These people are evil.

https://m.primal.net/Hbvg.png

https://archive.ph/nOiNW


What kind of bullshit is this?


Truly !


Un f-ing believable...


omg - brit presstitute


This is so insane..


I think we've found another tyrant with which to refresh the tree of liberty.


Indeed


Best way to reduce our collective carbon footprint is to just start murdering people. Come to think of it, we could probably smoosh old people into green protein bars, and put some sweet sweet soy in the mix for that extra estrogen to pacify the population.


Of course growing plants is bad for the environment!


All you can do is have a good chuckle

https://i.gifer.com/origin/8a/8a7c88e7d23ed6a8b630886f4a5fd9ab_w200.gif


Wow lol


Bullets will be flying if they bring that shit to my house.


Uh gardens are bad um'kay...


I just posted this in response to another note about this stupid headline:

The study is dumb because everything that looks only at carbon emissions as a measure of environmental impact is ridiculous.

But the headline is dumb because it misrepresents the study, which concludes with the recommendation that ppl continue to grow their own food but pay more attention to the sustainability of the materials they use for infrastructure.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3

My main critique of the article would be that they attempt to account for the carbon from things like sheds and other urban infrastructure that is used in gardening and they compare that to what is required in conventional farms, but they do this without looking at comparable properties/ locations in urban environments that do not garden. If they did they would see that a lot of the infrastructure they are measuring and accounting toward gardening is actually just the infrastructure of an urban environment without a garden. And so a garden is clearly a beneficial use of the resources that are already present.

For example compare two small lots. Lot A has a shed and is covered in grass. The shed contains the lawn mower, fertilizer used on the grass, pesticides etc. Lot B has a shed too with a lawn mower , pesticides, and fertilizers and some grass but a large garden.

They both have the same inputs but 1 is producing food the other produces nothing, just maintains the space.

In this case they are comparing the garden to the farm and concluding the farm requires less inputs per serving. But we can see with the example that if the gardening read this article and then concluded to stop gardening, they would end up still using up the inputs to maintain their grass lot. So switching from garden to grass doesn’t reduce any inputs.


Well that’s good then because more CO2 = more plants will grow


anally evil


The people writing this have no soul


"Just don't take care of yourself. Let us do that - have we ever let you down???!"


Yeah, this article makes it very clear that the climate drama has and will always be used as an excuse for more people to avoid self-reliance and rely solely on the nanny state.

What a great way to program children into self-defeatism, by telling them climate change is such a big problem and you can never fix it.

It's the original sin of their fucked up ideology.


Photosynthesis apparently doesn't exist in this article


Onward 🫡

Onward 🫡


wait till you meet these people
https://m.primal.net/HcDg.mp4


Who gives a damn what they say? No one will stop growing food at home because some toady tells a story about a necessary compound.


Meh, they're just trying to make money and contraversial headlines and bylines like this are effective.

I do think the framing is deceptive, and looking back at the source material, it looks like the researchers were much more focused on how urban farming can improve.

If I wanted to play that same game, I could pull out choice quotes like "most urban farms are carbon-competitive with conventional farms", but I'd rather focus on the bigger picture.

As for the impact they're citing, I don't like what it, but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate.
 @nostr:npub1pncg62q25h704u6qcf56hnmxx46jdlwfpw2t860ld5685s0sjzms9rqlgr already gave some good critiques here: nostr:nevent1qqsqvg6fzske2vuf6hn6f6ukthntqy80m9he6d93pkuxmd2g66rsljcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgq3qpncg62q25h704u6qcf56hnmxx46jdlwfpw2t860ld5685s0sjzmsxpqqqqqqznv6cql and in fact the researchers even had some similar comments in their "future work" section. They suggested "comparing UA to other urban land uses, such as housing, parks and industry". Not quite the same as comparing them to mown turf grass, but it's along those same lines.

Source material for the article is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3


But I think you've inspired me to do a thread on this research, but with a positive spin on it: how urban farmers can do better. Does using a rain barrel or composting make a big difference? Yes!

But not tonight. I am tired and I still have things to do before I sleep.