Green - An environmentalist community

5234 readers

8 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

459

This land isn’t for you or me. It’s for the meat industry. | Almost half of the continental US is used for meat production. There’s something better we could do with it. (www.vox.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

129 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That is completely misunderstanding the study. The study still finds that food emissions alone - with zero emissions from non-food sources after 2020 - would make us miss climate targets.. They do other analysis later than only makes the picture worse if other emissions aren't immediately stopped

As such, even if all non–food system GHG emissions were immediately stopped and were net zero from 2020 to 2100, emissions from the food system alone would likely exceed the 1.5°C emissions limit between 2051 and 2063

For biogas, it still has plenty of methane emissions and doesn't solve a number of other environmental issues like waterway pollution

What "medication" are you referring to with cattle? That's pretty vague but most likely you are referring to some kind of feed addatives which have the problems I mentioned earlier

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

zero emissions from non-food sources after 2020 - would make us miss climate targets..

Did you actually read past the abstract?

Literally everything I said in my comment above still applies and you responded to literally none of it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

The line I quoted in the second response was not from the abstract