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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:03PM (1 child)

    by Freeman (732) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @04:03PM (#767332) Journal

    I really do like space exploration and it's really cool science stuff, but the actual benefits to our society in any semi-near to even long-term future are negligible. In fact, with every launch, we are polluting the Earth even more. So, in actuality, the long term take away may be more along the lines of breaking even. Sure, there's cool things to be done, researched, etc, but at what cost and given what benefit? I would say the interest that it brings to Science, may be worth it, but it's certainly not doing the environment any favors.

    Trump is the first president I've heard in a long time talking seriously about introducing new tariffs on imported goods.

    Nuclear power may be the answer, but the fallout can be quite devastating. I'm quite in favor of focusing on Wind and Solar for power generation. In fact, I already know someone who mostly generates power and hardly pays anything in electric bills. That's what I would love for my own house.

    I'm uncertain what general worldwide disaster you're trying to save us from. Are you thinking the Fallout game series had things "sort of right"? Just without all of the dystopian science experiments being performed on various Vaults?

    Yeah, I'm in the category of people who are barely scraping by. Thus, don't have much time to think about pie in the sky kinds of finances. I have been taking some financial advice and been putting away for retirement, but who knows if that will truly be enough.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:48PM (#767436)

    Just buy some amd stock and wait for intel to lose half the datacenter market. The latest thing is intel saying they dont even care about cpus anymore: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4224840-intel-corporation-intc-management-presents-credit-suisse-22nd-annual-tmt-conference [seekingalpha.com]