• jochem
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I once calculated that if we reduce the land use for livestock by 50% and then use 10% of the newly freed land to build housing (the other 40% can become nature), we can build a city something like 1.5x times the size of Amsterdam, the largest city in the Netherlands.

    It’s not a lack of land. It’s how the land is being used. Almost half is for livestock (or more accurate: to dump the shit of that livestock, as the majority of the animals is kept indoors).

    • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Is the land the livestock are currently using capable of supporting dense housing and is it close to urban cores. Or would you just build sky scrapers in the middle of nowhere, because China tried that and it failed.

      • rbhfd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anything in the Netherlands is close to an urban core.

        They also have centuries of experience on building on lands that shouldn’t be capable of supporting dense housing. Amsterdam used to be a literal swamp as well (I’m not making any statements on its current status).

      • rsn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Less food”? What are you talking about? Most of the land used for livestock is for exported meat. Also, meat is an incredibly unsustainable source of food.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Livestock are incredibly inefficient at producing food. If you use a small fraction of the land to grow crops there will be plenty to eat.