SomeoneSomewhere

There's a difference between a market and a significant market.

Explain how you deal with or prevent rape and murder in an anarchist society.

The argument is not that they chose not to harm the land, but that they simply couldn't significantly harm the land, and there usually wasn't any incentive to, because they couldn't get at anything under the land anyway.

About the only option was intentionally setting first/grass fires, and that happened plenty.

So your alternative is what? Just say a tonne is a tonne?

It's adequate for the purpose at hand.

Lots and lots of math and analysis.

My understanding is it is fairly well settled on a chemical & lifespan basis. I am not sure of what impact initial altitude has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Anaerobic bacteria produce methane. When oxygen is present, the aerobic pathway outcompetes anaerobic because more energy is available, producing CO2 instead.

GHG are usually measured in tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GWP) where methane is about 80x as much warming as the same mass of CO2 over a 20 year period, or about 25x as much warming over a 100 year period.

This is also what's going on in the steady replacement of various refrigerants with lower-GWP alternatives.

40% thrown away does not necessarily imply all others are better.

Normally imperfect produce goes to processing plants (juice, cans, pies etc.) but I'm not sure if there's any significant market for banana chunks/puree.

But all of those are net emissions?

Desire-to-die is potentially a reasonable way to describe 15 hours in an economy airline seat, or stuck in/as traffic.

I.e. so fed up with this that you'd rather be dead.

I feel like the axes need better labeling.

A lot of the emissions from food are not things that are already in the carbon cycle.

• Deforestation to turn forest into farmland.

• Fossil fuels for equipment and to manufacture fertiliser.

• Methane from animals is significantly more potent than if that same carbon was released as CO2.