Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[C-Mag]

Goddamn it, how many times do I have to tell you people I live on a small farm in rural Suffolk before you stop calling me an urbanite?
When was the last time you threshed wheat to make thatching straw?

I was trying to think of some clever response, the well is dry right now.

I'm just pushing back against the myths or rural folks and life the urbanites have crafted over a long, long time. According to the mythology, you are a blithering fool. Only urbanites are enlightened.

[Speaker to Animals]

Urbanite men also fuck each other in the ass and use beauty products, so I am not sure I would rely upon their opinion of who is better. That Hunger Games depiction of them is spot-on. Something like that is where this would go if we didn't fight back.

[DBTrek]

Ever wonder how the government calculates carbon footprints? Wonder no more. Here's a link to the EPA's carbon footprint calculator. Let's take a peek inside and see what wonders await:

Many of our daily activities cause emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, we produce greenhouse gas emissions from burning gasoline when we drive, burning oil or gas for home heating, or using electricity generated from coal, natural gas, and oil. Greenhouse gas emissions vary among individuals depending on a person's location, habits, and personal choices.

Hmmm. So the number varies according to location (semi-static), habits (completely variable), and personal choices (completely variable). These types of variance would apply to food as well - where it is grown/raised, the energy types used for its cultivation, weather impacting growing/raising patterns requiring modified fuel expenditures, transportation costs, transportation types, storage costs, storage types, energy consumption and type for storage and transportation, etc, etc.

Lots of variables. Can't really pull a magic number from this and say "The carbon footprint of this package of beef is X", because that number can be greatly modified by a significant change to even one input.

For an explanation of the calculator's assumptions and sources, see the Assumptions and References page.

What? Their "Assumption and References page is a broken link?!? Wow. So the EPA is happy to hand the comfort-blanket seekers a number for their peace of mind, but they're up front in mentioning their numbers are estimations (aka inaccurate) and you will have ZERO information on the assumptions they use to get them.

Sounds reliable as fuck. Only an information hater would question such an extraordinary display of "science".


Hey y'all, can you at least get the 'Assumptions and References' page operational before screaming at the rest of us about how much we hate information? That would be cool.

[Montegriffo]

Monte was asking when the last time anyone threshed straw to make thatching in another thread.

You don't thresh straw. You thresh wheat and end up with straw. Thatching is a verb, not a noun.
Fucking urbanites, they know nothing about farming.
There should be more information out there.

[DBTrek]

Monte was asking when the last time anyone threshed straw to make thatching in another thread.

You don't thresh straw. You thresh wheat and end up with straw. Thatching is a verb, not a noun.

Sounds like straw-making, unlike carbon foot-printing, has a reliable process leading to a verifiable result.

[Fife]

Greens might use the information against us, so we can't have people knowing anything about their consumption. LOL


Are you truly so blind that you cannot see how fucking stupid this sounds??

Oh, I agree completely; that sounds as fucking stupid as a frozen dog turd. Other than you, who said that stupid shit?

[Montegriffo]

Monte was asking when the last time anyone threshed straw to make thatching in another thread.

You don't thresh straw. You thresh wheat and end up with straw. Thatching is a verb, not a noun.

Sounds like straw-making, unlike carbon foot-printing, has a reliable process leading to a verifiable result.

Well, it's difficult and doesn't get 100% reliable results (wheat often stays on the straw) but it doesn't mean it has no value.

[DBTrek]

Well, it's difficult and doesn't get 100% reliable results (wheat often stays on the straw) but it doesn't mean it has no value.

Wait ... is that a second standard you're proposing? "Doesn't harm the reader" plus "not completely valueless"?
Such a lofty bar for appearing on a food label.
Sadly I don't think the carbon footprint estimate built upon <broken link> assumptions can meet that second requirement.
Better stick with "Doesn't kill the reader".

[Speaker to Animals]

Greens might use the information against us, so we can't have people knowing anything about their consumption. LOL


Are you truly so blind that you cannot see how fucking stupid this sounds??

Oh, I agree completely; that sounds as fucking stupid as a frozen dog turd. Other than you, who said that stupid shit?

Several posts were to the effect that dems will try to use the information to control production and consumption behavior. It's a terrible position to take.

As soon as a group of people want to block access to information I start trying to find out why, and usually comes down to insecurity in one's political positions. When feminists try to block dissemination of data about things like male suicide, I get just as combative. When pro-aborts block imaging of the unborn babies about to get slaughtered, it is because they know a lot of women would see a human being and change their mind.

It is no different here, yet I doubt the carbon footprint data gives any ammunition at all to dems. Just reducing our pollution by choosing (or not) to optimize our consumption patterns is a good thing.

[DBTrek]

I hear tell that some incredible people are able to reduce their carbon footprint without the federal government putting fake numbers on food labels.
The only people missing out on the movement are the ones who can't guide their actions without false information from the government.
/shrug