usernamesAreTricky

Unfortunately grass-fed production is no solution. It both does not scale or help reduce emissions

We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

[…]

If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

It's fundamentally inefficient. The claims of "green" meat production are greenwashing from the industry. The industry would love for you to believe there is a way that they could clean it up. It takes growing tons of crops just for most of that energy to be lost by the creatures moving around, digesting, etc.

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html

Nor is something like grass-fed production a solution when that has even higher emissions due to higher rates of methane production from cows. It also is even higher land demand

We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

[…]

If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

They really don't understand the structure of the poultry industry. The genetics are controlled by Tysons and Aviagen who breed around 90 to 99% of all chickens in the industry in the US (similarly high globally). Primarily the Cobb 500 and Ross 308 which are both fast growing. They do it this way because the industry wants their super fast growth at the expense of their health

Fast-growing chickens that make up almost all the industry are already known to be at a higher risk of illness and have a worse immune system. They have all kinds of other health issues from difficulty walking to hock burns

The methods of mass killing on disease detection are also quite cruel too I should add, but this administration don't seem to be too concerned about that. Look up ventilation shutdown and foam depopulation if you want more info on that

Note that this article is not about the US

Decades ago, a generation of UK schoolchildren unwittingly took part in an initiative aimed at boosting reading skills – with lasting consequences

The damage can still be reduced. It's not binary even if we're not in great shape. Every 0.1C matters. Our policy decisions still matter. Just because we're likely to miss earlier targets doesn't mean there isn't a difference between something like 2.2C and 3C

This whole sentiment that "it's over" is one large emitters actively promote to try to stop people from acting. Don't play into their hands. Doomerism is wielded as a tool to demobilize people. Powerful people want you not to act for a reason - because they fear we can still make progress

If there were no ranked choice, he still would have won in this case. He won the plurality of the votes on the first round (unexpectedly and a massive over performance of the polls)

Granted ranked choice may have made more people feel safer to consider him in the first place, but still worth noting here

Current trajectory estimates are more like +2.5C to +3C by 2100 based on existing policy. We've actually managed to move the trajectory downward even though we obviously have a lot to go. Every little bit counts. It is far less binary than this overly simplistic tweet is suggesting

Excessive claims like this end up demotivating people and make them want to give up when we can reduce the damage each time we move our trajectory down by 0.1C

If the filibuster is removed, it is also possible to get through with 50+VP as tie breaker or 51. The filibuster being removed is not as unlikely as you may think since Republicans right now are getting closer and closer towards defacto removing the filibuster. There currently are narrow ways around the filibuster (reconsideration is one big one) that are supposed to have a bunch of limitations, but they are testing the waters in ignoring violations of those limitations. The senate parliamentarian is the one who makes rulings about if something violates their clauses, but their opinion can be ignored by a strict majority via the "nuclear option"

A month ago, Republicans used the nuclear option to ignore the senate parliamentarian ruling that the Congressional Review Act would not allow them to skip the filibuster to remove California's EPA waivers (see here).

As I write this Republicans are currently trying to play another different a different trick about some of the stuff in the Big Beautiful Bill. Dems have been challenging a bunch of provisions and getting the parliamentarian to most of the time rule they are in violation of the Byrd rule. But they are also trying to challenge the whole bill as violating the Byrd rule's limit that a bill passed via reconsecration cannot increase the deficit over a ten-year period. Republicans are playing an accounting trick to claim it doesn't. They know the parliamentarian is unlikely to agree with them, so they are currently trying to prevent dems from even being able to ask the parliamentarian about it

Yep, and even larger can be overcome too. If you look AOC's 2018 primary upset, she was outspent by over 10x

Insane outspending can be overcome. Obviously it makes the fight harder, but money is not everything

Because they massively outspent Zohran in the primary and still lost. Vote because you can still overcome this. They want us to give up and think we can't. Don't do their dirty work for them

There's a primary for his now vacant seat this Saturday if anyone here is in that district (VA-11) and wants to avoid a repeat. Special election is in September

There are some progressives running in that primary

Vote in every primary. The establishment can't fight as hard as they did for Cuomo everywhere. There are lot of primaries across the country that many people don't even know are happening

For instance, there's one for the US House seat in VA-11 (Most of Fairfax county + Fairfax City) this Saturday prior to the September special election to replace Gerry Connolly who died from cancer