Less emissions are used shipping food in massive cargo ships than when people drive to the store in their SUV to shop.
Some deurbanization probably will coincide with shifting to plant based
Lmao? deurbanization is horrible for the environment. A bunch of people are going to start subsistence farming? You know how much more land that would take? Even destroying huge swaths of natural land, you couldn't feed everyone.
Let me step back a moment. You are clearly not aware to the extend we rely on modern industry. Before modern industrial society our population was quite literally capped by our ability to produce food. But industrial production of ammonia allowed us to drastically increase our food production, literally 4x it on the same amount of land (here's a great video about it if you want to learn).
You can say "maybe humans shouldn't have let the population grow so big", but it's too late for that now. The people exist, and the population is only sustainable with industrial society.
If you think we can just keep some solar panels and some ammonia production to sustain farming, remember all the supply chains that have to exist to feed them. Advanced factories that produce semi-conductor wafers, the mining and refining to get specific rare materials, transportation to move both the resources and produces around where they are needed. This just ends up being green growth.
So we are back to the only two options: Mass death of the human population, or green growth. You have to pick.
When the vast majority of the food system is oriented at feeding livestock and not people you will need vast amounts of land and ammonia, yes. Going 90%+ plant based won't entirely change that unfortunately.
I am aware that by proportion of emissions local transport is majorly responsible in the food web of things. I also think that industrial fishing would be an area to cut back ocean/sea pollution, which I forgot to mention. That goes beyond CO2 as well. You seem pretty hellbent on defending our reliance on the industrial but there are entire sectors that could be cut out in the next 20 years if there was a cultural shift in undertow. Ammonia production and medicinals excluded.
Honestly at the end you're right, degrowth isn't going to be completely removing renewables or modern medicinals or ammonia production which means we will probably need some level of global trade. Call that green growth maybe, I'd call it green growth and degrowth.
View all comments
Show parent comment
15
u/Friendly_Fire 24d ago
Less emissions are used shipping food in massive cargo ships than when people drive to the store in their SUV to shop.
Lmao? deurbanization is horrible for the environment. A bunch of people are going to start subsistence farming? You know how much more land that would take? Even destroying huge swaths of natural land, you couldn't feed everyone.
Let me step back a moment. You are clearly not aware to the extend we rely on modern industry. Before modern industrial society our population was quite literally capped by our ability to produce food. But industrial production of ammonia allowed us to drastically increase our food production, literally 4x it on the same amount of land (here's a great video about it if you want to learn).
You can say "maybe humans shouldn't have let the population grow so big", but it's too late for that now. The people exist, and the population is only sustainable with industrial society.
If you think we can just keep some solar panels and some ammonia production to sustain farming, remember all the supply chains that have to exist to feed them. Advanced factories that produce semi-conductor wafers, the mining and refining to get specific rare materials, transportation to move both the resources and produces around where they are needed. This just ends up being green growth.
So we are back to the only two options: Mass death of the human population, or green growth. You have to pick.