wolfyvegan

joined 1 week ago
MODERATOR OF
 

Archived (Wayback Machine)

To be clear, exports of "Brazilian soy and corn" = "feed crops for animal agriculture" in China and Europe.

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20381758

Archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20382219

Archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20382219

Archived (Wayback Machine)

 

Archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20381983

Archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20381983

Archived (Wayback Machine)

 

Archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20381758

Archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20381758

Archived (Wayback Machine)

 

Archived (Wayback Machine)

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 5 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I did not know that. I had seen similar posts and thought that it was acceptable.

@hydra@lemmy.world, if you agree with jagged_circle, please remove this post.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 8 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Is that against the rules?

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago (4 children)

I don't think it's so easy to say that burning biomass is superior (from a carbon sequestration perspective) to preserving old-growth forest even if that means relying on fossil fuels (e.g. natural gas for heating). I don't know the answer, but considering that burning biomass does not allow that carbon to accumulate in the soil over time as it would in a mature forest, the alternative to burning biomass would need to have very high emissions in order to come out ahead.

Of course I am not advocating for burning fossil fuels; I am only advocating for protection of forests. I don't think that biomass would be a viable fuel for air travel in particular due to the energy density needed, but if so, and if non-combustion energy sources could be used everywhere else, then farming some young trees to continually cut to use for biofuel for air travel wouldn't have so much of an impact if that land would not be forested anyway. Freeing up land currently used by animal agriculture to use it for this purpose would be an improvement, but "chopping down a forest" would be highly questionable.

Do you have any hard numbers comparing the total lifecycle emissions of fuelwood to those of other fuels (coal, gas, jet fuel, whatever), taking into account soil carbon as well? If the carbon emissions argument for protecting forests doesn't make sense, I will stop using it. Deforestation brings plenty of other problems (biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation, increased run-off and erosion...) that I/anyone could focus on instead.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

OP: Whenever you're looking for a specific plant, it helps to give the scientific name, as many plants share vernacular names or go by different vernacular names in different areas. I think that "white clover" pretty much always refers to Trifolium repens, but including the scientific name is still a "best practice" to keep in mind.

For anyone else reading, Fedco (Not Sponsored™) sells bulk white clover seed in the USA:

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

"A solarpunk culture would strive to dissolve every form of social hierarchy and domination – whether based on class, race, gender, sexuality, ability, or species – dispersing the power some individuals or groups wield over others and thus increasing the aggregate freedom of all; empowering the disempowered and including the excluded. It is rooted in the legacy of such liberatory movements as anti-authoritarian socialism, feminism, racial justice, queer and trans liberation, disability struggles, animal liberation, and digital freedom projects."

Source

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Another politician promises to save the rainforest? Good luck with that.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

One would think that far-right free-market people would at least make the point about supply and demand; if the people stop buying it, the businesses will stop doing it. Alas, it seems that the majority (of the loud voices in the news) still prefer to downplay or deny the environmental crisis altogether.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, that'll do it. Thanks! Whether that's what the author meant is another question...

view more: ‹ prev next ›