Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficial than we think

Re:Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficia... by asdff on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @12:40PM (#20403667)

Take a road trip to the central valley and take a look at what's being farmed. Almonds. Cotton for mattress stuffing (too shit a grade for anything else). Lettuce. All very high water use crops that don't give you hardly any nutrition save for the almond.

There are dozens of crops that we can and absolutely should dispense with. The problem with agriculture is farmers don't farm what uses the least resources and brings about the most nutrients per land area, they farm what returns the most. We also subsidize a lot of these crops.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficia... by asterix_pano on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @01:09PM (#20403970)

1 liter of almonds milk require about 350 liter of water, while 1 liter of milk is about 1000 liter of water. So, still better to grow almonds than using dairy. Soy and oat are also better than almonds milk.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficia... by whycombagator on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @01:29PM (#20404225)

The problem is these alternatives need to have other nutrients added to them and be fortified with the things they lack compared to milk.

Go and look at a decent resource like nutrition data and compare what you get with milk vs the alternatives. Milk is far more nutritionally dense, and I'm not just referring to calories/macros. It has vitamins, a lot of minerals, and even omegas.

[ Parent | on HN ]