New EU Climate Change Rules Anger Bloc's Farmers (nytimes.com) 181
To meet climate goals, some European countries are asking farmers to reduce livestock, relocate or shut down -- and an angry backlash has begun reshaping the political landscape before national elections in the fall. The New York Times: This summer, scores of farmers descended on the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, to protest against new E.U. rules aimed at restoring natural areas and cutting emissions that contribute to climate change. Farmers have protested in Belgium, Italy and Spain, too. The discontent has underscored a widening divide on a continent that is on the one hand committed to acting on climate change but on the other often deeply divided about how to do it and who should pay for it.
[...] For many farmers, the feelings run deep. The prominent role of agriculture was enshrined in the European Union's founding documents as a way of ensuring food security for a continent still traumatized by the deprivations of World War II. But it was also a nod to national identities and a way to protect competing farming interests in what would become a common market. To that end, from its outset, the bloc established a fund that, to this day, provides farmers with billions of euros in subsidies every year. Increasingly, however, those subsidies and the bloc's founding ideals are running up against a new ambition: to adapt to a world where climate change threatens traditional ways of life. Scientists are adamant: To fulfill the bloc's goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and to reverse biodiversity losses, Europe has to transform the way it produces its food.
[...] For many farmers, the feelings run deep. The prominent role of agriculture was enshrined in the European Union's founding documents as a way of ensuring food security for a continent still traumatized by the deprivations of World War II. But it was also a nod to national identities and a way to protect competing farming interests in what would become a common market. To that end, from its outset, the bloc established a fund that, to this day, provides farmers with billions of euros in subsidies every year. Increasingly, however, those subsidies and the bloc's founding ideals are running up against a new ambition: to adapt to a world where climate change threatens traditional ways of life. Scientists are adamant: To fulfill the bloc's goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and to reverse biodiversity losses, Europe has to transform the way it produces its food.
So..what are they supposed to do? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a good formula for Soylent yet?
Re: (Score:2)
"You gotta tell 'em! Soylent Green is people!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So..what are they supposed to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Should they start raising bugs/insects
Out of curiosity, I bought some cricket powder [amazon.com] on Amazon and added it to my muffin recipe.
The muffins were ... okay. But the problem is the powder was hecka expensive. $15 for 100g. If insects are supposed to be the cheap meat substitute, why are they so frick'n expensive?
And while I'm on a rant, why does tofu cost more than ground beef?
Re:So..what are they supposed to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not supposed to be a cheap substitute, it's supposed to be a humiliating one. In fact being cheap would go against one of the key goals of making sure everyone's cost of living is JUST high enough to keep them trapped in silent desperation but not so high they feel they have nothing to lose.
That's why eliminating home ownership is so vital too. If all the peasants are renters you can always adjust the rent up or down as necessary to control them.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two natural (i.e., equilibrium) states of society: (a) tribalism, and (b) feudalism. In reversion to the mean, we are trending toward both. Which one will win? Place your bets now, before the wheel stops.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Feudalism failed in the 14th century when labor became more expensive than land. That is unlikely to be reversed.
There are still some tribal societies. But by almost any measure of human welfare (income, infant mortality, maternal mortality, violence, longevity, nutrition, literacy, health, sexual abuse, alcoholism), tribal societies are at the absolute bottom, and people living in those societies want to leave.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I live my veggies. I eat more today than ever before in my life.
I've even dabbled eating vegetarian for a bit...
But I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should they start raising bugs/insects to change the food industry enough to meet these climate goals?
You keep pushing this straw man argument about how some vaguely defined powers that be want us to all eat bugs. I'm starting to think you protest too much and you really want us all to start eating bugs.
Re:So..what are they supposed to do? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if you consider the WEF (World Economic Forum) to be a "vaguely defined power that be" that wants us to stop eating meat....
Then YES, they do [youtube.com]...
Look at around 6:05 of this video from TED....the quote "There is a LOT of money riding on this"...should tell you about this push we're starting too.
But go to the WEF site, they have a number of articles promoting this:
HERE
HERE [weforum.org]
and HERE [weforum.org].
And take a look here during a talk where they actually promote genetic modification of humans so they are unable to EAT meat at all. [youtube.com]
All in all, I'd call this an agenda that is being pushed, yes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, if you consider the WEF (World Economic Forum) to be a "vaguely defined power that be" that wants us to stop eating meat....
Then YES, they do [youtube.com]...
You seem to be confused on a number of fronts. First, I wrote: "vaguely defined powers that be want us to all eat bugs". Did you think I wouldn't notice that you changed it?
Second, the opinion of one person, even one who works for the WEF is not necessarily the opinion of the entire population. I also have to say that, as a "bioethicist" his thoughts on implanting allergies to meat don't seem very ethical.
Third, the WEF is a non-government organization and a fairly loose one at that representing a lot of di
Re: (Score:3)
The World Economic Forum is often "vaguely defined" in discussions like this, but it's not a power. It's an industry organization, although I'm not sure most people know that. The thing they think about when someone says "World Economic Forum" is an annual conference the actual WEF holds that a bunch of rich people go to, and conservatives have decided is run by the Illuminati.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the consumption end of the strategy isn't getting the support it needs. The meat industry
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you need to do is....promote people cooking the majority of their own meals again...
I like eating my veggies...but it's still a good thing to eat meat, as that it is difficult to get your full protein needs, ALL essential amino acids from plants only. I believe lentils are one of the complete vegetable proteins out there.
I don't believe man got to the top of the food chain to ea
another source (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Most news sources in the EU are pro EU regardless of whether they're left or right and they don't like to criticise Brussels so no, this wouldn't get much of a mention until there's street protests and/or riots.
Re:another source (Score:4, Insightful)
Dutch farmers (Score:3, Insightful)
This WEF agenda was successfully defeated by the Dutch farmers [washingtonexaminer.com]. Hopefully the same will happen in France.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, it's really very romantic to see how politicians in EU try to hold up the agreed upon climate goals. They should do like everybody else and just ignore them. That should be no strain for them, they got a lot of practice ignoring their election promises.
Re:Dutch farmers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dutch farmers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody seems to understand what is happening here, so let me explain it.
They are asking farmers to re-wild parts of their land. That basically means letting them go back to their natural state, with some help to speed it up and prevent any serious issues arising. That helps the environment, in some areas more than others.
The farmers will be paid to do this.
Currently, farmers are paid to over-produce and then discard some of it. You might have read about "grain mountains" and "butter lakes". The idea is to e
Re: (Score:2)
Beef is already a very efficient animal. Alternatives like bison and yak (both delicious) require a lot more feed to produce the same amount of meat. Which animal do you suggest as an alternative?
Re: (Score:2)
Which animal do you suggest as an alternative?
They want us to eat insects [weforum.org] for unclear reasons [bbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Beef is already a very efficient animal.
Beef is literally the most CO2-intensive farming, with a footprint 7x-10x that of chicken, pork of farmed fish https://ourworldindata.org/car... [ourworldindata.org]
Re:Dutch farmers (Score:4, Informative)
Beef is literally the most CO2-intensive farming, with a footprint 7x-10x that of chicken, pork of farmed fish https://ourworldindata.org/car... [ourworldindata.org]
This is not true for cattle in pasture-based systems.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true for cattle in pasture-based systems.
Actually, it's worse for pasture-raised cattle.
The methane comes from the digestion of cellulose (grass), not starch (grain).
Disclaimer: I don't eat beef, neither pasture-fed nor grain-fed.
Re: (Score:3)
Disclaimer: I eat beef and don't plan to stop, but I like humane treatment of animals and pay extra for such meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Which animal do you suggest as an alternative?
Chicken, pork, fish, tofu, and peanut butter are all good alternatives.
Re: Dutch farmers (Score:2)
"Beef is already a very efficient animal."
What? Its very existence is predicated upon massive environmental impact. You couldn't even have all this cattle without severely changing the landscape, as was actually done to accommodate them.
Cows are the poster children for food inefficiency. That's why the most consumed meat on the planet is goat, not cow.
Re: Dutch farmers (Score:2)
In general, the whole environmental and climate movement is about implementing complex rules and taxes such the greens can show how rightful they are. The real solution is very simple, however: tax pollution. In the case of CO2, the tax can be negative for someone removing CO2 from the atmosphere. When we have net zero emissions the total
Re:Dutch farmers (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fuck farmers. Get rid of their food production in favor of root vegetables! What's the worst that could happen?"
Great Grand Pappy, who's still alive, "Glad you asked..."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1910 or thereabouts they invented a way to substitute animal fats with crap, and much profit followed. Now they're looking to substitute protein, but that's harder to get accepted, as meat is usually understood to be the main part of nutrition. But they can game the system to get traditional livestock banned. And by the way the same goes for vegetables, as they'll be reduced so a "plant based" additive.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what will lead to the demise of the EU. Once people realize that they can't feed themselves and their families there will be political change. It's almost like somebody wants to cause social upheaval for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
And your solution is worse than nothing. You're not helping anything, you're just screwing over everyone who isn't already rich while moving all the food production to places that pollute far worse. Just look at the EU's electric grid. They've gone from energy independence to having rolling brownouts and being desperately dependent on petrodictatorships. They're utterly beholden to the likes of Putin, and in the meantime there's been no meaningful improvement in anything because China and India simply ramp
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I *did* say that civilization is doomed, didn't I?
Re: (Score:2)
I and the world has lasted long enough for me to see children and grandchildren....likely won't last much longer than that.
So, past, that....in 50-100 years...whatever has made forth of the bloodline....I really don't care.
Why would I?
Again, giving up my
Re: (Score:2)
Sociopathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's hoping the French bring their guillotines out of mothballs and show these "let them eat bugs" politicians what happened
"Let them eat bugs" politicians don't actually exist, so it takes no effort to kill them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing France, they will cry and protest a lot, block the streets with trucks and tractors, but then the WEF agenda will go on as planned. The French LOVE to protest disruptively, but then they soon tire of it and whatever thing they were protesting happens anyway. They aren't so much interested in follow-through.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe get Dylan Mulvaney to serve as spokes model for the new WEF agenda....that might take care of the problem.
It certainly killed Bud Light over here for life....that's likely a brand that wil
Re: (Score:2)
Bud Light, if it dies, will die because it's just of average quality, and people have been paying for a name when they could have been drinking any number of other, cheaper light beers that taste just as good. If shooting a few cans and boycotting it causes people to realize that... then they got a positive result out of a rather silly protest -- they just cut their beer budget, or increased their beer ration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "very efficient" agriculture in the Netherlands is helping kill off what nature we have left. The "very efficient" agriculture in the Netherlands has gained 20% in crop yields over the past few decades, while increasing its energy use by 800%.
The way out of this is not to move agriculture to other nations, but to change our diet: meat is incredibly resource-intensive to produce, only 10% of the caloric value in the animal feed ends up in the meat.
Re:Dutch farmers (Score:4, Insightful)
The way out of this is not to move agriculture to other nations, but to change our diet: meat is incredibly resource-intensive to produce, only 10% of the caloric value in the animal feed ends up in the meat.
Such efficiency argument is also INSANE. With modern agriculture humanity eliminated starvation, the only cases of starvation currently is due to issues with distribution. We don't need to eliminate meat from our diets. So call it what it is, for ideological reasons, some people want us to stop eating meat and are engaged in engineering an artificial disaster (i.e., famine) where it might become necessary to do so.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only thing "artificial" about the disaster the Netherlands is heading towards is that for decades, we've had governments that left our farmers largely free to abuse the land however they saw fit. Farmers got ridiculously cheap energy (which is why all of the world's flowers are grown in gas-headed hothouses in the Netherlands) and were pushed to increase their production by any means (which led to so much lifestock we were drowning our fields in their shit). We (a tiny, densely populated country) are cu
Re: (Score:2)
We (a tiny, densely populated country) are currently the second largest exporter of food in the *world*. This has been proven to be unsustainable, and our government is finally taking action to remedy that.
Unsustainable? Citation required.
Re: Dutch farmers (Score:2)
"With modern agriculture humanity eliminated starvation"
Putting aside this obvious falsehood, modern agriculture sells out the future for profit today. It is based on the use of techniques and materials which literally destroy topsoil.
Re: (Score:2)
meat is incredibly resource-intensive to produce, only 10% of the caloric value in the animal feed ends up in the meat.
That's not a great argument against meat. You might as well just say that sugar is much more efficient in providing calories. It is, but meat is a hell of a lot healthier.
Re: (Score:2)
It is outright insane to attack already very efficient agriculture in the developed nations. The net effect of this will be two-fold: a) massive increase of food prices leading to starvation in a number of poorer countries, b) replacing of food production capacity lost in the developed nations by less effective (and therefore producing more emissions) and more expensive production of food in developing nations.
What is insane is that you get to declare that Dutch farming practices as efficient by citing the value of ouptut such as shitload of flowers.
The reason they can do this is using a shitload of energy and fertilizers:
https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly do you mean by sustainable in context of agriculture?
"Sustainable" means practices that can be sustained for an arbitrary amount of time without using up non-renewable resources.
If it is artisanal locally-grown organic, then we won't be able to feed the world that way.
OK, out of an infinite number of possible approaches, you have eliminated one.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly do you mean by sustainable in context of agriculture?
"Sustainable" means practices that can be sustained for an arbitrary amount of time without using up non-renewable resources.
Our current farming practices can be sustained for a very long time, but with understanding that fertilizer is mined (but there is plenty of it). My view is that all complaints about sustainability are too generic, if anything FOOD PRODUCTION is where the last of X non-renewable resources should go, because it is IMPORTANT.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, people need to stop eating so much. In fact, it would be ideal if they stopped eating altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
If your statement doesn't make it readily apparent enough, a) is precisely what the WEF is attempting to do. It's not by happenstance, it's their explicitly stated goal: starvation and the resultant warfare is just one of many ways they intended to "reduce global population". They don't say the starvation and warfare part, but it's a foregone conclusion that those are the outcomes of food restrictions.
Re: (Score:3)
Reality has a bias (Score:2, Insightful)
It's interesting to me that if if it was an outsider observing outcomes, combination of things like gender ideology, forced reduction in food production, strongly incentivized migration to cities where people live in small apartments, divorcing sex and reproduction as much as possible with things like IFV being promised as a part of public healthcare as well as other similar core tenets of public policy in last decade or two, mandating or incentivizing schooling to last well into adulthood so stable life ca
Re: (Score:2)
>you are suggesting some coordinated planning
UN sustainability goals for example are coordinated planning that mention everything on my list. Just to mention one source. They're public. Google and read.
And in my country, they're often cited by bureaucrats to defend their policy suggestions when they're directionally in the same way. It almost seems like "It's not happening. Wait, it's a conspiracy theory, if it's happening it's by complete accident. Wait, it's not happening, but it probably would be good
Re: (Score:2)
Goals != coordinated planning. To suggest that is to suggest people at the UN have any type of legislative or enforcement mechanism over member states which famously, they do not, thus why many think the UN is a feckless organization.
You are conflating "here's some of what we think are good ideas to follow" with "we are the global world order and we are making this plan happen" and trying to obfuscate the two of them.
You have a burden of proof here and some UN "sustainability goals" ain't gonna cut what yo
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to be confusing the guilty party with an innocent one.
I'm stating that there is a religious movement in much of the West that sees these goals as inherently good, and find various means of implementing them. Things like the one I mention are simply like Christian meetings to coordinate efforts to take Jerusalem. They're only there to align directionality better. It's the individual priests on the ground who do the work.
But people like you don't like admitting that, so you call people like myself
Re: (Score:2)
But your argument is a conspiracy theory. The "individual priests" we are talking about here are democratic legislatures elected by their citizens across a number of vastly different nations with very different incentives all working towards to the same conclusions for the same reasons. I am not calling you a conspiracy theorist, i am suggesting you are implicitly alluding to a conspiracy, you just are dancing around actually saying it.
Or the Occams razor explanation (the one with the least assumptions) i
Re: (Score:2)
Not just legislatures. Bureaucracies as well. Are you denying the existence of wide scale movement both in legislature and executive (and to a lesser extent judiciary) of much of the West to integrate beliefs you can find in documents like aforementioned UN sustainability goals one.
This isn't a secret. It's completely open. Because religious people don't hide their beliefs when they don't believe they have to. They proselytize instead. And that requires relative openness about one's beliefs.
And this is why
Re: (Score:2)
My friend, for you to type all this out and call me the triggered one is absolute projection.
Also, you haven't posted document one to this thread, all you said was "google it".
Maybe work on evidence instead of 6 paragraphs playing amateur psychologist. What an arrogant set of words to make such wild assumptions about my methods of grounding reality. Absolute clown show that presents no arguments, no evidence, not actual anything.
If you don't want people to call you conspiracy theorist, stop acting like on
Re: (Score:3)
This has been wrong since the 70's when "Population Bomb" was published and it has been summarily discredited as nonsense. Back up your claims.
https://www.vox.com/future-per... [vox.com]
Also world population is already predicted to top out in the next 50-ish years and start to decline, aren't you satisfied with that?
Just say what you really want and really believe instead of this crypto-belief nonsense you are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. Population bomb was wrong. In reality, exponential growth can continue forever.
Re: (Score:3)
Unironically yes, it can. Because as far as we know, universe is infinite and expanding much faster than we can read its edges.
And getting off this planet to start requires maximization of human potential. Which requires maximum amount of humans being born, so their potential can be harnessed in the first place. Every Einstein that isn't born is another massive scientific breakthrough that hasn't happened, or got delayed by decades or even centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason why the actually progressive nations like Nordics have increasingly been turning their backs on gender ideology, leaving anglosphere the sole pushers of this genocidal insanity, is because having actually tried those things first, they came to realize that when you "acknowledge" insane person's insane beliefs, outcomes for that person don't get better. Best case scenario they stay the same, but typically they get much worse.
Because these people have to still live in reality where there are t
Re: (Score:2)
Is housing a necessity? If no, why?
Is healthy food a necessity? If no, why?
Re: (Score:2)
It occurred to me as I sent the previous message, that I forgot perhaps the most important one, because I was focused on arguing materialism recently.
The third question I urge you to consider among the other two is below:
Is mental stability a necessity? If no, why?
Interesting Problem Ahead (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens when the EU's drive to eliminate farmers, and by direct logical extension it's farm & food production, reduces EU-originated foods BELOW the point where there is enough food to feed people in the EU?
I think the EU solution might be to IMPORT that food...cuz keepin to that climate goal trumps everything else, no?
And we have all seen how well the EU adjusted to having it's Russian natural gas cutoff. Most EU countries have ended up IMPORTING their natural gas from countries other than Russia.
Food, like fuel & shelter, are items that are really important to people. I think some wars in Europe have started over it long ago.
Re:Interesting Problem Ahead (Score:4, Interesting)
You vill eat ze bugs.
Let's see them take the fillet mignon off the menu at the EU headquarters cafeteria. Release a bunch of crickets in there and hand out nets at the door.
Re: (Score:2)
"...hand out nets at the door."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Food for Thought (Score:2)
What happens when the EU's drive to eliminate farmers, and by direct logical extension it's farm & food production, reduces EU-originated foods BELOW the point where there is enough food to feed people in the EU?
Well, there is a large island just off the shore of the EU that is no longer subject to their rules and, if they can ever get their act together again, I'm sure they would be only too happy to export some of the farm products that the EU will no longer be able to produce itself. I guess Brexit might not turn out to be an unmitigated dumpster fire after all if the EU keep this up.
start with forcing john Deere to remove dealer onl (Score:2)
start with forcing john Deere to remove dealer only locks / BAN ANY DMCA enforcement on farm equipment / tool needed to work on it.
All well and good, but... (Score:2)
This is all well and good, and may help a bit, but there are other areas they can look at.
How about going after the fossil fuel industry or the very large industrial agriculture companies ? No, because like the US, the pols love their bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H political contributions. Instead they go after the small farmers.
Retards (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the only way to stop it is to unilaterally abandon the refugee conventions and put all illegal migrants in concentration camps, until they find some third world country willing to take them for a token fee.
Bury your papers, get across the border and you're a future EU citizen. This is the inevitable result of current international treaties and the EU being surrounded by basket cases.
Re: (Score:2)
There are basket cases in the EU as well... but for the most part, the reason the EU is surrounded by crazy is because it has expanded right up to the border of crazy.
Hm (Score:2)
In first impressions, I was irate at this. How can governments get off just telling farmers "stop being farmers now"?
However....
Both US and EU farm subsidies are fantastically complicated (and imo to at least some degree this is deliberate obfuscation) but direct and indirect subsidies represent something between 20-40% (US) and 30-50% (EU) of farmers' income.
Example of a high-side source: https://www.cato.org/commentar... [cato.org]
I don't know a lot of businesses (that aren't defense industries) that can count on t
Re: (Score:2)
And as Steinbeck once pointed out: When a majority of people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need to survive.
The EU has already destroyed its energy independence and left people freezing in the winter as countries were wracked by rolling brownouts. Now the WEF is trying to starve those freezing people.
Hope the peasants remember how to build guillotines.
Re: (Score:2)
That's silly. Governments aren't magic. If you pay for your food directly or partly via taxes it doesn't make much difference to most people. Without some other compensatory mechanism poor people would suffer because they wouldn't get much of the tax break, but overall food would probably end up cheaper because there would be less waste.
Most agriculture subsidies originated when a country's agricultural production was a matter of national security. The US exacerbated things during the cold war when they del
Famine Next ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets solve these climate problems (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not about climate change (Score:2)
This is mostly about emissions and run off which increase soil nitrogen content in nature reserves close to farms and densely populated areas (which in Belgium and the Netherlands is all of them). No ecosystem in my country is older than a couple hundred years, it's all artificial as fuck ... yet somehow this now has to be preserved with no room for compromise.
No homes, no farms, just migrants and nature reserves ... if you're young make your money fast and prepare to GTFO.
Brussels needs to reread Steinbeck (Score:3, Interesting)
When a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need
Catastrophic failed policies have already left record numbers of people freezing through the winter as formerly energy-independent nations are stricken by rolling brownouts and left beholden to petrodictatorships. If this next batch of deliberately destructive policies goes through they'll be starving as well.
Hope they remember how to build guillotines.
Brexit (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps now you realise why we voted to leave here in the UK.
Who in the EU got to vote for this policy? Answer , no one. Oh sure, the MEPs waved it through but who knew this was coming down the tracks when they were voted in? The EU doesn't have a manifesto so you have little idea what stupid ideas they're going to fart out next.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the UK appears to have its share of WEF-loving/sponsored political leaders as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The heads of religions have never been voted on in the past. Why should the EU be any different?
They do? (Score:2)
Bad Policy (Score:2)
The problem is basing all these policies on this false premise. For all the "sky is falling" folks do keep in mind that the carbon we are pulling out of the ground was part of the biosphere at some point. There are huge swaths of land (e.g. the Sahara) that could be, with a little engineering be turned into lush carbon sinks that help feed people.
But politicians aren't educated enough to think about things in a scientific manner.
Pay when you externalize it... (Score:2)
Free market = reasons to externalize problems to everyone else (create hidden externalities). "I'm not releasing greenhouse gases, THEY ARE! GET 'EM! Yes, I'd like another filet mignon.
Does it matter where on earth it happens? If not, then stop worrying about your people doing something, and measure how much happens period. You're just playing a shell game here. Moving stuff, and pissing the people doing it off.
Drinking game! (Score:2)
I propose a drinking game. Every time you spot a sociopath in this thread... DRINK! You won't make it halfway through.
Conspiracy theorists right as usual (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I take a look at the fabricated shit in my fridge today, I'd say I'm basically ok mit eating ze bugs, IF they're dead and well pulverized. Although I'd greatly prefer vat-grown pork.
To be fair, I'm not familiar with this bug industry concept, but I worry that bugfarming does not address the core problem industry is faced with - it needs to be isolated from the biosphere, whichever specific method it uses. The problem isn't just chemicals, it's also the amount of energy in any for