Not just land use. Arable land (not “marginal”) can be considered as an input to production, a variable in the outcome. It is not the only variable. As we’re talking about industrial agriculture, the other inputs are machinery, seeds, agrochemicals, and fuels (and labor if you want to count it here).

The animal farming sector competes on all these in one way or another, raising demand and pricing out poorer farmers around the world. This isn’t necessarily a rule, but it’s common and it matters; not all inputs are near scarcity. The most important one is probably fertilizers: Savings in fertilizer requirements from plant-based diets - ScienceDirect

Ex. from 2021 Global farmers facing fertiliser sticker shock may cut use, raising food security risks | Reuters

This is made worse by the fact that the rich “developed” countries dedicate a lot of resources to animal farming, including feed crops, and they bring in loads of ag. subsidies for that. Poorer countries can’t afford meaningful subsidies, so they can’t compete to buy the expensive inputs as easily. Effectively, subsidies for eating animals in rich countries translates, through the invisible hand of the global ag. inputs market, into food insecurity in poor countries. I’m not the first to point that out: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0a8bd248-025d-49fd-99e2-d8ae972fa124/content

And marginal land competes with forests, wetlands, biodiversity. “Marginal land” is a poisoned concept: https://tabledebates.org/blog/marginal-lands-sustainable-food-systems-panacea-or-bunk-concept

Fuck that channel.

Not really a challenge, the “climate friendly” idea is pseudoscience and creative accounting.

Given the advised quantity is impossible to achive, I’d never have a chance so you can spare the vegan preaching

You can take choline supplements, so it’s not impossible. Vegan preaching will continue. The assumption here that you’re not sharing is that you want some magical “natural diet” while living a completely unnatural life. You have a medical condition, which was discovered thanks to modern medical science, modern biology and chemistry, and yet you imagine that you must obtain some “natural sources” as if that’s an enchanted biological material instead of the very obvious: you’re OK with sacrificing sentient beings for your fantasy of “natural independence from modernity”.

Oh, and factory farming is responsible for most of the animal products. That’s part of your fantasy issue. Let’s put it this way. If there were no factory farms, not only are you statistically unlikely to get your hands on eggs and livers, but if you had hens, you could afford only a small number of hens and your economic situation would pressure you to sell the eggs, not to consume them.

Take the supplements.

If you want to go full “primitivist”, then understand first that the humans as “primitives” can only survive as tiny populations, a fraction of how many humans we have today. You would’ve probably died as a natural abortion or in childhood, just like me.
It’s bean a huge displeasure to talk to you, I hope that you remember me.

Rooki is a science denier - confirmed.

Unfortunately, running or managing a Lemmy instance doesn’t come with requirements to read science.

There are people working on foods for cats which aren’t based on cruelty. There already exist options, though some are sold as special diets.

Example: https://sustainablepetfood.info/

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0284132 it’s already happening.

The work in “lab meat” products is actually going to contribute to this too.

Note: cats don’t eat cows or pigs or even adult chickens in “nature”.

Pick one:

• cars
• cities

Well, it takes a village to raise a child. The capitalist culture also brings this idea of “nuclear family” which generates this impossible situation for the “nuclear family” to afford kids. Of course, the other aspect of this is the eugenicist/fascist aspect of: only the rich can afford kids, so them it makes sense, this nuclear family. It’s not a problem to have a nuclear family if you’re rich, and you can just replace the village by paying for extra caretakers… another type of commodified relationship. The rich can afford to pay a woman to babysit for years, while that woman can’t afford to have a family or to see her kids (often because her family is in a different country). Family for me, but not for thee.

For every 1t of burned carbon added to the atmosphere, ~1 person will die. This is actually conservative, the range 0.1-10 / t.

Quite the opposite, capitalists want more human resources, human capital. There’s an entire ideology, at least centuries old, about this. You can most easily read about it as: pronatalism.

People aren’t conditioned to think in a capitalist way, they’re conditioned to think about their kids future not being worse than their present, since having kids can throw you into poverty.

Our government has been systematically gutting funding for public transport.

silent privatization

how will it help? the stuff comes online in decades in the future. We need to reduce emissions now.

The best time to build them was decades ago, so clearly the second best time is to… Never? Your argument is taken straight from the oil and coal industries – it would take too long to build up renewables infrastructure, so let’s just not do it? We shouldn’t build windmills, because you can’t tell me how many we need globally?

You seem to be unaware of the plans and needs to reduce GHGs. We do not have decades to waste.

Thanks Russia.

Oh, it gets worse. Russia is big on nuclear, they have a whole agency that deals in nuclear in Europe, it’s called ROSATOM.

This is related to other post with the fossil-fuel sponsored ecomodernist girl whining about Greenpeace and nuclear:

Russia lobbied to have the EU include nuclear energy and fossil methane to be included in the “sustainable” taxonomy: https://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/20220517-greenpeace-report-russland-taxonomie.pdf (PDF)

Russia has a good stranglehold on nuclear energy: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-14/russia-s-grip-on-nuclear-power-trade-is-only-getting-stronger and many European powers …compliant to that.

Russia’s nuclear trade with Europe flowing amid Ukraine war https://web.archive.org/web/20221011224411/https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russias-nuclear-trade-europe-flowing-amid-ukraine-war-90691865

European Union nations are continuing to import and export nuclear fuel that is not under EU sanctions on Russia

Russia’s Grip on Nuclear-Power Trade Is Only Getting Stronger https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-nuclear-power-uranium-plants-europe-imports-germany-sanctions-ukraine-war/

New data show exports in the strategic industry jumped more than 20% last year, as long-term projects boost Russian influence.

Here’s an article in German: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/uran-abhaengigkeit-russland-koennte-den-usa-noch-erhebliche-schmerzen-zufuegen-a-cad81a53-4704-4842-a641-1b6191e4add5

It’s even more complicated, but building nuclear now in Europe would mean more dependency on Russian nuclear fuel and nuclear tech.

This includes France, the nuclear postergirl:

French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europe’s Push to Quit Russian Energy https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-power-russia.html

France typically exports electricity, but now it risks blackouts and a need for imported power because of problems at the state nuclear operator.

France accused of funding Putin’s war effort by buying his nuclear fuel https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/12/02/france-accused-aiding-putins-war-importing-russian-nuclear-fuel/

It’s not just complicated, with many limits, but the useless yammer of nuclear-fanboys is just using up air in discourse.

Building more nuclear will not help with with climate warming mitigation. And it has its own problems with climate, as France knows…

(most recent time this happened, again) France to reduce nuclear power generation due to heat wave https://www.laprensalatina.com/france-to-reduce-nuclear-power-generation-due-to-heat-wave/ from a few weeks ago.

If you want to waste all your money, why not pick nuclear?

More reading for you:

Two’s a crowd: Nuclear and renewables don’t mix. Only the latter can deliver truly low carbon energy, says new study https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005112141.htm paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00696-3

If countries want to lower emissions as substantially, rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, they should prioritize support for renewables, rather than nuclear power.

Slow, expensive and no good for 1.5° target: CSIRO crushes Coalition nuclear fantasy https://reneweconomy.com.au/slow-expensive-and-no-good-for-1-5-target-csiro-crushes-coalition-nuclear-fantasy/

Australia’s leading scientific research organisation, the CSIRO, has delivered a damning blow against the renewed push by the federal Coalition for nuclear power, saying it is expensive, and too slow to make a significant contribution to any serious climate targets.

Former Nuclear Leaders: Say ‘No’ to New Reactors https://www.powermag.com/blog/former-nuclear-leaders-say-no-to-new-reactors/

The former heads of nuclear power regulation in the U.S., Germany, and France, along with the former secretary to the UK’s government radiation protection committee, have issued a joint statement that in part says, “Nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change.”

Also, the fact that girl is promoting the rhetoric of “greens killed nuclear!!” should be a red flag. This is simply false, nuclear was killed by its expensive electricity. While greens may have taken credit, that was unearned credit.

To repeat myself a bit:

Renewables are more dynamic in production. You can turn them on and off quickly, you can scale them quickly too. You can’t do that with nuclear plants easily. Baseload is not a goal, it’s a limit.

That’s why the nuclear energy sector is friends with the coal sector.

Example of Nuclear-Coal friendship from Poland: https://twitter.com/stepien_przemek/status/1642908210913853442

Example of Nuclear-Coal friendship from the USA: https://www.energyandpolicy.org/generation-now-inc/

A deeper understanding here: “The duck in the room - the end of baseload” https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/the-duck-in-the-room-the-end-of-baseload

The fact that the girl in the article is the daughter of a dude who runs an ecomodernist organization funded (PDF) by fossil fuels investors.

Alright, tell me how many more nuclear reactors are needed globally. Let’s just start with decarbonizing electricity production.

And, next, tell me how long do you think that will take, judging based on the average reactor construction time since, say, 1990.

Or look it up, maybe someone wrote an article with such a response.