Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Impossible Foods: Capitalism is The Most Powerful Lever to Fight Climate Change" video.

@draw4kicks name one scientist why said the world is gonna end in 11 years like the op said.
4
@Someone-cr8cj the issue is, the cattle only "produces" the CO2 and methane that they get from eating the plants. Which means that all they "produce" had to be fixed from the atmosphere in the first place.
3
@fleabag631 "but CH4 is a dramatically worse greenhouse gas than CO2" - But it gets converted into CO2 in the atmosphere. "Archaea in the animal's stomach can use anaerobic respiration to produce CH4 instead of CO2, so there is a net negative impact" - there is not a net negative because everything that comes from cows had to come from plants before it and thus had to come from the atmosphere. It's a balance.
3
@draw4kicks Then you can't say he knows more than scientists when the sentiment he criticized isn't shared by scientists.
2
@draw4kicks He said "see you in 11 years when the world hasn't ended". By saying that he is acting like he knows better than scientists, you're essentially claiming that scientists say the world's gonna end in 11 years. Then you admitted that they don't think like that, so you've already backtracked on your initial comment. Have a very shitty day.
2
@fleabag631 Jesus Christ. How do I explain this in words? Let's say there's 5000 units of CO2 in the atmosphere that cause 100 units of warming, and 50 units of methane that cause 100 units of warming. For simplicity's sake, let's say the planet's equilibrium is 200 units of warming. As you can see, methane is warming the planet 100x more than CO2. Let's say cattle pumps out 10 units of methane every year. However, what they pumped out had to be pumped in, so 10 units of methane are converted into CO2 every year and that CO2 is fixed by plants. What I said is still correct. What you said is correct but decontextualized. Yes, methane is worse than CO2. But it's in a cycle. CO2 from fossil fuel is not. The organic material that makes up fossil fuels died millions if years ago, and we don't plant more trees to replenish it. We're just injecting "new" CO2 into the atmosphere. Adding to the 5000 units. If next year we have 5010 CO2 units but methane remains at 50, the problem is CO2. We need a certain degree of greenhouse effect to survive. So a stable amount of methane is not a net negative.
2
@fleabag631 "Having animals that contain CH4 producing archaea in their stomachs will result in a net negative" - Not if there's a balance! "But humans start breeding cows far more than what was natural" - Yes, which will raise the balance point. I remember reading that we actually raise less cattle than we used to despite population growth because production is more efficient and thus there's less waste. Meanwhile, CO2 is not at a balance and we're injecting more and more CO2 into the mix without an accompanying method of recovery. "Rate of CH4 breaking down to CO2 remains constant at 1" - But how?
2
@usffan5775 an interview to push a narrative rather than investigate the truth
2
@CortezBumf these vegetables are processed to hell and back, jimbo.
1
@theboss-wy4cn the person you replied to did not say anything about climate change, so you're using a strawman argument.
1
@theboss-wy4cn It wasn't evident in the comment presented, and it is a strawman argument because it reduces the disagreement to climate change denialism.
1
The novel coronavirus wasn't caused by factory farming but wild capturing of animals which are sold live in unsanitary markets. That's where the viruses jump from animal to animal species.
1
Profit means that someone needed something enough to buy it. Meanwhile non-capitalist systems had chronic issues with shortages and overproduction of unnecessary things because without profit it was nearly impossible to calculate what was needed. Also, producing what is needed creates pollution anyway.
1
Antibiotic resistance isn't a myth, it's Darwinism. Selective breeding.
1
I like almond milk but apparently it messes up the bee populations.
1
How did capitalism create the problem? Unless you want to replace the purple for green on your flag it's impossible to blame the economic system for the aftermath of keeping people alive.
1
@allgarfieldsarebeautiful5792 even in the absence of profit, transforming materials or producing energy requires the creation of byproducts. Economics doesn't magically change the laws of chemistry. "The “aftermath” of keeping people alive isn’t a constant that would happen under every system" - It happens under literally any system. Unless the system has the objective of eliminate human population you can't really get away for it. "I don’t have to be anti civilization to recognize the horrors of industrial farming under capitalism" - There's no industrial farming in anti-capitalist systems?
1
@MeanBeanComedy that's why he said forced, aka not free market
1
There's no exponential growth model of capitalism.
1
@brandonbrown6922 how do you "remove the middleman" if they're just replacing the cow for their own production facilities?
1
@brandonbrown6922 that's beside the point, you said the middle man was taken out but you inserted a new one
1
Did non-capitalist countries have big animal agriculture?
1
@draw4kicks law of conservation of mass, all the methane released from cattle had to be converted to CO2 in the atmosphere and fixed by plants in a cycle.
1
@fleabag631 but they all require feed which means we need plant growth to compensate for that.
1
@fleabag631 "Yes, which takes CO2, not CH4, from the atmosphere" - But methane is converted into CO2. Remember - law of conservation of mass. Everything that comes out the animal had to get inside it first.
1
Capitalism didn't create shit. Countries not running on capitalist systems also made a fuckton of pollution and environmental disaster. Do you need to keep people fed? Housed? Any system that requires production causes pollution.
1
@aydenfisher5770 his number 1 point was about health, not climate
1