Got a discussion task in school witch will be held this wednesday. Its about the environmental impact on ecological vs local produced items and food. I tried to look on youtube but couldnt realy find anything of interest. Anyone can argue for any of these sides, i want to know what kind of arguments will hit me and how i rebute them. Since this is Jow Forums you can twist it in into laws and bills or whatever makes it related to this board.
The ones we are debating are some sjw crazies so i realy gotta win this one Thanks in advance
>Its about the environmental impact on ecological vs local produced items and food Genocide all of the Africans and Chinese. Feed them to pigs, and make meatballs. No more hunger or global warming.
Xavier Ross
No way enough chicken can be farmed to stock up the KFCs and Paki chicken shops locally
compare required amount of land and the consequences on the soil from growing ecological crops compared to non ecological i think its about 70% more bad for environment by ecological wheat at least
Joseph Edwards
>I tried to look on youtube Fucking zoomers. At least go to wikipedia first to get a broad idea of what the topic is about. Then hit scholar.google.com and look for a couple of sources.
Angel Clark
>flag dropped Sweden needs to be burned down, plowed and the earth salted.
Brody Roberts
What do you consider "more bad", is that in co2 measured or how do you define it?
Connor Roberts
>first time poster.
tits or gtfo
>Its about the environmental impact on ecological vs local produced items and food.
Transport by ship is not a big polluter in terms of overall diesel / ship fuel consumed. But green party lefties will argue “muhhh ships are sooo dirty, better produce overpriced food locally”. They will then also bring up palm oils and the “gorillas” saying they cut down rain forrests for monocultures to make palm oil. Lastly, they will say “muhh local farming needs subsidies because we can control ecological green production”... ignoring that by simple labelling standards, the consumer can make an informed choice.
The answer to all these questions is always freedom and never protectionism. Let everyone compete on a free market basis and if people really want ecological “green” products they will buy them as long as you put labelling standards in place that clearly and easily let consumers see which products are “green” and “animal welfare” etc.
>the answer is freedom not protectionism I smell a nose
Nicholas Robinson
But isnt the polluted from ships because the exhaust gets directly into the water and therefore also pollutes it?
I also would like the marked to be completely free, but that would mean the price would always dictate the goods instead of the actual impact on the both global, and local environment. How can we make consumers buy "green" productes when its clearly more expensive?
Hudson Anderson
You're spending billions of dollars in agriculture subsidies in America in order to produce millions of tonnes of excess food so you can spend millions of dollars in emergency food aid for Africa. The subsidies are such that if every American worker got his equivalent tax money back, they could eat for free. Every day shops have to throw out over 50% of their green foods, not because they've gone bad but because they got blemished by all the yokels trying to find the one that's perfect and unblemished. One of America's biggest problems is sugar-based obesity. One of America's biggest subsidies is corn, which is used to produce cheap-ass high-fructose corn syrup, #1 cause for obesity. These agricultural subsidies are anti-American. They enable business practices that flood the market with waste material and fuel the sugar industry with a resource which if processed in the quantities that it currently is, is killing Americans. Your opponents may argue that helping Africa is worth it. It's killing Americans.
As far as I understand, the reason why transport ships are extremely “dirty” (in terms of sulfur emissions etc.) is because of old tech and lax international standards. That has however changed in the last 10 yrs with various ports banning extremely dirty ships from docking and international standards requiring cleaner fuels and more filtering of exhausts. Also, newer ships are way cleaner than ships that were built pre 2000.
In other words, transport ships aren’t a bad thing per se if you mandate modern engines and exhaust scrubbers for ships that can dock in Europe. Not to mentiom that extremely large vessels could go nuclead and be 100% emissioms free if green party faggots and leftists wouldn’t have made nuclear “a bad feely thing that is waaaay dangerous”.
Triple E class ships are so big, they could easily do with nuclear propulsion and be more economically operated over 50yrs than with ship fuel... not to mention 0 pollution during that time. People forget that we have most shipments come in with post-Panamax and up ships these days... and only 11,000 bulk carrier ships exist globally and of those only 2,000 carry 90% of all cargo. Imagine those 2,000 to be nuclear run and all polluting cargo vessels to be phased out. We would have a 0 pollution global shipment industry!
But still to have a nuclear reactor on ships wouldnt that be dangerous? Traversing the seas is just making it bound to be a disaster sooner or later.
Matthew Smith
why is the inside of all my IKEA furniture nothing but cardboard? the same shit i throw in the recycling every week? and you want $80 USD for..... this????????
Probably to stop it sounding like a hollow, lightweight piece of shit.
Kayden Walker
You can still eat while cutting bro!
Joseph Martinez
>But still to have a nuclear reactor on ships wouldnt that be dangerous? Traversing the seas is just making it bound to be a disaster sooner or later. You would have to compare it to the environmental impact of having shitloads of smaller ships that fail and spill oil & fossil fuel all over the place.
Julian Ortiz
I actually just recently did a discussion task on the same subject. I might post my notes in their entirety, if you explain to me why you suddenly decided to come to Jow Forums for answers. That’s all I really want to know.
Liam Sullivan
I tried on /sci/ but got 0 replies. I always browse pol and know you guys got opinions on everything
No. All larger military vessels have nuclear propulsion. There is nothing dangerous about modern nuclear reactors. Green party faggots talk about Chernobyl and Fukushima... never mentioning the reasons for the problems in both were First Gen reactors from the 1960s and 1970s. There has never been any serious problem with a second gen or third gen reactor anywhere on Earth ever.
Anthony Lewis
First time poster in both /sci/ and Jow Forums? Are you just an all-around newfag?
Ian Jackson
Thanks
Been browsing a couple of years. Never made an own thread untill today. Very sparely replied to some posts.
Ethan Sanders
>Yes goy, unrestricted free trade is the best You better start growing part of your food yourself and buy the rest locally, or fuck off.
>Its about the environmental impact on ecological vs local produced items and food.
Rereading this... are you actually asking whether to grow tomatoes and lattuce in Sweden in greenhouses with lots of energy? Because initially I thought it is about food imports vs. growing locally, but now it looks to me you were adking whether to grow “non-native crops” in colder climates with energy intensive production methods.
I recently read an article about Austrian year-round indoor veggie farming using lots of tech abd energy. Apparently people like “Austrian products” in Austria, so will buy “Austrian tomatoes” even though you cannot grow them outdoors in winter /spring.
I guess here the argument again is where the energy for the production facilities comes from. Austria has tons of hydropower, so producing greenhouse tomatoes locally is probably even better than in a Spanish greenhouse. Look up the ecological disaster that is the Almeria area in Spain. It is a desert but totally covered with greenhouses and it uses so much fresh water, it is destroying that area of Spain. Apparently 1/3rd of all fresh food consumed by Europeans in winter is produced there...
Unrestricted free trade is better than irrational protectionsim. You really think it helps us Germans that we csn import Argentinian beef on a no tariff basis but not US beef? Seriously?
Caleb Johnson
But even if the product is local the needs to produce it seldom is. Like fertilizers, the actual box to load the goods into, etc. Even if energy wasent the problem i believe there is more to it anyway.
Hunter Evans
With truly free trade the german if not the entire european agricultural sector would be abolished within a year, since other countries would outproduce them with cheap shit with no standards. Not to mention that this then would be at the cost of soil quality.(Though we do it only better by a little bit in this regard)
In the end the best thing is growing as much as one can yourself, canning fruit etc. for winter. Tubers and other root veggies for winter. Every plant one gorws for oneself is one not grown elsewhere. Be it in the same country or across the world.
You should look at it from an economic / free market perspective, ultimatly price discovery determines where food comes from. You could add personal growing / canning food sources, but that does take labour and land, and what that costs differs from one person to another.
