Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If she wants to do something to help the planet, she should focus on the unchecked use of palm oil. The fact we go and burn down rainforests to plant this stuff, only to go and use it as biofuel, shows me that the elites that claim to care so much about the planet really don't as much as they claim.
They seem to turn a blind eye to the amount of rainforest that's being destroyed to produce this stuff. We should have kept trans fats legal worldwide because when we banned them, that's when this problem really took off.
She means well but she's misguided. The only things she knows about farming come from books and TV and misguided social influencers who don't farm and get their ideas from books and TV and misguided social influencers.
Going from an animal-based monoculture to a plant-based one won't help the environment; it's just exchanging one set of insects, diseases, and problems for another. Unlike monoculture, regenerative agriculture increases soil fertility, reduces pests and diseases, reduces desertification and flooding and it produces more food per acre than monoculture farming does while allowing animals to live a happy life.
This is a partial list of permaculture farmers: Bill Mollison, Sepp Holzer, Gabe Brown, Geoff Lawton, Brad Lancaster, etc.
Looks like the list there are all or mostly "permaculture," right?
Greta was simply talking about less animals, right -- looked like in particular "Factory Farming" methods?
Did not see anyone adovacting for any sort of monoculture, did you?
She is just a spokesperson and mainly used because of her age to appeal to the public and the media.
The agenda is to replace meat consumption with artificial meat and ranchland with grassland for biofuel and biomass.
There may be a conflict in interest in the same manner as Bill Gates whenever he discusses the same agenda. He has heavily invested towards those ends.
They can reduce emissions from agriculture by applying research and technology.
She is just a spokesperson and mainly used because of her age to appeal to the public and the media.
The agenda is to replace meat consumption with artificial meat and ranchland with grassland for biofuel and biomass.
There may be a conflict in interest in the same manner as Bill Gates whenever he discusses the same agenda. He has heavily invested towards those ends.
They can reduce emissions from agriculture by applying research and technology.
It looks like this was sponsored by "Mercy for Animals?"
They are more about Plant-Based food rather than "Artificial Meat?" Just asking -- or do you see that as the same thing?
Not finding anything about using grassland for biofuel/biomass? Is that part just made up?
Not trying to debate, just trying to make sense of the claims.
It looks like this was sponsored by "Mercy for Animals?"
They are more about Plant-Based food rather than "Artificial Meat?" Just asking -- or do you see that as the same thing?
Not finding anything about using grassland for biofuel/biomass? Is that part just made up?
Not trying to debate, just trying to make sense of the claims.
I'm not arguing pro or con, just to point out that they are advocating one side of the story because they have invested in those solutions. On the other side, third-world agriculture consists of a lot of small subsistence farms which don't have the political clout.
There is a lot covering the subject on the web in the Green earth proposals to repurpose land for raising animals and and for feedstock.
Call it savanna, ranchland, grassland, pasture, etc.
The one about Europe converting land to provide a source of wood pellets has to be disturbing.
Almost 900,000,000 - that's million - people don't have access to reliable drinking water. Its not just third world countries, or cities like Cape Town, South Africa. In the US, we are seeing now the effects of agriculture and development. From 1998 to 2000, in VA a statewide survey of wells was done. The result was that pollution is affecting well water down to 100 feet.
We can't sustain drinking water supplies with more development. It doesn't matter if that development is agricultural, suburban or urban. Its odd to think that VA which gets up to 44 inches of rain is in the early stages of having drinking water supply issues, but its here. Its even stranger to think that the Chesapeake Bay region is seeing a water shortage now: the 1,000-foot-deep Potomac aquifer is being depleted. It will take thousands of years to replenish.
Permaculture is a method of raising money by writing books the naive will buy. I guarantee you that a permaculture plot does not produce more biomass or yield than industrial row cropping. Absurd to say so..... I also like the charlatan writing about "square foot gardening." He claims to grow more on less space, but he's using raised beds and forgetting to include the 3-4 ft perimeter on the outside of the bed needed for access. Add that in and he's using just as much space as a conventional garden. Charlatans all.
RE: cutting down the Amazon for farmland. Europeans did the same as did the American pioneers to their forests. Who are we now to say the S.Americans shouldn't do it?...Tough problem. Ethics are relative, not absolute.
N. America has as many cattle now as it had Bison, it's close relative, in pre-Columbian times. The difference is, bison are more efficient feeders and could attain huge size on only natural grass. Domestic cattle need grain as a supplement to make meat production an economically viable endeavor. By growing mono-crop corn alternating with beans to maintain soil fertility, we can get more meat using less land than if we fed cattle "naturally."...Please keep in mind that prior to WWII, ALL farming was "organic." They got 50 bu of corn to the acre then. Now we get 200bu/ac. ...We could never feed 7.5B people using only organic methods.
RE: meat production and the environment- Human nutrition is best accomplished by getting our protein from animals and supplementing our calorie intake by eating plants.... While the chain of sunlight-->sugar/starch--> herbivore --> carnivore loses a little efficiency (2nd LoT) at each step, it is still way more efficient than going from sugar/starch --> carnivore. ...We'd wind up using way more petroleum to grow our food plants on way more land (destroying even more habitat) if we switched to a more plant dependent diet....We should be encouraging meat production to save the environment, not discouraging it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
