14 ms·
Since this process is optimized for food production, I'd expect processes optimized for carbon capture to be more efficient at that. I suspect the main environ
by jakewins 8y ago
Since this process is optimized for food production, I'd expect processes optimized for carbon capture to be more efficient at that.
I suspect the main environmental gains from this would be to offset beef production. Outside of reducing the ongoing emissions there, it opens the door to return pasture land to forest, tying up large amounts of carbon in trees.
Userful sidenote: The most efficient poultry producers today have about the same environmental footprint as tofu producers. If you don't feel called to eat vegetarian, simply switching beef for chicken can be almost as impactful. Just stay away from organic food, or all those gains are offset by the inefficiency of unscientific agriculture.
See the second chart here for the chicken/tofu showdown: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth?fbclid=IwAR2DZtoowOByeqz78ioNCXqsK773MT6zsMQ5mw1z4c8rM-27knaf4dxx3qQ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
- Symmetry 8y agoUnfortunately, if you care about animal suffering then Beef starts looking much better than Chicken does and the farms that tend to treat their chickens well also tend to be "organic". So there's certainly a place for this. And in general most land used for cattle grazing doesn't receive enough rainfall to support forests; or farming without outside water inputs. If we were to eat cattle that were exclusively fed by grazing on semi-arid land then Beef would be pretty environmentally friendly apart from the methane emissions. The problem is that we don't have enough grazing land to do that so most beef if fed with farm-produced plant matter leading to huge inefficiencies.