Mutex70 t1_jb86db8 wrote

Sustainable foods are already largely cheaper than "normal food".

i.e. peas, lentils, grains and tofu are already cheaper than meat, and contribute far less greenhouse gases.

>However, we also found that technologically available improvements to production practices, decarbonization of the energy sector, health-motivated changes in dietary habits and reductions in food waste could together decrease the anticipated warming by >55% compared with sustained dietary consumption rates, avoiding 0.5 °C relative to a business-as-usual baseline for a high-population-growth scenario. Further avoided warming potential lies within residual emissions that could be addressed by reductions in food loss throughout production stages or future technological innovations.

Basically: improve production processes, stop using fossil fuels to farm, encourage healthier diets and reduce food waste.


Mutex70 t1_jb845gb wrote

This isn't "blaming" anyone. This is research into the causes of global warming so we can decide what to do about it.

Putting our heads in the sand and saying "well, we should just ignore that source of global warming because it's due to 'regular people eating'" is abject stupidity. It doesn't make the problem go away.

Yes, there are multiple causes of global warming. Identifying how much our current method of food production contributes to the problem is important.


Mutex70 t1_j7zg2mw wrote

It's the right idea, but wrong numbers. Methane has a much higher immediate impact than CO2 (~84x CO2). As it breaks down over time, the reduces to same as CO2.

The comparative effect over 100 years is approximately 25x CO2


Mutex70 t1_j555k0n wrote

>We will have evolved to the needs of our environments

This literally means the environment needs something, and we evolve to meet it.

The sentence "Hank provides for the needs of his children" means Hank's children have needs, not Hank himself. Same thing here.

It may not be what you meant, but it is what you wrote.

Additionally, "need" is a vague term which does not capture the driving force behind evolution.

Imagine a species that has all its needs met. There is more than enough food for the current population, no predators, but the species is limited to one offspring every 10 years, and typically have 30 years when they can produce offspring.

A mutation occurs, and this new member of the species can have offspring every 5 years. In this case, even though all of the "needs" of the species are being met, that mutation will likely out-compete the trait of having offspring every 10 years. The species will evolve, even though all its "needs" were being met.


Mutex70 t1_j53wyc2 wrote

The environment doesn't need anything. That's not how that word is used.

Just like a person does not go to the store for "the needs of the store", a species does not evolve for "the needs of the environment".

Additionally, a species doesn't evolve due to specific environmental "needs" (whatever that means). It evolved when a mutation provides a higher chance of offspring that survive. That can have nothing to do with "need".


Mutex70 t1_j53umtl wrote

Evolution prefers traits that allow the species to better survive in the environment. There is no "need of the environment" involved.

What is it you think the environment "needs" in order for a species to evolve.

I suspect you meant to say humans have evolved to be better adapted to our environment. If so, your phrasing is very non-standard and confusing.