Not really. It’s people who enjoy art of personified/anthropomorphized animals. Sometimes it’s sexual, sometimes it involves personas and costumes, sometimes it’s just rabbits in bankers’ outfits. It’s viewed as weird by a lot of people because they assume it’s all costumes and sex, but looney tunes technically also counts, so it’s much more widespread than people identifying with it is.
As far as I’m aware, the footprint of ethanol plants is not public information. If you’re unwilling to extend the benefit of the doubt far enough to accept that ethanol production takes less land than livestock production, I can’t help you.
You can make ethanol in a bathtub, so I don’t know what you’re looking for here.
Why on earth did you branch out my comment into three different subsection replies in which you say essentially the same thing?
Cutting livestock subsidies and offering tax incentives and government support for farmers who want to convert their farms from livestock to plant farms, while increasing import tariffs on meat and dairy.
You’re correct, of course, but it’s a minuscule amount of land compared to livestock farming.
How do you do this?
We can’t control who is planting what, we have to make it a choice people want to make.
So we need to move all the farms? How does that work?
Well, animals produce methane, which is a significantly more damaging greenhouse gas than CO2 (as it eventually degrades into CO2, whereas combustion of ethanol only results in CO2 and water. Ethanol isn’t perfect, but it’s less damaging than livestock, which also require land, while ethanol does not.
Okay, so we have large numbers of livestock dying of starvation because there are not enough calories in silage to support the livestock we have.
Then because they die unevenly (older and naturally sicklier animals first), they’re still pretty well distributed throughout farms very far from each other.
So now we need to transport our silage further to distribute it to our livestock, who again release a lot of methane in their processing of it.
This means, instead of using silage to make fertilizer or allow tractors to run on ethanol, we send it far away, where it can be used make a lot more contributions to greenhouse gases than we would have if we’d just stop trying to rear animals.
They currently live off of more than our waste products, so feeding them less isn’t going to work. We have to produce so much food to feed them, but we could reduce the amount of land needed for crops if we were only feeding people.
The Guardian reported in 22 on what came out of the investigation.
I would love for this to be false and one nutso nurse, please send me something credible suggesting it’s wrong, if you can. It’s fucking sickening to imagine it’s true, so I’m very happy to change my mind if there’s evidence supporting it.
So how do they need less food than they consume? Because we feed them silage, plus a lot more food.
Then how?
Why? Food production through livestock is a waste of calories, land, and greenhouse gases
So you’re saying that livestock is exclusively fed off of byproducts of human vegetable production? That’s incorrect.
How do you get the silage from the farms to the now reduced livestock? Less livestock means a longer average trip.
We can turn silage into ethanol, fertilizer, or whiskey, it doesn’t go to waste.
It’s not. Livestock needs more silage than we would produce for ourselves and creates additional waste products in the form of greenhouse gases while digesting the silage. If we reduced the amount of livestock, you’d have to increase transportation costs to get the silage to the animals. They’re just not an efficient addition to the system on a large scale at all
But Clarence Thomas accepted gifts from people who then argued in front of the Supreme Court without recusing himself without facing any consequences, so is there anything to stop it?