35 ms·
> and clearing for beef production I know the real point is that you'd prefer we eat the proverbial bugs, but there's akshually more grassland in the world tha
by otabdeveloper4 2mo ago
> and clearing for beef production
I know the real point is that you'd prefer we eat the proverbial bugs, but there's akshually more grassland in the world than forest.
You don't need to cut down trees for beef production - it doesn't make any economic sense unless your logistics costs are deliberately screwed by perverse government incentives.
- uwagar 2mo agoi prefer you fix your bugs instead.
- ithkuil 2mo agoSo some countries have more forest than grassland?
- otabdeveloper4 2mo agoa) There's way more grassland in the world than forests. (On all continents.) b) Cows walk as they graze, the meat even delivers itself. You just need a herder. Shrimple as. The scheme worked for millennia with zero problems. Nobody had a problem with beef production until tariffs and other fuckery was invented. But apparently we need to switch to eating bugs instead of fixing the root of the problem. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- graemep 2mo agoBeef should not the the main meat in some places. There is a particular problem in the Americas with cattle. Tariffs do sometimes reduce imports from places where cattle are not a great fit - i.e. the very places where forests are cleared too grow grass. All the beef (and most other meat too) I eat is grown in the same country. For a premium you can get higher quality local (i.e. same county) meat.
- uwagar 2mo agoeat your bugs bro. dont fix them.