[dead]
If you don't believe in climate change, the argument is not worth having.
https://www.wired.com/story/everythings-about-to-get-a-hell-...
Now my family has a couple of engineers, and my work has a positive impact in mitigation of climate change.
There are many realities out there. And many ways to fight climate change.
With that said, there is a discussion to be had about what effective and efficient ag policy looks like while being mindful of the above, in a world limited by physical constraints.
All European countries support a stalemate war, oil laundering shipped via massively inefficient routes with high dirty ship diesel emissions, military CO2 emissions, private jets traveling to Davos (there is no fuel tax for private jets in Germany!) and a lot more.
But let us take away the milk from poor people.
It's also going after a bit player in global GHG emissions. Replacing coal for electricity generation and oil wherever possible (land transport) are the big ones and where the vast majority of the attention should go.
You don't solve a problem by going after the hardest aspects of it down at the end of the long tail. You solve it by going after the head, which is carbon-rich fossil fuels.
Agriculture is not a "bit player" in GHG emissions. It's one of the big 5, the others being electricity generation, transportation, heating and industry, each of which contributes >10%. It's also the sector without a clear path to decarbonization. Generation has renewables, transportation has EV's, heating has heat pumps, some industry has transition plans (and some doesn't)
It's probably because humans are carbon based life forms and we need to eat carbon based foods to live
I hope we never successfully decarbonize agriculture
Everything has externalities, just being born and existing has negative externalities, why don't we just confine everyone to their apartment to limit their externalities? Why don't we force people to pay a tax every time they leave their house to internalize their externalities?
This rule is authoritarian, and it is wrong for the government to use its monopoly on violence to do this to farmers.
It's an extra $100 on a cow worth $3k that'll produce 10k+ gallons of milk in its lifetime. A penny per gallon of milk.
It likely means little to them.
I wonder if we could invent some form of farming that doesn't depend on cows? Technology is pretty amazing these days.
"Differing opinions than mine are evil. There will be no discussion."
And it's the top comment too. Good Lord.
That whole idea of “my opinion isn’t up for debate because it’s actually not my opinion — it’s a fact. And therefore there will be no discussion…”
It’s infiltrated so many other social spheres and I would argue it’s one of the top contributors to why were so polarized and divided today.
I don't think this is a topic where people can be swayed by well articulated arguments unlike say, under post about the merits of Clojure.
I can see myself giving Clojure a shot after reading a nice comment about it. But no amount of arguing is going to convince me to approve of a tax on a food item I like. The difference in beliefs just goes too deep.
So I think it's pretty clear who they mean with (((spiteful hegemonic elite)))...
Chicken and turkey have always been cheaper and are just as nutritious, if you want to stick with meat.
Fully half of my country is used to grow pig feed, and most of that meat is exported.
The rest of the world can grow its own fucking bacon if it wants it so badly. This country needs less agriculture. There's no "but".
However, if Denmark stops exporting pork and tells everyone to grow it itself, what happens when those countries stop exporting products that Denmark doesn’t make? Is Denmark going to produce its own computers?
I understand the frustration and the argument. Maybe there’s something else Denmark can and should export.
Like pharmaceuticals? Or aerospace, robotics, high end machinery (Grundfos for example), or sea freight?
Before COVID the Danes also produced massive amounts of fur from mink, they've been culled due to the pandemic and nothing much has happened.
> However, if Denmark stops exporting pork and tells everyone to grow it itself, what happens when those countries stop exporting products that Denmark doesn’t make? Is Denmark going to produce its own computers?
Trade wars due to a country's economical decisions about what they prefer to produce or not is not a reality. Or if it is I'd like to see some examples.
And if you're asking me whether I think it's fair that we can buy computers from Asia for around the price of the raw materials and labour, and not have to worry about the environmental devastation of both the production of them and the handling of them when they're discarded, the answer is a firm no. I want environmentalism both here, in China, and in Africa. Production should be sustainable, and if I then have to eat less meat or make my computers last longer, then that's just how it is. Just because I want something doesn't mean I have a right to it when what I want has such a profound impact on others.
A grand-uncle(?) of mine had to kill one or two of his 5 cows when the country entered the European Union. Just about retiring age. I totally relate to your comment.
> I'm the most racist person you can imagine and I don't get it.
On a submission titled Data-fueled neurotargeting could kill democracy:
> Cool. How can we help?
Look, this is a place for discussion, not edgy behaviour. It'd be best if you tried to participate in the same way, you are not spitting facts and your opinion is, at best, quarrelsome. It'd be best for all of us if you approached this space with less of this stupid rhetoric.
Make a few decisions like this in a few years and voila, you get pissed off masses who won't suffer any more taxes or cancelled bbq dinners for your "libtard agenda" and another Trump-like fellow will rise. Meanwhile no one taxes private jets or yachts for carbon emissions. I guess their costs are not "externalized".
Canada does, it has a carbon tax on pretty much everything except fertilizer and heating fuel.
Broad based carbon taxes are the correct solution, but they're also the reason Trudeau is going to lose the next election.
I suppose people who has to eat and stay warm. I get what you mean, but it still is a good blow-softener in my opinion. Even if farmers get some benefits for no reason.
> Broad based carbon taxes are the correct solution, but they're also the reason Trudeau is going to lose the next election.
Well we are not living in a perfect world. I am not familiar with Canada and Trudeau's political opponents, but still. If a "solution" triggers a kneejerk reaction, cutting its own life short; and causing nutjob demagogues to rise, which leads to much greater harm than it prevented in the first place, how is it the correct solution?
No, it's pretty much a giveaway to Eastern Canada, which is the only part of Canada that uses heating fuel widely. Quebec uses electricity for heating, and the rest of Canada uses natural gas.
The fertilizer exemption is a protectionist measure. Fertilizer production produces massive amounts of carbon. If Canada taxed carbon on domestically produced fertilizer but not on foreign produced fertilizer it'd kill local fertilizer production for little benefit. The right solution is a carbon tariff at the border, but that's really hard to do unilaterally so we have the fertilizer exemption instead.
it'S lITERalLy ninEtEeN eIghTY-four
Is it?
If you want to rely on answers from authoritative sources your only logical option is to go with the mainstream consensus which is still that red meat is terrible for you. As soon as you branch off into less mainstream studies you're now in the territory where you could logically justify nearly any health decision based on which studies you decide to cherry pick. At that point you have to ask yourself if you're really basing your decisions on the studies or if you're picking your studies based on your decision.
Again, the science is so sketchy that just doing what works for you makes sense, but it's not a good idea to pretend that you're doing it because of the science.
FWIW that's not a healthy diet. A vegan diet (assuming you were vegan) needs a lot of variety--carbs/grains, healthy fats, nuts, legumes, etc. You won't meet your daily caloric needs on lentils and vegetables.
I also ate 5+ bowls a day a day.
I just could not reach my calorie requirements.
I did exercise everyday by going up the nearby mountain. Adding protien powder to my meals helped, but adding meat made it very easy to substantially increase my calorie intake.
Which studies are those?
Often it's one industry or another paying a tame scientist to p-hack their way to a forgone conclusion; https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
so... you eat less bread and feel better? surprise!