1865
Climate Summit (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Why? Why would going green mean they can't grow food suddenly? What about coal power and cow farts means you can't grow corn?

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago

It doesnt mean you cant, it means that everything is more expensive, and means people in foreign countries cant afford things they need even more. If something like a billion people in the world are food insecure, a mild drought could make them starve.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Meat would get more expensive yes. But energy production is perfectly capable of switching over without a bump. And non meat farm products would actually become cheaper as supply increases. We're not magically causing a drought with such a changeover, at least not any extra ones.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

Think of the people in the world that are just getting by with just enough food to surive. If there were artificially made more expensive by world requirements on emissions and energy usage, this would make the things the poorest need too expensive for them to get and a simple drought would push them into starvation.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You have yet to describe a mechanism by which their food prices would rise.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

Do you understand how the plan to save the environment would make everything more expensive?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I've explained how food should remain available and well priced. All you've done is make general assertions. Hand waiving isn't going to to do it when we need to be acting.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

So then that is a "no" you dont understand. Sorry dude, there are too many gaps in your knowledge for me to explain this over the internet.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Rght, because we're 5 years old and you know but you just need me to prove I know by saying it first right? It's just too big brain for someone conversant in international economics and politics. I understand, I'd need 10 Phds just to start getting your concepts.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

Its not a hard concept that if you eliminate things you are able to use, then things will get more expensive. But if you dont understand that, then I am not going to teach you how it all works over the internet.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yes you're talking about a supply problem. The thing is I explained why there is not and will not be a supply problem in food. There are causes and effects, and while the price of something heavily restricted, (like meat), would rise, the cost of something produced more as a result will fall.

See? Economics 101 is easy to explain.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

You are just using the view of the western world that has an abundance of everything. In the less developed world its not a matter of "not getting to eat as much meat", it will be them starving to death because they cant get supplies.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If you think the developing world is African tribes living in the hinterlands then sure. But no, they've got their food supply figured out. There's less than a million people on the planet at risk of starvation. And most of them are in Gaza right now. Figuring out food for the global masses is one of the achievements of our lifetime.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

A google search says something like 9-11 million people die a year from starvation and poor diets... with over a billion that are food insecure. Dude, you dont understand the problem in anyway.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Stop looking at PR headlines from NGOs. Start looking at the IPC world map and the UN. There's literally 3 places on the planet where people are seriously dying from hunger, that's IPC level 5. Aid programs have a bad habit of including the entire population of anywhere IPC drops a note.

Places like the Sahel are having droughts or like in Bangladesh are having crops destroyed by historic floods while they soak in refugees from Myanmar. They receive food and support from the WFP. They make up 99 percent of the places IPC is tracking.

Those pressures aren't going away if we don't handle climate change. In fact they're going to get worse. Stopping the increase in climate change related events is a net positive in the food supply. Increasing arable land available is a net positive on food supply.

Finally, according to UNFAO, humanity produces enough food. We just need to get it to places when local production falters. Which again is generally related to climate change anyway.

This fake concern combined with a kid's attempt to appear smart is really grating. If we do nothing about climate change, including leaving ridiculous meat production levels in place, things get worse, not better.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

I see a lot of words from someone that thinks that people are not starving or at risk of starving around the world, so I am going to guess its a direct "nu-uh" comment. Sorry, not interested.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Lmao. No. But you'd have to read more than a tweet's length to understand that.

this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
1865 points (98.7% liked)

Comic Strips

12507 readers
1655 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS