Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Stop bottling it then... (Score 1) 678

Bottled water...watering lawns...even almonds...they're not the problem. It's livestock. They consume around 50% of all water use in CA.

Here, let's just compare dairy products: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/california-water-suck

Keep in mind that around 80% of people regularly consume these, and the non-dairy products are a tiny portion of sales..

Here's a collection of articles and stats for those really interested in learning about what's using up California's water: veganstart.org/almonds

Comment: Re:It's not the almonds. (Score 1) 417

by Vegan Cyclist (#49322669) Attached to: How 'Virtual Water' Can Help Ease California's Drought
No, of course not, pretty much every vegan is also from a long liner of meat-eaters! ;)

There's a lot more to it, besides even if livestock were changed and water usage in CA dropped from 50% to like 40%, it's still a completely unsustainable amount of water....and it goes way beyond that. Also in the US (I'm from Canada actually) 50% of all land used by humans is for livestock. The numbers are really shocking there, and globally - take a look at some of the info on this blog post: http://blog.thevictoriavegan.com/2014/10/humane-meat-its-not-humane-for-nature.html - it's insane.. =(

Comment: Re:It's not the almonds. (Score 1) 417

by Vegan Cyclist (#49317933) Attached to: How 'Virtual Water' Can Help Ease California's Drought
It only 'appeals' because that is what they're used to. Take someone who's grown up on almond milk, and give them cow's milk, and I bet they'd find it pretty disgusting.

I would imagine replacing cattle with sheep and goats would be a bit less water, but a whole lot of new infrastructure would have to be developed...and to supply the amount of meat wanted by people, it would probably only drop the amount of water by a few points...and to use your earlier point, won't people used to beef only appeal to a small fraction of the population? ;)

Given the scale, I don't think switching animals is really a solution, but a delay (since demand will only continue to increase, unless another attitude is instilled.)

Comment: It's not the almonds. (Score 1) 417

by Vegan Cyclist (#49313421) Attached to: How 'Virtual Water' Can Help Ease California's Drought
Here are some stats - almonds use about 10% of CA's water. Crops for human use are about 25% of all CA use (including almonds). Total agriculture water use is 75%. What's missing? Livestock. Animal agribusiness soak up 50% of all water used in CA. Why are we talking about showers and lawns when animal agribusiness out scales EVERYTHING else by such a huge margin? I outline this more here: http://veganstart.org/almonds.

Comment: Re:Science... Yah! (Score 1) 958

by Vegan Cyclist (#48970841) Attached to: Science's Biggest Failure: Everything About Diet and Fitness
I think the 1.6 servings is a breakdown of a standard 'serving size'. 187.6ml is an odd serving size (usually 250ml??) But for easy comparison of the Nutritional Data chart, the 'serving size' needs to be the same, allowing you to easily compare two different products. So when they make a 300ml bottle, it has a weird 'number of servings', even tho by all accounts that will likely be one serving (or possibly two. But rarely 1.6.)

Comment: A bit broken too.. (Score 1) 210

by Vegan Cyclist (#48876511) Attached to: Tracking Down How Many (Or How Few) People Actively Use Google+
I started a page for a new project in December, and the auto-verify 'feature' gave me the 'approved' message, telling me it'd be 1-2 weeks before it gets finalized, and here we are near the end of January, and it's still not happened. The previous page i set up (maybe 2yrs ago) whipped through this process..so sucks in some ways being 'new' there. I also get the feeling the hashtags aren't used much. And my own experience is people, businesses and non-profits push content, but few actually will read it. (I see this in my stream, very few +1's and commentary.) So yes, lot of entities might be talking, but not to each other. I've been trying to interact with my new project, and while getting good success elsewhere, my G+ page hasn't grown. Really starting to feel like it's a waste of time (especially as someone else pointed out, Google has a habit of dropping things they get bored with...and their lack of function and development give me this impression with G+.)

Comment: Re:Misguided (Score 1) 363

by Vegan Cyclist (#48691051) Attached to: Trees vs. Atmospheric Carbon: A Fight That Makes Sense?
Savoury has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.inexactchange.org/blog/2013/03/11/cows-against-climate-change/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/aug/04/eat-more-meat-and-save-the-world-the-latest-implausible-farming-miracle

Just think about it: already the majority of land used by humans is dedicated to livestock, and is a leading cause of deforestation. You'd have to cut down even MORE forests to make room for what he's talking about. It's an utterly ridiculous concept, and if he had his way could be arguably as bad as his slaughter of elephants. This guy is a quack of the highest possible degree.

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.

Working...