Europe

458 readers

32 users here now

All about Europe

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tfm@europe.pub

Kualdir@europe.pub

Amsterdam's Ban on Meat and Fossil Fuel Advertising Comes Into Effect (earth.org)

submitted 1 day ago by Sepia@mander.xyz to c/Europe@europe.pub

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Over 50 cities, mostly European, have either restricted or tabled motions to introduce formal limitations on the advertisement of polluting products and services. Some – including several Dutch municipalities, Stockholm, Edinburgh and Sydney – have banned them altogether.

...

Web Archive link

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

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

What are you even yapping about? All the things you wrote are irrelevant to this issue. What an insane comment copied straight from propaganda books.

All just hypothetical scenario bla bla while in practice the numbers are irrefutable. The following responses are not for you because you are clearly and idiot, but for others that might actually believe the bullshit you wrote.

Livestock is typically kept on marginal land that’s unsuitable for most crops.

Nonsense, but also the issue is actually the land required to grow the plants that feed the animals. The energy conversion rate of plants > animals > meat > food is incredibly inefficient compared to plants > food

If you know what you’re doing then you are not going to be poisoning the groundwater.

Well companies all over the world clearly dont give a shit about that so the point is irrelevant.

And again tens of thousands of years we raised animals and (excessive) greenhouse gas emissions were not a problem.

Because in 8000 BC there were an estimated 5 million humans in the world and a fraction of that in terms of livestock. Today there are 8+ billion humans and 30+ billion livestock animals globally if you include poultry.

Them existing would be the problem.

Yes, the amount of livestock humanity is keeping is not acceptable and needs to be reduced to a tiny fraction of the current levels. Without human interference these animals that we keep as livestock would never even have existed. If we stopped breeding them artificially they would cease existing in a matter of years. Realistically we wont and dont have to eradicate them, but we dont need billions of them.

When you dig up the sequestered remains of plants and animals [...]

Small note, but fossil fuels come almost entire from plants and microorganisms.

[–] Krusty@quokk.au 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I can explain things to you. But I can't understand them for you.

Take LNG leaks. Just leaks. That's over 20 Tg(teragram) of methane into the wind every year. A teragram is 1 million metric tons. It takes 400 million cattle an entire year to produce that much methane (while feeding billions of people.)

Fossil fuels make up over 35 percent of methane emissions. Livestock are around 12 percent, and it's mostly cattle (ruminants.)

There's around 1.5 billion cattle and they produce about 75 million metric tons of CH4. Fossil fuels emit around 3x that much.

Eliminating fossil fuels would result in methane and CO2 concentrations dropping across the world. Climate change solved (at least as far as greenhouse gases.) While eliminating livestock production just slows down the rate of increase slightly, so it solves nothing except leaving you vulnerable to crop failures(which climate change will exacerbate) leading to famine and likely billions dead. Womp womp.

Ultimately, livestock are an excellent hedge. I do not understand why people want to make our food system less secure than it already is. To me, you are completely batshit fucking insane.

The world can sustain our present agriculture system without fossil fuels. It's as simple as that. We absolutely need to stop burning fossil fuels. It's as simple as that.

There's really no tug of war. Reducing livestock doesn't meaningfully change anything. It's like letting up slightly off the accelerator but you're still going 900 mph instead of a 1000 miles an hour directly into a brick wall. Eliminating fossil fuel combustion? That's like slamming on the brakes and shifting into reverse and then slamming on the accelerator....