neanderthal

What's also mind boggling is the USAF F-15 has zero combat losses and is the OLD air superiority fighter. The USAF can start operating anywhere in the world with a force larger than most other air forces in < 72 hours.

The US Navy has more heavy aircraft carrier groups than the rest of world combined. The US has 11 out of 22. It also has the world's largest and most advanced air force. Old US Army equipment is working wonders for Ukraine against Russia, the supposed next best military.

Not to mention the US has a massive arsenal of working ICBMs and SLBMs.

I'm sorry, but nobody stands a snowballs chance in hell against the US military.

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, nation building and occupying are two different things. Kind of like ruling verses obtaining power are different.

ETA: Think about that during presidential elections.

Right now, it is literally cheaper to have lower emissions.

Renewables, especially amortized, are significantly cheaper than fossil fuels.

Beef is the worst mass produced protein and is generally more expensive than other protein sources.

Planned obsolescence and throw away stuff is more expensive than quality, repairable, upgradable things with good used markets.

Car dependent design is more expensive than transit/human powered transportation.

Worst case, we should be in maintenance mode for any of the above. Ideally, in a transition period away from all that.

ETA: We should definitely be helping the countries mentioned in the article, but my point is, it makes no financial sense to not rapidly transition away from the major emission sources.

No surprise. Not a physicist, but I would think moving electrons back and forth through wires would be more efficient than pumping gas molecules through pipes, burning it, and losing heat due to venting the exhaust. Safer too. No risk of explosion or CO poisoning. Breakers and fuses cause electricity to fail safe(er) than gas.

The 120/240 going to residences isn't necessarily fatal to humans. Fires are better than explosions and poison gas. Breakers protect against shorts causing both dangerous conditions. They also protect from fires by limiting the current draw through lines.

we would need 50% of the agricultural area compared to now. And if everyone became vegan, we would only need about 25-30%

Yes, that is true. That isn't what I am talking about.

I am talking about what is currently being produced right now. My gut tells me if everyone literally went vegan tomorrow, there wouldn't be enough food to go around.

Reducing meat consumption does need to happen, but it will realistically take at least a few years, if not a decade to transition food supply chains. At minimum, it will take at least a few growing seasons to transition from animal feed crops to food crops.

I'm not an economist, but from my understanding, GDP isn't the end all be all if higher is better. It doesn't measure how much wealth you keep. It doesn't measure the utility of what is produced. Say we both have crotch kicking businesses. I go to you as a private individual, pay you $100 to kick my in the testicles, and then you come to my business as a private individual for the same service. We just made the GDP go up $200, and all we got out of it was sore genitals. Both of us are actually poorer because we will pay taxes one that money.

What does this have to do with climate? Say we replace all fossil fuels with renewables in a made up country on January of next year. We used to spend $1 trillion a year on fossil fuels. We spent 2 trillion on renewables, so our GDP went up that year by that trillion. A year later, it goes down by 1.5 trillion because we didn't have to buy oil. We are still better off than last year because we kept more of what we produced.

Well wheat and rice have like under 4 gm of protein per 100gm. Vegetables are even less than this. I would have to eat kilos and kilos of stuff to meet my RDA this way.

That is why I promote replacing beef, the biggest problem with anything else. It isn't realistic to expect massive amounts of people to make such drastic changes to their diet in any reasonable time frame. We CAN drastically reduce GHG, especially methane from beef production by replacing it with a less harmful alternatives, and from there gradually scale back meat production as a whole.

Another issue is production. There needs to be time for food producers to change what they are producing. It takes time for plants to grow and animals to mature. If we all just ate rice and beans starting tomorrow, does the world even have enough to feed everyone? We can't just eat a bunch of corn like cows do. We would have to get corn farmers to grow something else.

Considering the nutrition and production hurdles, I promote just reducing beef consumption right now. If that ever succeeds, I'll move on to reducing meat consumption in general, giving time for viable alternatives to mature.

I just misspelled it.

Ideally, more people would eat way less meat.

I stand by it being that simple. Beef production has more than 3 times the emissions per pound than other meats.

It isn't about sending a message, it is about reducing GHG emissions.

As far as prices, maybe. I don't know the ins and outs of raising animals for food. I don't think meat prices are entirely supply and demand due to different costs in raising different animals.

Beef is the biggest mass consumed culprit. I think mutten might be worse, but it isn't eaten nearly as much.

My point is, if you struggle to reduce meat consumption, just reducing beef consumption would make a big difference. Next time you are out, get a chicken sandwich instead of a burger. It's that simple.

Here in the states, since the GOP cares soooo much about pregnant women, perhaps they should do something?

I'm one of those weirdos that likes snow. Winter walks are invigorating