It’s not enough on its own, sure, but not taking any action will basically guarantee we miss climate targets. We have to reduce fossil fuels and reduce meat consumption
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Just think about it mate. Changing foods is better than watching the oceans acidify and all life around us die, mass crop failure, worldwide famines and societal collapse, fighting everyone for whatever exists. 6billion people will become 1billion and you’ll be taking your chances on being one of the few that doesn’t starve.
The future we’re heading towards right now is not going to be fun. It’s time to adapt rapidly to what needs to be done, or die.
Oh I agree. I was simply pointing out that the statement I highlighted can totally be applied by either side of the debate, verbatim.
It actually made me chuckle, since if it were the only thing in your comment, I wouldn’t have known what your position was.
All that being said, I agree it’s adapt rabidly or die. The real tragedy here in the short term, is it’s going to be the worlds most vulnerable populations to die first.
The real tragedy here in the short term, is it’s going to be the worlds most vulnerable populations to die first.
I think it will surprise people when it happens. Nobody will be safe. When global food supply collapses it won’t just be the poor countries that go into crisis. I’m fairly sure that it will simultaneously happen to almost everyone. The countries least likely to be harmed are the ones with large rice crops.
Likewise, I’m sure.
It’s not enough on its own, sure, but not taking any action will basically guarantee we miss climate targets. We have to reduce fossil fuels and reduce meat consumption
(emphasis mine)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
Totally agree. I was just highlighting how the excerpt I quoted could’ve been posted by either position; I wouldn’t have been able to tell which.
Just think about it mate. Changing foods is better than watching the oceans acidify and all life around us die, mass crop failure, worldwide famines and societal collapse, fighting everyone for whatever exists. 6billion people will become 1billion and you’ll be taking your chances on being one of the few that doesn’t starve.
The future we’re heading towards right now is not going to be fun. It’s time to adapt rapidly to what needs to be done, or die.
Oh I agree. I was simply pointing out that the statement I highlighted can totally be applied by either side of the debate, verbatim.
It actually made me chuckle, since if it were the only thing in your comment, I wouldn’t have known what your position was.
All that being said, I agree it’s adapt rabidly or die. The real tragedy here in the short term, is it’s going to be the worlds most vulnerable populations to die first.
I think it will surprise people when it happens. Nobody will be safe. When global food supply collapses it won’t just be the poor countries that go into crisis. I’m fairly sure that it will simultaneously happen to almost everyone. The countries least likely to be harmed are the ones with large rice crops.