5 ms·
Animals can use land that can't be used for direct air capture or plant agriculture.
by anothernewdude 4y ago
Animals can use land that can't be used for direct air capture or plant agriculture.
- smt88 4y agoAnimals need enormous amounts of water. If you have water, you can produce plants. What land specifically is useful for animals, but not capturing carbon or growing plants? Please give a specific example.
- anothernewdude 4y ago> If you have water, you can produce plants. Simply untrue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica > What land specifically is useful for animals, but not capturing carbon or growing plants? Please give a specific example. Careful moving those goal posts, you'll hurt your back. Not a goal anybody set. But here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangeland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangeland Animal farming improved human use of land, and indeed crop farming depends a lot on animal byproducts. Or do you prefer unsustainable mineral fertilizers?
- dqv 4y agoYes you’re right, but only insofar as those animals are not slaughtered for food.
- anothernewdude 4y agoEven then.
- dqv 4y agoEven then what? If the cycle continues where you’re continuously slaughtering and replenishing the animals for food and not letting them live their natural life, the argument that it is better at carbon capture is moot.
- anothernewdude 4y agoSame argument works against the OP. Who cares if their meat is from captured carbon, if all meat has always been?
- dqv 4y agoBecause one (animal agriculture) emits way more carbon than it captures. That's what the article discusses - people trying to make a source of meat-like protein that emits no or negative carbon into the atmosphere.