I like the False Knees version more.

https://store.falseknees.com/products/dtf

“modern pig production”

Chilean-born Marco Evaristti is courting controversy to make a point about the treatment of pigs in Denmark, where about 25,000 piglets die daily as a result of the conditions in which they are bred.

wait until Marco finds out that they are bred to be killed.

Farmers who grow feed can also switch to growing food.

Slaughterhouses… maybe they can switch to growing fungi.

“Pastured” and “factory” are not opposites, they’re the same thing with a different scale of intensity. There’s no meaningful ethical difference, but there are points to make about the environment and the climate, such as the basic fact that “grass fed” means more enteric CH4 emissions, making “factory farming” better for the environment due to efficiency. No amount of “regenerative grazing” is going change that, the methane is tied to the amount of fiber in the rumen, and grasses & forbs are full of fiber.

For a more detailed explanation see: Grazed and Confused

Economically speaking is when you see how this is scam on meat eaters. Most of the animal flesh comes from CAFOs. That’s not because grasslands are ugly and CAFOs are beautiful, it’s because that’s the most efficient way to exploit those animals, which means it’s the most efficient way to keep production costs low, which means that it’s the most efficient way to come to market with the lowest prices, which is how “the market” is expanded to a large part of the population (who expects cheap meat). The productive grasslands are already maxed out in most of the World and overgrazing is very common.

The US is plagued with ranchers going into natural parks and other places where they compete with wild herbivores (and call on state agencies to exterminate predators). Put simply, if CAFOs disappeared, then the average meat eater would find animal flesh to be very expensive - a food that is afforded a few times per month in “main dish” quantities, or even a few times per year (traditionally at Easter and Christmas holiday feasts). I would be glad to see that happen, but it wouldn’t be enough, and it fails to teach the ethical lesson, to do the moral work. It only makes animal-based meat a more obvious luxury (it has always been one), creating black markets and creating economic demand to deforest land and to occupy cropland and turn it into pasture – and that’s something that wars have been fought for, for thousands of years.

The only sensible option is to go vegan globally (don’t let animal farmers get away with exports). That frees up plenty of cropland to be reforested or used in more extensive ways.

Each fish is an individual. https://fishfeel.org/an-underwater-friend/

NYT

Thanks for nothing, NYT.

Give peat a chance!

Power is measured in the number of network nodes. What’s the estimate? Non-sentient bots excluded.

oh, a new one on this topic, neat!

if_I_had_one.jpg

The OOP needs understand that there’s a “too”. To serve himself too.

Make NASA Great Again

MNASAGA

and this trash food has more microplastics in it

It’s not just in it, it’s the packaging too, and it’s the fat content, because fat usually helps with moving that plastic (and many other things). Packaging also refers to the containers used for food delivery.

from this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165993623000808

If you’re only focusing on “processed foods”, you’re missing the bigger problem.

It means that you are comparing apples to orange trees. You do not understand what the challenges are and what the require effort is.

SO₂ is not the same functionally in the economies as CO₂, just like the ozone destroying gases aren’t teh same functionally in the economies as CO₂.

You are breathing optimism like oxygen in an oxygen poor environment.

Do you see the global GHG emissions going down? Actually down.

Do you know when the targets for ZERO are and what the downwards angle has to be?

Good luck with your optimism.

It’s a conflict of interest, it will go wrong or the system will be cancelled.

I don’t think that selling licenses to pollute is a good strategy to reduce pollution (it needs to be reduced to zero ASAP).

The carbon grifting is a problem.

How Tesla Made Great Profits from Regulatory Credits? | SINBON

Take T-brand’s SUV as an example. New cars emit around 210 grams of CO2 per kilometer. Under the current EU regulations (95g/km of CO2 emissions for new cars, with a €95 punishment for each gram over the limit), every new car will face a fine of up to €10,925 (115*95 = €10,925). In contrast, every new Tesla vehicle will receive 25 grams of carbon emissions credits, bringing Tesla considerable revenue in the long term.

Do Tesla car owners know that the Tesla company is selling carbon credits on their vehicle? If anything, they should be the ones getting the money, not Tesla. It’s a pretty clever scam when you can sell a thing twice.

Tesla’s Carbon Credit Revenue Soars to $2.76 Billion Amid Profit Drop

This revenue comes at a minimal cost to Tesla, making it a near-pure profit stream. Unlike other automakers that must purchase credits to comply with emissions regulations, Tesla generates them simply by selling zero-emission vehicles.

And do Tesla owners understand that they are not individually reducing their carbon footprint because Tesla is selling that absence of pollution as a license to pollute (carbon credit)?

This resilience is due in part to the slow transition of legacy automakers to electric vehicles. While companies like Ford and General Motors have made strides in EV production, many still rely on Tesla’s credits to meet tightening emissions standards in the U.S., Europe, and China.

In fact, Tesla’s carbon credits are helping automakers meet strict EU emission targets. Companies like Stellantis, Toyota, Ford, Mazda, and Subaru buy Tesla’s credits to offset their emissions and avoid hefty fines.

ICE car makers are buying Tesla carbon credits so that they can pollute.

Depends on the ingredients, you have to ask more specific questions.

There are studies on this, but it’s a somewhat novel thing if you ignore traditional foods like tofu and seitan.

https://sentientmedia.org/fake-meat/

Fake Meat Versus Real Meat: Nutrition

When comparing the nutrition of plant-based and animal meats, an important factor to look at is their saturated fat content. Although fats are a necessary part of a healthy and balanced diet, consuming large amounts of saturated fat can increase levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and increase the risk of coronary heart disease and strokes. Saturated fats are found in high quantities in red meat, but are usually present in smaller amounts in plant-based meat products. One plant-based source of saturated fats to watch out for is coconut oil.

Some plant-based meats are higher in fiber. Eating high-fiber foods can help aid digestion, lower blood cholesterol levels and control blood sugar levels and appetite, which can help with weight management.

On the other hand, some plant-based meat products contain high quantities of sodium, and others may not contain enough vitamin B12. Although some manufacturers add this nutrient to their fake meat products, others do not. But this can be rectified by taking a vitamin B12 supplement.

Still in its early stages of development, the full nutritional value of lab-grown meat is difficult to ascertain. Yet because these meats are grown from just a few cells, there could be the potential to manipulate their growth and nutritional makeup to create an even healthier alternative to animal meat.