3 ms·
Sorry but this article is pure PR. Nature is a cycle, animals do not "consume" food or "produce" meat. They live. A cow eating grass feeds the grass with its ex
by kkfx 2y ago
Sorry but this article is pure PR. Nature is a cycle, animals do not "consume" food or "produce" meat. They live. A cow eating grass feeds the grass with its excrement and stimulate it's growth. The "issue" is for business who have to harvest food for their livestock to produce enough to sell enough at a price sufficient to earn their life.
Calculating "carbon footprint" is just calculating astrology, a narrative to scam their customers. Canada's wildfires last years polluted more than all antropic emission combined https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/27/canada-2023-wildfires-carbon-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/27/canada... similarly Darvaza gas crater pollute much more than all flatulence and methane leaks from animals and humans together.
The point is that to feed enough human we need enough land for enough livestock and actually the current food production systems can't adapt to the climate change, huge number of humans AND BUSINESS so they try other ways to remain in business instead of evolving.
- akamaka 2y agoCarbon emissions calculations aren’t astrology, there has actually been a lot of detailed data collected. For example: https://www.fao.org/4/i3460e/i3460e.pdf https://www.fao.org/4/i3460e/i3460e.pdf
- kkfx 2y agoThey are. Because they have some measure and collected data, and some other measures totally invented. How can you state I "save CO₂ emissions" producing energy from my p.v.? How can you state up front that only CO₂ emissions count in pollution and climate change? This is not science, it's a kind of religion, to convince people formed with a kind of scientific mindset but not really inhabited to reason individually, but to accept as truth what they read. Starting from the "data collected" form certain institutions who have NO PROOF of their collection, meaning their data are not really reproducible. Just a modern variant of the old colored glass to trade gold with certain populations.
- gpm 2y agoThe Canadian wildfires last year produced less than 1/10th the CO2 emissions of the anthropic ones last year, using the numbers from the link that you misrepresented as saying they exceeded anthropic ones (which the link simply does not support in the slightest) and anthropic numbers from here [1]. [1] (Note: change "Count" to "Country" to get worldwide data) https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions#explore-data-on-co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions#...
- EForEndeavour 2y ago> Canada's wildfires last years polluted more than all antropic emission combined That's inaccurate, and not what the article says. The article quotes research saying the 2023 wildfires added 3 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is "nearly four times the carbon emissions as airplanes do in a year" or "about the same amount of carbon dioxide that 647m cars put in the air in a year." For comparison, global fossil-fuel and industry sources emitted roughly *37 billion tons* of CO2 in 2023. This excludes land-use emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions There's also the fact that fossil fuel emissions are net-new release of gaseous CO2 that's been sequestered away from the atmosphere for millions of years. Tree cover loss is bad, but forest-fire CO2 was fixed within much shorter timescales, and the article mentions the burnt forest area regrows and starts to sequester carbon again within decades.