Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the beat-it,-don't-eat-it dept.

Phys.org:

Dr. Helen Harwatt, farmed animal law and policy fellow at Harvard Law School, advises that getting protein from plant sources instead of animal sources would drastically help in meeting climate targets and reduce the risk of overshooting temperature goals.

For the first time, Dr. Harwatt proposes a three-step strategy to gradually replace animal proteins with plant-sourced proteins, as part of the commitment to mitigate climate change. These are:

1) Acknowledging that current numbers of livestock are at their peak and will need to decline ('peak livestock').

2) Set targets to transition away from livestock products starting with foods linked with the highest greenhouse gas emissions such as beef, then cow's milk and pig meat ('worst-first' approach).

3) Assessing suitable replacement products against a range of criteria including greenhouse gas emission targets, land usage, and public health benefits ('best available food' approach).

Harwatt further elaborates that recent evidence shows, in comparison with the current food system, switching from animals to plants proteins, could potentially feed an additional 350 million people in the US alone.

You can eat plants or insects, but not meat.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:41PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:41PM (#767091)

    Outlaw free trade of food, or accept that rich folks will be the last to lose access.

  • (Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:31AM (1 child)

    by suburbanitemediocrity (6844) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:31AM (#767179)

    Outlaw the production of your own food.

    • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:34AM

      by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:34AM (#767207) Journal

      Outlaw the production of your own food.

      .
      Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

      --
      В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:11AM (1 child)

    by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:11AM (#767198)

    Nope. I will just accept that I have access to their kitchen and pantry.

    If they want to keep the caviar, Foie gras, and the like, go ahead. Basic shit like hamburgers, steak, bacon? You better betcha your ass that the rich will be paying out the fucking nose for security, and paying the security partially in bacon. Otherwise...... the rich will not be holding on that for very long on at all.

    Yes. If they outlaw pigs, which is outlawing bacon, than it is outlawed for the rich as well as the poor. Except that shit doesn't fucking happen. Back in prohibition, you had the rich still drinking whatever the fuck they wanted, and they didn't face the same penalties and laws that the average worker did. You think the Senators back in prohibition weren't in high end speakeasies? Parties for the rich were often catered with alcohol, and the cops looked the other way.

    If I find out a rich person has steak, I will bust into their house, cook it, eat it, then burn their fucking house down.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:40PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:40PM (#767433)

      Yes. If they outlaw pigs, which is outlawing bacon, than it is outlawed for the rich as well as the poor. Except that shit doesn't fucking happen. Back in prohibition, you had the rich still drinking whatever the fuck they wanted, and they didn't face the same penalties and laws that the average worker did. You think the Senators back in prohibition weren't in high end speakeasies? Parties for the rich were often catered with alcohol, and the cops looked the other way.

      I think it's a little easier to hide a still [lackadaisycats.com] than a livestock farm, but I suppose they could raise them overseas, extraordinarily render them, and then bring the processed parts into the US.

      If I find out a rich person has steak, I will bust into their house, cook it, eat it, then burn their fucking house down.

      Change the order, and you can omit the cooking step. Bring a safecracker too, I guess.