"A meat-eater with a bicycle is much more environmentally unfriendly than a vegetarian with a Hummer."
--Dr Mark Post
The world's largest food concern, Unilever, has opened a new research lab at the world's most prestigious agricultural university, the University of Wageningen (the Netherlands).
Unilever will locate all elements of its foods R&D there. A spokeswoman on Dutch radio stressed plant-based meat alternatives as an important research subject.
Wageningen University has strong credentials in that respect, with the development of shear cell technology.
Shear cell technology strings plant proteins together in tightly controlled fibers, resulting in a meat substitute where texture (fibrousness, bite, mouthfeel) can easily be controlled, and changed at will. This, combined with 3D food printing, offers the possibility of creating multiple meat (substitute) variations in future.
Unilever's food campus is open to startups, innovators and partners. One of the first to have build its own lab on the same grounds is Symrise, an industrial flavours and scents group.
About half of Dutch people call themselves 'flexitarians'. This means that they don't eat meat with their main meal at least three times a week. The proportion of vegetarians is stable, at just under five percent of the Dutch population.
Wageningen researchers believe, however, that feeding 9 billion people with animal meat will not be sustainable for the planet.
Hey Sean, I know you are the master of misrepresenting things, but from that very damning link YOU provided:
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.
Not to mention that you provided a link that is almost 6 years old, so we have the benefit of that many more years of data. Hey, look, the story still holds up: Arctic [nasa.gov] and Antarctic [nasa.gov]. You're either an outright liar, or a useful idiot. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and figure you for the idiot, but if that is the case, you really need to realize that you are far from being the smartest guy in the room, particularly on this issue.
And obviously you have never been in academia, every publication needs to include phrases like that to toe the line. In fact someone who didn't say that probably couldn't get funding.
But anyway, I moved to the coast, waiting for people to sell all their coastfront property out of fear of "climate change". There is at least a 50% chance that the opposite of what these models predict happens so its a good bet against people who are 100% certain like you.
Good luck with that. Maybe you can turn it into oyster farms or something. Just do us all a favor and show some integrity by not clamoring for FEMA assistance when you get flooded out. You're going in with fair warning.
The federal government you are waiting for to save you from climate change literally encouraged me to move to a flood plain. So you are subsidizing the risk!
Also, btw... Where I live the water level already rose 6 meters since ~1900. During that time the area thrived and flourished. So when the most extreme climate models predict a rise of 3 meters per century, that would mean a halving in the rate of rise.
You didn't say where you live, so quite plausibly. The sea level rise isn't evenly distributed, and, IIUC, in the Northern Atlantic it will go down as Greenland melts due to the decreasing gravitational attraction. In other places it's rising more than the average. And the more detailed a model you want the more expensive it is to compute (and the more likely it will be in error in some places).
Its just due to people building dams and levees upstream, that raises the water level downstream: