|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 09:47
1
Cop15 is being hosted in Montreal by Mr Trudeau and Mr Guilbeault.
It is billed as being what Paris was for climate change this one is for the environment.
The want to come away with some ambitious goals.
This type of proposal is what they are discussing.
Canada
The Conversation
New food technologies could release 80% of the world’s farmland back to nature
Published: December 6, 2022 12.19pm EST
Chris D Thomas, Jack Hatfield, Katie Noble, University of York
Here’s the basic problem for conservation at a global level: food production, biodiversity and carbon storage in ecosystems are competing for the same land. As humans demand more food, so more forests and other natural ecosystems are cleared, and farms intensify and become less hospitable to many wild animals and plants. Therefore global conservation, currently focused on the COP15 summit in Montreal, will fail unless it addresses the underlying issue of food production.
Fortunately, a whole raft of new technologies is being developed that make a system-wide revolution in food production feasible. According to recent research by one of us (Chris), this transformation could meet increased global food demands by a growing human population on less than 20% of the world’s existing farmland. Or in other words, these technologies could release at least 80% of existing farmland from agriculture in about a century.
Around four-fifths of the land used for human food production is allocated to meat and dairy, including both range lands and crops specifically grown to feed livestock. Add up the whole of India, South Africa, France and Spain and you have the amount of land devoted to crops that are then fed to livestock.
Despite growing numbers of vegetarians and vegans in some countries, global meat consumption has increased by more than 50% in the past 20 years and is set to double this century. As things stand, producing all that extra meat will mean either converting even more land into farms, or cramming even more cows, chickens and pigs into existing land. Neither option is good for biodiversity.
Meat and dairy production is already an unpleasant business. For instance, most chickens are grown in high-density feeding operations, and pork, beef and especially dairy farming is going the same way. Current technologies are cruel, polluting and harmful to biodiversity and the climate – don’t be misled by cartoons of happy cows with daisies protruding from their lips.
Unless food production is tackled head-on, we are left resisting inevitable change, often with no hope of long-term success. We need to tackle the cause of biodiversity change. The principal global approach to climate change is to focus on the cause and minimise greenhouse gas emissions, not to manufacture billions of parasols (though we may need these too). The same is required for biodiversity.
So, how can we do this?
Cellular agriculture provides an alternative, and could be one of this century’s most promising technological advancements. Sometimes called “lab-grown food”, the process involves growing animal products from real animal cells, rather than growing actual animals.
If growing meat or milk from animal cells sounds strange or icky to you, let’s put this into perspective. Imagine a brewery or cheese factory: a sterile facility filled with metal vats, producing large volumes of beer or cheese, and using a variety of technologies to mix, ferment, clean and monitor the process. Swap the barley or milk for animal cells and this same facility becomes a sustainable and efficient producer of dairy or meat products.
Animal cruelty would be eliminated and, with no need for cows wandering around in fields, the factory would take up far less space to produce the same amount of meat or milk.
Other emerging technologies include microbial protein production, where bacteria use energy derived from solar panels to convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen and other nutrients into carbohydrates and proteins. This could generate as much protein as soybeans but in just 7% of the area. These could then be used as protein food additives (a major use of soy) and animal feed (including for pets).
It is even possible to generate sugars and carbohydrates using desalination or through extracting CO₂ from the atmosphere, all without ever passing through a living plant or animal. The resulting sugars are chemically the same as those derived from plants but would be generated in a tiny fraction of the area required by conventional crops.
What to do with old farmland
These new technologies can have a huge impact even if demand keeps growing. Even though Chris’s research is based on the assumption that global meat consumption will double, it nonetheless suggests that at least 80% of farmland could be released to be used for something else.
That land might become nature reserves or be used to store carbon, for example, in forests or the waterlogged soils of peat bogs. It could be used to grow sustainable building materials, or simply to produce more human-edible crops, among other uses.
Gone too will be industrial livestock systems that produce huge volumes of manure, bones, blood, guts, antibiotics and growth hormones. Thereafter, any remaining livestock farming could be carried out in a compassionate manner.
Since there would be less pressure on the land, there would be less need for chemicals and pesticides and crop production could become more wildlife-friendly (global adoption of organic farming is not feasible at present because it is less productive). This transition must be coupled with a full transition towards renewable energy as the new technologies require lots of power.
Converting these technologies into mass-market production systems will of course be tricky. But a failure to do so is likely to lead to ever-increasing farming intensity, escalating numbers of confined animals, and even more lost nature.
Avoiding this fate – and achieving the 80% farmland reduction – will require a lot of political will and a cultural acceptance of these new forms of food. It will require economic and political “carrots” such as investment, subsidies and tax breaks for desirable technologies, and “sticks” such as increased taxation and removal of subsidies for harmful technologies. Unless this happens, biodiversity targets will continue to be missed, COP after COP.
Last edited by shtferbrains; Dec 8, 2022 at 09:49.
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 10:43
2
After covid, you can be assured that 30% of people will gladly eat bugs, stay home and mask up and take a UBI.
Downright terrifying.
Last edited by jazz; Dec 8, 2022 at 10:46.
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 11:05
3
The globalists have it all figured out. They want us to live on bugs and each other. I hope humanmeatproject.com is a joke.   
Last edited by biglentil; Dec 8, 2022 at 13:47.
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 11:30
4
I had to Google that one.
Can't get much more depraved.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 11:31
5
I have a hard time believing that any technologies that would raise, create, or grow food what substantially less land area could possibly be less energy intensive than spreading it out over more area and using the Sun as the primary energy input. I have no doubt that there are many more efficiencies to be found within the current systems.
Is anyone aware of any examples of being able to grow more unless surface area that wouldn't require more external energy inputs per unit?
For example, a vertical farm where heat and water and nutrients all need to be imported into the system, compared to dry land broad acre crops where the sun and the water deliver themselves, along with a good proportion of the nutrients.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 11:35
6
 Originally Posted by blackpowder
I had to Google that one.
Can't get much more depraved.
Especially given everything we now know about the diseases associated with people who practiced cannibalism.
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 11:36
7
These Evil/alien bastards have watched TOO many Sc-Fi movies! We are living in one already!
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 11:40
8
AB5 I will show you the grasshoppers in the lentils some day. Feed a lot of people with bugs. Already blending the hopper juice in with the lentils on my farm anyway.
People are very weird. In the meat and vegetables isles people pick through it like its all rotten and then proceed to the chip and pop isle and load up.
Last edited by jazz; Dec 8, 2022 at 11:43.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 11:41
9
Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5
I have a hard time believing that any technologies that would raise, create, or grow food what substantially less land area could possibly be less energy intensive than spreading it out over more area and using the Sun as the primary energy input. I have no doubt that there are many more efficiencies to be found within the current systems.
Is anyone aware of any examples of being able to grow more unless surface area that wouldn't require more external energy inputs per unit?
For example, a vertical farm where heat and water and nutrients all need to be imported into the system, compared to dry land broad acre crops where the sun and the water deliver themselves, along with a good proportion of the nutrients.
Its not about what makes sense, its about creating a slave class completely reliant on the state. Can't have a productive self reliant group now can we?
Last edited by biglentil; Dec 8, 2022 at 11:43.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 12:22
10
Okay, so after a deeper look at that meat project it feels more like a hoax or at least a nefarious website.
The legalities are sketchy and the costs astronomical. And yes this is a real fetish.
I now need to take an internet break for my health. Hopefully I completely forget this.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 12:42
11
Originally Posted by blackpowder
Okay, so after a deeper look at that meat project it feels more like a hoax or at least a nefarious website.
The legalities are sketchy and the costs astronomical. And yes this is a real fetish.
I now need to take an internet break for my health. Hopefully I completely forget this.
In the meantime we need to watch how things unfold in the Netherlands, and soon New Zealand
If what’s being discussed at that Cop15 is followed up on , it is truly disturbing.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 13:17
12
The human meat is a joke directed at the cell based meat. All said though I surmise there is an element of extremist environmentalists who secretly think that way. They would blow everything up even if it meant wrecking the environment for their cause akin to terrorist suicide bombers. They do exist and they’re only strengthened in their self imposed echo chambers. Ideological extremism isn’t just religious. Wherever we sit politically or ideologically it is too easy to condone barbarous acts if they somewhat align with your beliefs. We are all guilty.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 17:18
13
Maybe they will merge MAID and People4People. Maid processed 10000 people this year and is set to grow by leaps and bounds starting March of 2023 when mental disorders are also eligible including depression and addiction. 
Last edited by biglentil; Dec 8, 2022 at 17:49.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 17:52
14
Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5
For example, a vertical farm where heat and water and nutrients all need to be imported into the system, compared to dry land broad acre crops where the sun and the water deliver themselves, along with a good proportion of the nutrients.
Heat, water, nutrients and LIGHT.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 21:11
15
The attack on the cattle industry as the biggest CO2 emmiter fits in with the long term plan here.
When you fly out of either coast at night it's lit up like daylight.
Where the cows live it's dark.
I bet streetlights on the coast outnumber cows 10 to 1.
But the cows need to go.
Those millions of people where the bright lights are are all right.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 21:22
16
Where do guys find this junk?
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2022 | 22:55
17
What would be the value of are land if Trudeau and company get their evil plan installed?
Maybe selling out now before any of this shit plays out.
Recent local land sale just proved its still going up.
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2022 | 07:22
18
Originally Posted by sumdumguy
Where do guys find this junk?
Sum, I wish I could go back to the Harper or even Chretien days where I didnt have to look over my shoulder everyday.
But we have let a generation of evil incompetents slip into our system, empowered by non elected institutions, radical marxists and eugenicists trying to chip away at our world. And legions of drooling morons who cant wake the fck up and see it.
Gonna be a tough grind for the next while.
Last edited by jazz; Dec 9, 2022 at 07:24.
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2022 | 08:58
19
Speaking of junk....
Some of the right wingers are so far out there they are meeting up with the crazies on the other side of the political spectrum. LOL
Its incredible what people will find and believe on social media. Its like the good ole days on the covers of the supermarket tabloids on steroids.
Almost nobody takes this shit seriously, but it runs rampant on the fringes of the far right.
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2022 | 09:57
20
Last edited by biglentil; Dec 9, 2022 at 10:00.
|
|
Dec 9, 2022 | 09:58
21
we are not far right ,we are just right so far ,we wish we were wrong !
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2022 | 10:04
22
Originally Posted by chuckChuck
Speaking of junk....
Some of the right wingers are so far out there they are meeting up with the crazies on the other side of the political spectrum.
So, as one of the most outspoken representative of the crazies on the far left, you are getting to know some of the far right crazies then?
Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Dec 9, 2022 at 10:34.
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2022 | 19:43
23
Originally Posted by chuckChuck
Speaking of junk....
Some of the right wingers are so far out there they are meeting up with the crazies on the other side of the political spectrum. LOL
Its incredible what people will find and believe on social media. Its like the good ole days on the covers of the supermarket tabloids on steroids.
Almost nobody takes this shit seriously, but it runs rampant on the fringes of the far right.
Take it to heart.
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2022 | 10:15
24
Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5
I have a hard time believing that any technologies that would raise, create, or grow food what substantially less land area could possibly be less energy intensive than spreading it out over more area and using the Sun as the primary energy input. I have no doubt that there are many more efficiencies to be found within the current systems.
Is anyone aware of any examples of being able to grow more unless surface area that wouldn't require more external energy inputs per unit?
For example, a vertical farm where heat and water and nutrients all need to be imported into the system, compared to dry land broad acre crops where the sun and the water deliver themselves, along with a good proportion of the nutrients.
As I was saying:
https://www.wired.com/story/vertical...rgy-crisis/amp
Who would have guessed that it would be less efficient to collect diffuse solar energy on former farmland and transport it to a sunless building to grow plants, than it is to grow plants directly on the farmland.
Someone needs to review the laws of thermodynamics.
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2022 | 19:51
25
there are no laws in the Libtard world
it is what they say it is
facts, details, laws of physics, etc. have no place in this fairytale
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2023 | 11:22
26
You arent going to need to grow more wheat or beef for the worlds growing populations, Klaus and Gates have it all covered.
And you all want to buy more land. Traditional ag is not part of their solution.
Crushed Bug "Additive" Is Now Included In Pizza, Pasta, & Cereals Across The EU
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...eals-across-eu
Last edited by jazz; Jan 26, 2023 at 11:41.
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2023 | 12:09
27
Need another...
To the evil WEF bastards
|
|
|
Feb 1, 2023 | 16:37
28
As part of the "Just Transition" there will be some job losses to help meet the Government's emissions reduction targets.
Agriculture is #1
"We expect that larger-scale transformations will take place in agriculture (about 292,000 workers; 1.5 per cent of Canada’s employment), energy (about 202,000 workers; one per cent of Canada's employment."
Lots of talk about the O&G workers but when does the Ag hit come out.
Have to work the propaganda to make sure the 3 cities that matter know how evil we are before revealing that one?
|
|
|
Mar 8, 2023 | 09:59
29
Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5
I have a hard time believing that any technologies that would raise, create, or grow food what substantially less land area could possibly be less energy intensive than spreading it out over more area and using the Sun as the primary energy input. I have no doubt that there are many more efficiencies to be found within the current systems.
Is anyone aware of any examples of being able to grow more unless surface area that wouldn't require more external energy inputs per unit?
For example, a vertical farm where heat and water and nutrients all need to be imported into the system, compared to dry land broad acre crops where the sun and the water deliver themselves, along with a good proportion of the nutrients.
More vertical farms continue to go bankrupt, post losses, and lay off staff:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90824702...rofarms-bowery
Again I ask, who could have predicted that it would be less efficient to capture sun, water, nutrients, heat and bring them to indoor plants, than to use solar power directly.
From the article:
In a typical cold climate, you would need about five acres of solar panels to grow one acre of lettuce,” says Kale Harbick, a USDA researcher who studies controlled-environment agriculture. A hypothetical skysc****r filled with lettuce would require solar panels covering an area the size of Manhattan.
Yet this technology is being touted as a way to reduce our footprint?
So many idiotic schemes to separate fools from their money that will continue to collapse as interest rates normalize, and energy costs escalate.
|
|
