,” its head Maria Reumert Gjerding said after the talks in which they took part. Yikes. All this is is a successful attempt by the ruling class to convince the subjugated to give up even more rights and freedoms. “It’s for your own good” on steroids. If you want to see…
Interesting take, so the absolutely massive subsidies on meat that completely change the overall affordability of meat vs vegetables isn’t a problem. But trying to renormalize costs so the environmental impact of meat isn’t hidden away in subsidies is “control the people”.
If we removed all subsidies tomorrow the problem would go away as everyone just naturally cut 90% of their meat consumption because of the cost.
In practice non-western countries will keep on using fossil fuels to enable their development and nothing will stop them till they burn the last drop of oil. Denmark is a tiny country and their emissions are frankly, negligible. So, just another emotional decision from western politicians.
The idea that no individual small change will ever solve the whole problem so we should just ignore it completely is a childish emotional reaction to the fact that changes have to happen.
Are there any reliable numbers on the holistic impact of ruminants? All of the carbon they emit came from the atmosphere via their plant diets, and a huge volume of that carbon is sequestered in the soil via their excrement. Ruminants help the soil, as opposed to modern agriculture which is largely reliant on fossil fuel derived fertilizer. I have yet to see a paper that models this. Most of the estimates are purely…
This is propaganda from the livestock lobby that has been disproved again and again. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/15/beef-f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most meat produced by Danish farmers gets exported to countries like China. Only a small fraction gets consumed by Danes in Denmark. The pigs are transported alive to meat packing plants in Germany and Poland where wages are lower, and most farm hands in Denmark are cheap imported labor who often live under slave live conditions.
As a Ukrainian growing up and still living in Denmark and who has spoken to other Ukrainians working at those farms, I have never heard of “slave like conditions”. I’ve heard of hard manual labour and occasional disagreements with the owners of the farms though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Food which fuels 100% of Denmark’s population causes only 33% of Denmark’s emissions. Are you saying that Danish eat a 0% of fish, seafood and vegetables?
Wild-caught fish are likely not included in that statisic, but vegetables surely would be. Growing vegetables is the quintessential example of farming. I'm not sure if farmed fish would be counted, since that is not traditional agriculture.
And if we take in account that Greenland acts as a buffer in this sense (they don't have probably a lot of cows, so the emissions effect should be diluted). This perfect "one third" statistical value seems just a raw assumption, or just invented for filling a report hiding the lack of data.
If we want to bet for a future, we have to be extra careful to not just repeat slogans, dogmas or cite incomplete studies, even if they say what we want to hear. This only will delay the necessary measures
Insane to try to blame ruminants for climate change.
Not insane.