yes, but they're still right. Of course CICO (Calories in, Calories out) is a thing, but the Calories out part (e.g. exercise) does not have as much leverage as he calories in part.
it's just so very easy to take in thousands of calories in 1-2 hours (think burger, fries, milkshake and alcoholic drinks). On the other hand, most people will struggle to burn more than say 800kcal/hr - and that's why we say weight is gained or lost in the kitchen.
jo, bin auch immer wieder überrascht wie von linker Seite der ÖRR als Propagandamaschine diffamiert wird. Like yo, ist nicht alles Zucker, ganz klar, aber das ist imo ein dezidiert rechtsextremen Narrativ das den Staat und die Demokratie unterhöhlt. Den Zorn verdient die Springerpresse definitiv mehr.
I disagree. Just following your source to its conclusion, I think it's safe to say OA (organic agriculture) is better all around:
7.1 Pros
• Lower emissions of CO 2 , N 2 O, and CH4
• Enhanced soil and water quality
• Lower energy use per land area
• Higher energy efficiency per land area
7.2 Cons
• Lower soil profile SOC stocks [i.e. how much carbon is in the soil]
• Lower crop yields
• Higher land requirement
• Lower energy production per land area
Your conclusion that we'd have to clear more land for agriculture use if we all switched to OA seems flawed; e.g. here in Germany we use about 60% of agricultural land to raise livestock feed like corn etc (https://www.landwirtschaft.de/tier-und-pflanze/pflanze/was-waechst-auf-deutschlands-feldern). Seems to me like eating less meat and growing idk lentils or beans would not immediately lead to food insecurity.
This is also what the FAO says: yes, OA leads to yield reduction when compared to conventional methods, but not to food scarcity and instead to healthier ecosystems (https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/).
meh. nutritional value is about the same, yeah, but that's not the point of organic food. people who claim that eating an all organic diet makes you better are yahoos.
The point of organic farming is that it is just all-around better for the planet, the soil, the organisms therein and less polluting.
I was wondering how hops was sourced back in the in colder climates! Like, they brewed beer in fairly northern cities even back then, where hops availability was probably limited. I wouldn't have guessed they sourced it from abroad (here: probably Belgium or NL) rather than omitting it.
Wikipedia in Video Form is a great line! I feel much the same way, but I think that's not the entire picture. Wikipedia is a lot of declarative knowledge (i.e. what things are and Al's maybe why they are), but YouTube is a lot of procedural knowledge for me. That is how to X. My GF and I finally found an apartment. I don't know how to replace broken light switches, but in five minutes YouTube taught me how.
I didn't know how to replace a faucet - now I do. I did not know how to insert a metal screw fitting into the furniture I was constructing - now I do. I wanted to measure our energy consumption, figuring there had to be a way to it it smart/connected and Open Source. YT content creators showed me how.
but seriously, there's many old buildings in Europe where you probably should consult a statics person before placing a large tub in your bathroom. Just guessing, but if you take a 300L bathtub which alone is a surprisingly light 30kgs and then put two people in it, you have a ~ 400kg load on a very small area
not OP but I'm pretty sure they don't mean disposable vapes (which should not be used by anyone ever due to their environmental impact) but rather the herb vaporizers you can use to put ground weed in and then inhale the vaporized contents.
I got one for myself and it's just an all around swell experience.
Any time someone brings this up I wonder if they're financed by the fossil fuel industry as it's just such a weird point to make.
First: consider the alternatives: Every form of energy has an environmental cost associated with it. Surely we agree that while not perfect, PV is vastly superior in this regard to gas/coal/oil? It might even be less polluting than nuclear, but it's early here and I'm too tired to research this.
Second: PV modules have a very long life span. At least 20 years. After that time, they'll probably be operating still, but at maybe 60-80% of peak performance. That's probably not good enough for commercial use, but I built myself a nice little garden shed solar array using "old" modules because they were basically free and I don't care that much about peak performance in my use case. That's to say, these things can still be used for a long time.
Third: if they ever do need to be completely recycled, well, that's doable. In the EU, it's actually compulsory. The processes are there, although they don't quite scale yet. That's mainly because there's just not that many old modules to recycle yet.
sooo with all that going on, what exactly are you basing your point on?
alright, I'm done here. You want to be offended, that's your prerogative. Just know that there's a difference between calling someone and something they say ignorant.
I don't know man, you say you want to learn but you act really offended when things are pointed out to you.
Please forgive my choice of words, English is not my first language. What word would you use to describe someone who raises a point commonly used as a scare tactic that was also addressed in the submitted article and is literally a two second Google search away from being explained?
regarding your edit: I think You're being downvoted for repeating talking points addressed in the article itself. Also, it's ... ignorant. If large solar farms routinely fried birds, why do almost all countries routinely build solar farms? Why do particularly German households continue to deck out their roofs and railings with solar modules? How exactly even would a solar module fry a bird, seeing as how it's surface is made from glass - you know, like a window.
The bird frying thing is a exception to concentrated solar power arrays , which was the name suggests concentrate solar rays in order to heat up a buffer medium to several thousand degrees.
yes, but they're still right. Of course CICO (Calories in, Calories out) is a thing, but the Calories out part (e.g. exercise) does not have as much leverage as he calories in part.
it's just so very easy to take in thousands of calories in 1-2 hours (think burger, fries, milkshake and alcoholic drinks). On the other hand, most people will struggle to burn more than say 800kcal/hr - and that's why we say weight is gained or lost in the kitchen.
jo, bin auch immer wieder überrascht wie von linker Seite der ÖRR als Propagandamaschine diffamiert wird. Like yo, ist nicht alles Zucker, ganz klar, aber das ist imo ein dezidiert rechtsextremen Narrativ das den Staat und die Demokratie unterhöhlt. Den Zorn verdient die Springerpresse definitiv mehr.
I disagree. Just following your source to its conclusion, I think it's safe to say OA (organic agriculture) is better all around:
Your conclusion that we'd have to clear more land for agriculture use if we all switched to OA seems flawed; e.g. here in Germany we use about 60% of agricultural land to raise livestock feed like corn etc (https://www.landwirtschaft.de/tier-und-pflanze/pflanze/was-waechst-auf-deutschlands-feldern). Seems to me like eating less meat and growing idk lentils or beans would not immediately lead to food insecurity.
This is also what the FAO says: yes, OA leads to yield reduction when compared to conventional methods, but not to food scarcity and instead to healthier ecosystems (https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/).
(sry gotta go, more.later)
meh. nutritional value is about the same, yeah, but that's not the point of organic food. people who claim that eating an all organic diet makes you better are yahoos.
The point of organic farming is that it is just all-around better for the planet, the soil, the organisms therein and less polluting.
Well yeah but also no. I feel like Sam from Wendover went over this quite well recently: https://youtu.be/XK8hpxR_r2Y
Ah yes, the country of "small" and the city of "everyone". Does someone have a link to the original?
I tried to find an actual Forbes article with this graphic, but came up empty.
So far, this thing screams "Source: trust me bro"
That's not to say that Russia doesn't press gang people into their armed forces. I feel like that's been established by now.
I think they mean the destruction of Carthage 😉
ok ok I won't!
In present-day Germany, commercial hops cultivation is pretty much confined between 47.5 - 48.5°, i.e. southern Germany. Do you know why that is?
I was wondering how hops was sourced back in the in colder climates! Like, they brewed beer in fairly northern cities even back then, where hops availability was probably limited. I wouldn't have guessed they sourced it from abroad (here: probably Belgium or NL) rather than omitting it.
Wikipedia in Video Form is a great line! I feel much the same way, but I think that's not the entire picture. Wikipedia is a lot of declarative knowledge (i.e. what things are and Al's maybe why they are), but YouTube is a lot of procedural knowledge for me. That is how to X. My GF and I finally found an apartment. I don't know how to replace broken light switches, but in five minutes YouTube taught me how.
I didn't know how to replace a faucet - now I do. I did not know how to insert a metal screw fitting into the furniture I was constructing - now I do. I wanted to measure our energy consumption, figuring there had to be a way to it it smart/connected and Open Source. YT content creators showed me how.
The list goes oooonnnnnn
2x4s, I guess 😃
but seriously, there's many old buildings in Europe where you probably should consult a statics person before placing a large tub in your bathroom. Just guessing, but if you take a 300L bathtub which alone is a surprisingly light 30kgs and then put two people in it, you have a ~ 400kg load on a very small area
so what you're saying is he has turned a blind eye seeing as I've yet to see a bishop with a millstone, yeah?
You seem like a rational, polite, and thoughtful person. Charming, even. So I'm blocking you.
not OP but I'm pretty sure they don't mean disposable vapes (which should not be used by anyone ever due to their environmental impact) but rather the herb vaporizers you can use to put ground weed in and then inhale the vaporized contents.
I got one for myself and it's just an all around swell experience.
Any time someone brings this up I wonder if they're financed by the fossil fuel industry as it's just such a weird point to make.
First: consider the alternatives: Every form of energy has an environmental cost associated with it. Surely we agree that while not perfect, PV is vastly superior in this regard to gas/coal/oil? It might even be less polluting than nuclear, but it's early here and I'm too tired to research this.
Second: PV modules have a very long life span. At least 20 years. After that time, they'll probably be operating still, but at maybe 60-80% of peak performance. That's probably not good enough for commercial use, but I built myself a nice little garden shed solar array using "old" modules because they were basically free and I don't care that much about peak performance in my use case. That's to say, these things can still be used for a long time.
Third: if they ever do need to be completely recycled, well, that's doable. In the EU, it's actually compulsory. The processes are there, although they don't quite scale yet. That's mainly because there's just not that many old modules to recycle yet.
sooo with all that going on, what exactly are you basing your point on?
Bei Hunden scheint die fleischarme/fleischlose Ernährung durchaus im Rahmen des Möglichen zu liegen.
Auch Ökotest kommt zum selben Schluss.
Selbst Martin Rütter, einer der bekanntesten deutschsprachigen Hundeexperten, hat vor Kurzem seine Meinung zu Veganer Hundeernährung geändert.
alright, I'm done here. You want to be offended, that's your prerogative. Just know that there's a difference between calling someone and something they say ignorant.
I don't know man, you say you want to learn but you act really offended when things are pointed out to you.
Please forgive my choice of words, English is not my first language. What word would you use to describe someone who raises a point commonly used as a scare tactic that was also addressed in the submitted article and is literally a two second Google search away from being explained?
regarding your edit: I think You're being downvoted for repeating talking points addressed in the article itself. Also, it's ... ignorant. If large solar farms routinely fried birds, why do almost all countries routinely build solar farms? Why do particularly German households continue to deck out their roofs and railings with solar modules? How exactly even would a solar module fry a bird, seeing as how it's surface is made from glass - you know, like a window.
The bird frying thing is a exception to concentrated solar power arrays , which was the name suggests concentrate solar rays in order to heat up a buffer medium to several thousand degrees.