4 ms·

Indoor farms only work for greens and veggies, not for calorie crops. It's hard to beat free sunlight. Rooftops are not sufficient area, difficult to access and

Indoor farms only work for greens and veggies, not for calorie crops. It's hard to beat free sunlight. Rooftops are not sufficient area, difficult to access and also compete for space with PV. > There isn't net deforestation globally, though. That would be news to me, afaik this is just a goal and hasn't been achieved yet. And as far as carbon footprint goes net zero deforestation still can release carbon overall since new forests won't be as good a carbon store as old growth forest is for a long time. > lab grown meat That may be useful from an ethical point of view, but has anyone shown that this can be done with a lower GHG footprint? After all those cell cultures need to be supplied with nutrients too. If you want meat then switching from bovines to chicken is a thing you can do today. Chicken doesn't release methane, has a lower overall land and carbon footprint. Still less efficient than staple crops of course.

johnmorrison 7y ago
> compete for space with PV PV << Fission in cities, so this doesn't matter. My hope is all green rooftops whenever possible. (I should note that this isn't trying to replace actual agriculture - it would be a small minority, the main purpose is to make cities nicer and do something with the wasted surface area.) > That would be news to me It's actually not news at all, we've been having net forest cover growth since we began recording it centuries ago. There's never been any long term deforestation trends on net. (This is not to say that there haven't been awful local deforestation periods, and you're right about old forest vs. new forest, but globally it has always gone up since pre-industrial time) > has anyone shown that this can be done with a lower GHG footprint? It's a more physically efficient process. Why grow the whole cow and have it run around losing heat for months when you can just grow the meat you want in the end? > Chicken doesn't release methane, has a lower overall land and carbon footprint. Still less efficient than staple crops of course. This is all true but you can't really just replace red meat with white meat or vegetarian diet. Some try but it will never work globally.

johnmorrison 7y ago

> compete for space with PV PV << Fission in cities, so this doesn't matter. My hope is all green rooftops whenever possible. (I should note that this isn't trying to replace actual agriculture - it would be a small minority, the main purpose is to make cities nicer and do something with the wasted surface area.) > That would be news to me It's actually not news at all, we've been having net forest cover growth since we began recording it centuries ago. There's never been any long term deforestation trends on net. (This is not to say that there haven't been awful local deforestation periods, and you're right about old forest vs. new forest, but globally it has always gone up since pre-industrial time) > has anyone shown that this can be done with a lower GHG footprint? It's a more physically efficient process. Why grow the whole cow and have it run around losing heat for months when you can just grow the meat you want in the end? > Chicken doesn't release methane, has a lower overall land and carbon footprint. Still less efficient than staple crops of course. This is all true but you can't really just replace red meat with white meat or vegetarian diet. Some try but it will never work globally.