3 ms·
No need to have to grow all their own food, any kind of a supplement at all is a positive. Plenty of single family dwellings with grass yards. And time commit
by baremetal 3y ago
No need to have to grow all their own food, any kind of a supplement at all is a positive.
Plenty of single family dwellings with grass yards.
And time commitments/work involved? I guess they aren't serious about climate change. This just reinforces my original point. Screeching about climate change but unwilling to do any of the work or make any _real_ sacrifices.
It only takes a few hours a week to operate a backyard garden that produces more than even a large family can consume.
- ryan_lane 3y agoIncreasing density to the point where folks don't have a yard to grow produce in would be even more positive than families growing a small amount of produce that still wouldn't cover their nutritional needs. That's also a real sacrifice, and like your proposal, it's not one that would be accepted, and not one that meets the needs of varied people. You're taking an extreme, untenable, position as an alternative to an incremental solution that generally fits everyone's needs at a slightly higher cost. Electrification is inevitable.