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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:40AM (8 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @12:40AM (#767114)

    French people are already setting shit on fire over gas prices (as a symbol of high taxation cutting into their living standard).
    Cut subsidies, raising food prices, and they'll go for pitchforks and guillotines again. The government can't step over that line, because they know that people in uniform will not protect them from legitimate wrath of the majority.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:29AM

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:29AM (#767132)

    The French farmers are the masters of getting what they want, but farmers everywhere are pretty good at it.

    A quick search tells me that the US spends $20 billions per year on agricultural subsidies, which sounds like a massive under-estimate to me, but it still a lot of money.

    In my own country the farmers don't get any direct subsidies (which tends to make them much more efficient) but every summer, when it stops raining for 6 weeks or so, you can bet my tax dollar that they will be on TV whining about "how dry it's been this year" and how they need "support" because of the "important role they play in the economy".

    If the business I work for was run that badly we would go broke, and a good thing too.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:38AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:38AM (#767181)

    Of all the things that can be subsidized, food production makes the most sense

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:58AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:58AM (#767189)

      It would if we had a shortage. We don't have a shortage of food production, we have some issues with distribution, but that's not being subsidized. In the US we literally pay farmers to not produce certain crops and we pay to have certain crops destroyed. This year it looks like a significant portion of the cranberry harvest is going to be destroyed because supply has outstripped demand by a considerable margin.

      Subsidies are really only helpful in cases where there's some sort of short term need to shore up production. Not as something that happens every year. In most cases, you're better off ensuring that people can afford to buy the food than to pay people to produce it.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 28 2018, @02:04PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @02:04PM (#767300) Journal

        I don't see how it makes any sense to destroy a cranberry harvest. The stuff is eminently preservable. You can dry it, can it, or juice it and it will keep practically forever. Also, it's really good for you.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday November 28 2018, @05:13PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @05:13PM (#767359)

        > In the US we literally pay farmers to not produce certain crops and we pay to have certain crops destroyed.

        Certainly the Home Of The Free Market does not do such things!
        My, this would be Central Planning, which we all know to be Dangerous, Evil and an Abomination unto Nuggan.
        Proud conservative-leaning farmers would spit at the face of anyone offering them market-distorting commie money !
        Not in the US, sir. We have principles!

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:01AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:01AM (#767191) Journal

    Cut subsidies, raising food prices, and they'll go for pitchforks and guillotines again.

    Given that the subsidies raise food prices in the first place, maybe "they" won't.

  • (Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:57PM (1 child)

    by ChrisMaple (6964) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:57PM (#767441)

    You're being a sucker for mainstream news. The French are rioting over gasoline tax increases. The actual untaxed price of gasoline in France is stable-to-falling.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:22PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:22PM (#767466)

      You're not very good at reading. I didn't even use big words.