- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
OK this article is infuriating, as is the product it’s hyping up.
If 2.5% of our emissions is going toward feeding 4 billion people then I’m totally fine with letting those emissions continue. This isn’t a thing we need to “solve,” this reeks of a capitalist looking at graphs of our emissions and going “we could cut emissions by 1% here and not have to actually change our habits at all!” This isn’t the problem causing climate change.
The energy sector accounts for over 70% of our emissions. Instead of trying to stop emitting less than 1% by pouring money into genetically manipulating plants to need less fertilizer, why don’t we instead cut 30% or more by replacing coal plants with solar, wind, and nuclear power?
If everyone went plant based we would need much much less farmland and thus need way less fertilizer.
High tech technology, aka humans, can also decide not to use it
We could just stop using it… no need for a technological fix.
okay let’s just kill the poorest people on the planet, good plan
deleted by creator
4 billion people would die / wouldn’t be able to eat
That’s absolutely not true. Chemical fertalizer just makes it so less hands need to grow food.
We absolutely do not need it. We’ve grown crops for tens of thousands of years without them.
Famines are social problems, not technical ones.
I like notill gardening. You don’t need any chemical fertilizers. Grows great pot 🤌
Dora the explorer: can we fix it ? yes we can!
Don’t tell the editor how much human poop is wasted
