Food production is already well above what is needed to feed the entire population.
On bread? Sure. “Food” is an almost meaningless term. With current technology there is nowhere near enough land to feed the world’s population with what they all want: a lot of meat and dairy. I cannot help but be pessimistic on this one. Diet is such a core part of culture, people refuse to compromise on it, and no, the current technology is nowhere near offering an alternative at scale. And this is before even mentioning the animal-welfare disaster of contemporary factory farming.
due to disastrous Common Agriculture Pacts
Agreed that Europe’s ag policy is disastrously counterproductive. But, respectfully, I still think you are seriously underestimating the challenge of feeding 9 billion people on meat, even excluding cows (which unfortunately a lot of people will continue to want). Most of the world’s people will soon be living in overcrowded cities and demanding beef and pork wrapped in plastic. I’m having trouble seeing the home-raising of rabbits and pigeons at scale, although it’s certainly a nice idea.
Unrecyclable plastics and other materials should be incinerated using pyrolitic combustion
I also thought it sounded cool when I learned about it. Plastic: gone! But it’s completely unproven at scale and almost nobody is doing it. When’s the breakthrough coming? And besides, even at scale this would be just another form of carbon pollution. Oil with with an energy-intensive plastic intermediate stage. Right now, it is simple more expensive than turning oil into new plastic.
Recycling is already less expensive to do than extracting raw materials
Incorrect for plastic, see above. Correct for other materials.
this is not in any degree denial of climate change
Sure, you seem like a rational person. Excessively optimistic IMO, but I agree that pessimism should be kept in check because it can be corrosive. There’s always hope for making things better than they might otherwise be.
If I manage to find again the thesis I read, I’ll forward it to you.
Essentially, on a global scale, any food item is produced on a large enough scale to accomodate large waste of resources, including meat. Money is being thrown out to produce that is lost in chain of value. The criticism towards unrealistic standards set by governments is brutal. The call is for cutting back on production, by slowly cutting back on subsidizing. There is a very poor management of resources at play.
I’ll give a simple example from my country: we routinely pay heavy fines for exceeding milk production quotas, in large part because most of that milk comes from one region ideal for livestock but little else. Grass grows plentiful but standard crops produce poorly due to salty winds.
Meanwhile, other countries try to raise their domestic production, regardless of proper conditions for it. In a simple world, we would produce to supply those countries because we have surplus we cannot consume (regardless how much cheese we make). The end result? Producers are downsizing herds and even throwing away milk, as they are barred from even giving it away, when they can’t sell any more. How ridiculous is this?
Raising pidgeons and rabbits (and guinea pigs, if people are not squeamish) is feasible on a very small scale. Again, another habit lost in the aftermath of the second war.
Pyrolitic inceneration is a thing and I worked with an engineer that tried to sell one plant to Angola, for thermal use of used tyres and urban residues. One very interesting feature was a special oxygen forced fed high temperature chamber to melt metals for easier separation. It was obviously expensive to build but it could remove a lot of waste from landfills. The downfall of the project: radical environmental groups.
Again, I’ll end with my costumary: things are bad but not as bad as we are forced to think.
On bread? Sure. “Food” is an almost meaningless term. With current technology there is nowhere near enough land to feed the world’s population with what they all want: a lot of meat and dairy. I cannot help but be pessimistic on this one. Diet is such a core part of culture, people refuse to compromise on it, and no, the current technology is nowhere near offering an alternative at scale. And this is before even mentioning the animal-welfare disaster of contemporary factory farming.
Agreed that Europe’s ag policy is disastrously counterproductive. But, respectfully, I still think you are seriously underestimating the challenge of feeding 9 billion people on meat, even excluding cows (which unfortunately a lot of people will continue to want). Most of the world’s people will soon be living in overcrowded cities and demanding beef and pork wrapped in plastic. I’m having trouble seeing the home-raising of rabbits and pigeons at scale, although it’s certainly a nice idea.
I also thought it sounded cool when I learned about it. Plastic: gone! But it’s completely unproven at scale and almost nobody is doing it. When’s the breakthrough coming? And besides, even at scale this would be just another form of carbon pollution. Oil with with an energy-intensive plastic intermediate stage. Right now, it is simple more expensive than turning oil into new plastic.
Incorrect for plastic, see above. Correct for other materials.
Sure, you seem like a rational person. Excessively optimistic IMO, but I agree that pessimism should be kept in check because it can be corrosive. There’s always hope for making things better than they might otherwise be.
If I manage to find again the thesis I read, I’ll forward it to you.
Essentially, on a global scale, any food item is produced on a large enough scale to accomodate large waste of resources, including meat. Money is being thrown out to produce that is lost in chain of value. The criticism towards unrealistic standards set by governments is brutal. The call is for cutting back on production, by slowly cutting back on subsidizing. There is a very poor management of resources at play.
I’ll give a simple example from my country: we routinely pay heavy fines for exceeding milk production quotas, in large part because most of that milk comes from one region ideal for livestock but little else. Grass grows plentiful but standard crops produce poorly due to salty winds.
Meanwhile, other countries try to raise their domestic production, regardless of proper conditions for it. In a simple world, we would produce to supply those countries because we have surplus we cannot consume (regardless how much cheese we make). The end result? Producers are downsizing herds and even throwing away milk, as they are barred from even giving it away, when they can’t sell any more. How ridiculous is this?
Raising pidgeons and rabbits (and guinea pigs, if people are not squeamish) is feasible on a very small scale. Again, another habit lost in the aftermath of the second war.
Pyrolitic inceneration is a thing and I worked with an engineer that tried to sell one plant to Angola, for thermal use of used tyres and urban residues. One very interesting feature was a special oxygen forced fed high temperature chamber to melt metals for easier separation. It was obviously expensive to build but it could remove a lot of waste from landfills. The downfall of the project: radical environmental groups.
Again, I’ll end with my costumary: things are bad but not as bad as we are forced to think.