421–430 of 481 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did the math, others seemed not to. Cow farts are insignificant, period.
> Cow farts are insignificant, period. If that was your conclusion, then you did the math wrong, or did not understand the math.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We use manure because it's coming out of the gills of the animal ag industry, not because it's necessary to enrich crop soil. Just because plastic bags are ubiquitous doesn't mean it's the only nor best way to carry items around, nor that we'd lose the ability to transport goods if they were phased out, nor that they don't come at a cost despite perceiving them as free.
> We use manure because it's coming out of the gills of the animal ag industry, not because it's necessary to enrich crop soil Crop soil needs fertilizer somehow What is your alternative to manure? Bonus points if it uses less energy to produce than animals, produces less CO2 than animals, takes up less space than animals, or also produces food at the same time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus, what war are you talking about?
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/11/25/d...
In all earnesty, what does it change to send troops to Ukraine? What did any of these red lines we European were afraid of help?
Should not send tanks, it could start a war.
Should not send planes, it could start a war.
Should not allow Ukraine to attack inside Russia, it could start a war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/11/25/d...
Its a special military operation, right? In all earnesty, what does it change to send troops to Ukraine? What did any of these red lines we European were afraid of help? Should not send tanks, it could start a war. Should not send planes, it could start a war. Should not allow Ukraine to attack inside Russia, it could start a war.
Incidentally this is one of the approaches described in Kim Robinson's The Ministry for the Future, a novel on climate change (more about the political ramifications of it than the ecological impacts). Interesting read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your logic is wrong - a Denmark sized group of Chinese people is probably all it takes to operate their solar panel producing factories. The reason Denmark can't do anything isn't because there are few of them, it is because Denmark isn't a significant industrial cluster for energy technology and innovation. For example, India has more people than China and they aren't in a position to do much unless there is some so…
Denmark basically invented modern wind power and still makes a big chunk of it (though China has caught up in that area recently).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will converting farmland to forests help with climate change? It seems like it would have no particular impact or make the situation worse w.r.t. climate change for Denmark. If it is a good idea I'd imagine it would also be a good idea if the climate was not changing. Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions at all. In fact nobody does except ironically the Chinese and their industrial-growth-at-any-…
Land use is one of the big topics covered by the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not OP, but how about some technology innovation instead of governance and taxation? the effect of taxing farmers as though they were some kind of vanity industry will be similar to what nationalizing farms has done in prior schemes like this. it creates a national dependency on imported food from countries that do not bankrupt their farmers, and suddenly (shocked!) the entire Danish food supply crosses the borders t…
> how about some technology innovation instead of governance and taxation The history of solar, EVs, batteries etc. show these work hand in hand. Why invent a way to capture methane from slurry, or form a business to sell that idea to farmers if they're allowed to pollute for free?
if you have a problem with farmers, maybe you should just eat less?