Re:The World Has Passed ‘Peak Agricultural Land’
by mrmlz on Friday August 19, 2022 @09:44AM
(#32520857)
I'm not really arguing for shoveling rainforests to raise sheep on or something.. But if we enjoy the idea of living (and not starving) food produced locally has to adapt to the local lands.. Which in many places allows for a lot of grass -> cattle etc.
So it needing more land is a kinda worthless metric tbh.
Re:The World Has Passed ‘Peak Agricultural Land’
by ZeroGravitas on Friday August 19, 2022 @10:24AM
(#32521340)
As mentioned in another commemt, the UK meat industry identified imported animal feed from places that were cutting down rainforests as about a quarter of their GHG impact.
So you kind of are suggesting that, while pretending to be some old lady with a pet sheep roaming the hills rather than a global industry producing 400 million tonnes of meat per annum.
Re:The World Has Passed ‘Peak Agricultural Land’
by mrmlz on Monday August 22, 2022 @02:37AM
(#32548071)
If I'm arguing for anything is that the global food production is probably not sustainable.
That doesn't exclude farming, fishing or high-density food-farming (salmon, shrimps etc.). I mean, the number of issues with providing a couple of billion of humans with enough energy and variety in their diet is not insignificant..
A sheep roaming the hills is probably one of the better ways of producing protein..
> The climate impact of diets are usually compared in terms of greenhouse gases that are emitted today. But this misses a hidden cost: the carbon opportunity costs of agricultural land. If we were not using this land to grow food, it would be possible that forests and wild grasslands grow on these lands. They would not only harbour wildlife, but also store much more carbon. Meat and dairy products need more land than alternatives, and therefore have a higher opportunity cost.