The main problem is that, not ploughing increases the need for pesticides, currently around 8% of energy used and reduces yield. While not ploughing increasing requiring 3x the pesticides might not be the case, a 20% reduction in yield seems plausible.
The main energy consumption in farming is fertilizer at around 50%, but more importantly half the emissions are related to animal agriculture. Cutting back on that would actually make a difference.
I don't believe you could save the emissions from animal agriculture. Most animal ag is on land that isn't suitable for growing crops, if it was ended, the land would become useless and left to go wild where it would support just as many just as polluting animals, but with no possibility of treating the pollution problem as no one would be managing the wild animals
I don't believe you could save the emissions from animal agriculture.
The easiest is to stop converting more land to animals use.
Most animal ag is on land that isn't suitable for growing crops,
But 6% of global emissions are from feeding crops to animals.
if it was ended, the land would become useless
Aside from reducing our emissions by 16%, meaning it would be about as useful as removing all emissions from the transport sector.
and left to go wild where it would support just as many just as polluting animals,
Laughable, but if if it where true it could easily be solved with reintroducing predators and rewilding the artificial grass lands.
but with no possibility of treating the pollution problem as no one would be managing the wild animals
What is more polluting? Animals shiting in the forrest every day at a different place or month worth of stored manure deposited on one field in a day, with barely any plant at the moment? Which of those will naturally break down and which will be washed into the ground water?
Where are the huge amounts of biomass fermenting into methane? Some swamps and every farm.
I had the same question a few hours ago, but I found some science.
Tldr: 30% of energy use is in diesel, and about half of that is for tilling fields.
Rant:
Note that this is energy use, so only CO2 emissions are counted, while methan is ignored. If we stopped farming animals, the effective emissions of the sector would be cut in half. Even if we are unwilling to change out diet, maybe we should look at reducing the amount of fertilizer instead.
33 Comments
FishFace@piefed.social · 71 pts · 254d
Shit, is ploughing a girl less environmentally friendly?
I guess there's a serious risk of a baby which is like the least environmentally friendly thing possible
FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com · 57 pts · 254d
That's why I had a vasectomy
There's no way for me to get a femboy preggers
FishFace@piefed.social · 14 pts · 254d
Hmm yes
toynbee@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 254d
There are at least two things wrong with your statement.
Siethron@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 254d
I don't think any part of that statement was incorrect
toynbee@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 254d
It's important to note that I said "wrong," not "incorrect."
FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com · 5 pts · 254d
Are you trying to kink-shame me?
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 253d
Sounds like you need to brush up on your double-negative rules then!
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 254d
Wrong hole, no risk really.
Akasazh@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 254d
Depends. There's a a chance of equivalence in methane expulsion, but it depends on the diet...
And the through that is plowed
bizarroland@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 254d
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 254d
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 254d
Look for your local femboy hooters
DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 254d
Currently at work
edinbruh@feddit.it · 10 pts · 254d
Go on wplace and guess from the drawings where they live. Apparently it's full of femboys and furries where I live, but I haven't found any yet
FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 254d
Somewhere in Texas there's a big Alstolfo mural and someone wrote "if you look like this, DM me" next to it
At least there was, this was a few months ago
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 254d
Maybe they're in the field
FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com · 0 pts · 254d
Reddit
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 31 pts · 254d
The main problem is that, not ploughing increases the need for pesticides, currently around 8% of energy used and reduces yield. While not ploughing increasing requiring 3x the pesticides might not be the case, a 20% reduction in yield seems plausible.
The main energy consumption in farming is fertilizer at around 50%, but more importantly half the emissions are related to animal agriculture. Cutting back on that would actually make a difference.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 3 pts · 253d
and moving away from monoculture mass farming would remove the need for fertilizer. There are many solutions that capitalism doesn't want.
psud@aussie.zone · 0 pts · 250d
I don't believe you could save the emissions from animal agriculture. Most animal ag is on land that isn't suitable for growing crops, if it was ended, the land would become useless and left to go wild where it would support just as many just as polluting animals, but with no possibility of treating the pollution problem as no one would be managing the wild animals
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 249d
The easiest is to stop converting more land to animals use.
But 6% of global emissions are from feeding crops to animals.
Aside from reducing our emissions by 16%, meaning it would be about as useful as removing all emissions from the transport sector.
Laughable, but if if it where true it could easily be solved with reintroducing predators and rewilding the artificial grass lands.
What is more polluting? Animals shiting in the forrest every day at a different place or month worth of stored manure deposited on one field in a day, with barely any plant at the moment? Which of those will naturally break down and which will be washed into the ground water?
Where are the huge amounts of biomass fermenting into methane? Some swamps and every farm.
enbiousenvy@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 31 pts · 254d
I… recognize that person
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net · 17 pts · 254d
Don't hold out on us. Drop a link. (If they are consensually posting content)
enbiousenvy@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 25 pts · 254d
u/MaxHamster69 on reddit, their own account
brb@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 253d
Bro has a nice cock
Jayjader@jlai.lu · 7 pts · 253d
username checks out, i guess
enbiousenvy@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 253d
lol true I am envious
PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk · 20 pts · 254d
That would make a banging remix to Save A Horse, Ride a Cowboy .
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 254d
their music is awesome!
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net · 17 pts · 254d
Top tier memes as always fossilesque. Thank you for making the fediverse a better place.
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 6 pts · 254d
ryedaft@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 254d
15-20% of CO2 emissions? From what? What are you trying to say? Use your words.
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 253d
I had the same question a few hours ago, but I found some science.
Tldr: 30% of energy use is in diesel, and about half of that is for tilling fields.
Rant:
Note that this is energy use, so only CO2 emissions are counted, while methan is ignored. If we stopped farming animals, the effective emissions of the sector would be cut in half. Even if we are unwilling to change out diet, maybe we should look at reducing the amount of fertilizer instead.
Zoomboingding@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 254d
Wouldn't gliding be faster?