mklarmann

8 ms·

31.
by mklarmann 7y ago
The situation is not that simple. There is a Swiss historian discussing the case in great detail. For anyone who feels that something is odd about this - have a look. I am sorry it is in German so... https://www.youtube.com/
32.
by mklarmann 7y ago
I am impressed how respectfully you make this point. I would advocate strongly against imperialistic views to solve these problems.
33.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Am I a bit wimpy, when I have to think about all the animals that live in these forest, right now being burned alive? I have a hard time grasping why, again, people are so damn greedy. For the quick money, basically destroy this precious re
34.
by mklarmann 7y ago
The study misses out to report on the increased production of N2O. Which really does not help.
35.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Actually by knocking out the bacteria, they can see a slight uptake (5%) in feed efficiency of the cows. So part of it is put into fat and muscle.
36.
by mklarmann 7y ago
This study [1] does indeed not reference N2O. So this make me suspicious: The garlic study [2], states: "Garlic contains allicin, diallylsulide, dialyldisulfide and allyl mercaptan, which affect rumen methanogens, decreasing rumen CH4
37.
by mklarmann 7y ago
There is a similar product made from garlic, that is encapsulated so it just doesn't wash out with the cows saliva, that has a similar effect. You need about 50kg of it per cow, and it kills the methane producing bacteria. Yet the issu
38.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Minimal in terms of were we need at least reduce too. = max one portion per week
39.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Na, I think it is downvoted because it is pretty neo-liberal, to assume that population control is the solution, because it implicitly neglects that most emissions are caused by the richest people. Reducing those rich people would well be a
40.
by mklarmann 7y ago
The 60% is indeed what we studied for cows here in Switzerland. It is clearly related to the amount of time they live longer (18 instead of 11 month). You can check the source here: http://www.eaternity.org/blog/smart-c
41.
by mklarmann 7y ago
This report was generated by the IPCC on request of the international community at the COP in Paris, after they pointed out, that no information was available about 1.5 degree target (the first special report), and food and land was missing
42.
by mklarmann 7y ago
I do recommend the studies of the global burden of disease project as an authority for what is healthy [1] Springman, cited on chapter 5 of the report, goes into depth relying on those evidences for modeling the potential diets. [2] That is
43.
by mklarmann 7y ago
To actually reach our climate targets, even better would be a mandatory carbon budget, and trading of contingents. This would mean the price perfectly adjusts to were it should be.
44.
by mklarmann 7y ago
You can access health and CO₂ informations on almost all foods here: https://app.eaternity.ch/login
45.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Good evidence is given by the global burden of disease project. Funded by Bill&Melinda Gates, over 2000 scientists aggregated 15‘000 publications into the largest epidemiological study. Addressing 14 health risks concerning your diet in
46.
by mklarmann 7y ago
This topic has gained substantial scientific evidence. More people have come to turns that the facts only point to possible solutions for the climate were we substantially eat less meat. Having you eat even more meat makes you indirectly re
47.
by mklarmann 7y ago
This sounds rather short sighted to me. Changing our diet towards lower meat consumption (like we had 50 years ago - max. 1 portion of meat per week), has been shown to come with substantial health benefits. It is a no brainer that we shoul
48.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Yeah chicken is the best farmed animal on CO₂. They burn less themselves because they can cuddle and have it warm. And don’t need to run around. ... in their small cages
49.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Why is this thread a [dupe] ?
50.
by mklarmann 7y ago
I challenge your opinion: I wouldn’t call the world consensus of the IPCC poor science. It is actually the opposite: the best science we have available. The report goes into depth about the health benefits these diets have also.
51.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Springman, as cited in the report did a lot of calculations around this. He ended up with the minimal requirement for the average earth citizen with one portion of red meat per week. Check his definition of a flexitarien diet.
52.
by mklarmann 7y ago
The same people who currently hold the right to destroy this planet and make it uninhabitable for all future generations.
53.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Our studies have shown, that about 10% are first movers (willing to give up benefits, to become climate friendly eaters) and 80% will go with the default when it is acceptable. The last 10% would still need to be coerced actively by some ki
54.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Trouble with organic is that those cows live longer, hence cause about 60% more Methan emissions, till they are slaughtered.
55.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Commonly and economic allocation is done. Each food is attributed those emissions to the share they have caused it by the money that was spend for it by the consumer. The question is: why was there a additional cow in the first place. Part
56.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Yes that is the point. If you account for calories, proteins and fats (as essential nutrients next to let’s say water and dry weight), butter doesn’t look that bad. It is still worse than average, so - check: app.eaternity.ch
57.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Isn’t the face of the earth mostly shaped by our consumer choices (including where you put you pension and savings). Everything else (like military, etc.) does only contribute minor. Who else if not us?
58.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Well, that is why it so important that we have the IPCC, and now this special report. Food causes 25-30% of human made GHG emissions. Large part for deforestation, Methan emissions of ruminants and animal feed. Without including the transpo
59.
by mklarmann 7y ago
Specifically - and this is much more important right now: 1/10 of GHGs compared to their meat counterparts.
60.
by mklarmann 7y ago
This would ignore the fact that almost all emissions are caused by the richest 10%. Reducing this population would be more effective.

More ›