• MatthewToad43
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    @Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis There is also the near-absolute worst case scenario where outdoor agriculture becomes untenable due to wildly inconsistent post-climate weather and the “land sharing vs land sparing” debate is forced down the land sparing route, i.e. if most food can only be grown in heated greenhouses, we’ll need vast amounts of energy. In that scenario we may well need more nuclear. But if it’s that bad that fast I have my doubts that civilisation can survive the transition; that sort of agriculture is very capital intensive as well as energy intensive, although it is higher yield and makes space for rewilding, and potentially could be our only option if things get really bad.

    PS I am not endorsing climate controlled indoor agriculture here. I don’t have a clear view on the land sharing vs land sparing thing. I know which side most “degrowth” people would take though.