• Landrin201
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    OK this article is infuriating, as is the product it’s hyping up.

    If 2.5% of our emissions is going toward feeding 4 billion people then I’m totally fine with letting those emissions continue. This isn’t a thing we need to “solve,” this reeks of a capitalist looking at graphs of our emissions and going “we could cut emissions by 1% here and not have to actually change our habits at all!” This isn’t the problem causing climate change.

    The energy sector accounts for over 70% of our emissions. Instead of trying to stop emitting less than 1% by pouring money into genetically manipulating plants to need less fertilizer, why don’t we instead cut 30% or more by replacing coal plants with solar, wind, and nuclear power?