this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
131 points (91.7% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5314 readers
13 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:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can see from the graphs above that when dealing with only CO2 there is a marginal increase in how much worse chicken or fish are compared to alternatives which aren't as nutrient rich.
A 3x increase isn't nearly as high as people would like you to believe. Let alone milk which is more eco friendly than many of your common calcium alternatives.
Not only that but dairy plans to be carbon neutral in the USA as of 2050.
You can paint eco-friendly husbandry practices terribly as much as you want, but real progress is constantly being made. These same industries are the ones actually investing in lab grown meat.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/27/1095100351/the-dairy-industry-aims-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2050-heres-what-it-means-for-far
https://newrepublic.com/article/171709/inside-battle-big-ag-lab-grown-meat
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-10-foods-with-the-biggest-environmental-footprint-2015-9
Yes but co2 isn't everything. How much space it uses, which could be used to keep biodiversity high is also very important and actually the bigger factor in the question of human civilization surviving. We can deal with hotness, but we can't deal with no insects