• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    there are literally thousands of pages in the reports you just linked if you can’t show which one you think supports your case I’m not going to be doing all the reading for

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good. You’ll have plenty of reading to keep you busy. I’m still waiting for your sources where you refute Nemecek btw. To summarize, your arguments so far are the widely debunked “land for cattle feed can’t be used for human food or forests” and “Nemecek is inaccurate because I disagree with their math, despite the article being cited and confirmed by hundreds of other studies.”

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the article has been cited but it has never been confirmed. it can’t be because it makes no sense to attribute the weight from pressing soybeans for oil to the livestock industry when the livestock industry is only using the waste.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        poor nemechek is easy to refute. read it they attribute the water used to raise cotton for the textile industry as water used to produce beef. the methodology is fucked.