• Landrin201@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

      • OnopordumAcanthium@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or we just go for organic farming, since it’s not using artifical fertilizer and actually keeps the soil alive, which in return has various positive effects on the enviroment. If we keep going like we did since the last decades there will be death for sure

        • library_napper@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.