WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

664

What a bunch of shit this is and probably what they're going to use to outlaw growing your own food.

Wasn't sure where to post this, I figured these would be the people most affected by restrictions on gardening.

What a bunch of shit this is and probably what they're going to use to outlaw growing your own food. Wasn't sure where to post this, I figured these would be the people most affected by restrictions on gardening.

(post is archived)

[–] 5 pts (edited )

They just can't stop focusing on a problem that doesn't exist. Now they're attacking urban gardens because of carbon. Stop attacking us!

Yes, homesteading is correct since we are now being hunted by the Davos crowd. Of course growing our own food is being attacked. It's unsafe, it produces carbon. But they aren't only attacking our food, they're attacking us.

"Study shows" Trust the science.

I read more of the article and it appears to be setting up a case to eliminate home farms because they emit 6 times more carbon than "production" farms. This is the beginning of the end. No more growing your own food!

You can bet this study is highly flawed and omits inconvenient facts and data. Let communism centralize everything for efficiency. The last thing these despots want are sovereign people.

[–] 3 pts

If they don't stop this stupid carbon reducing, they won't have to worry about urban gardens because, NOTHING WILL GROW! Bunch of assholes!

[–] 3 pts

That's a feature.

[–] 3 pts

And no bugs, well, except on your plate, that is! 🙄

[–] 2 pts

There is no way a backyard farm requires more carbon if you add in the transportation. It also doesn't consider the connection to the environment and local community generated by the act of farming. Did they consider the amount of O2 produced by a garden plant versus a commercial plant. Commercial plants live exactly long enough to produce an under ripe fruit/vegetable where garden plants are most likely in place the entire season. Did they consider the carbon footprint of all the pesticides and fertilizers used in commercial versus gardens? i could go on, but this is clearly a biased study to be used to try and curb self sufficiency. Look what they are doing to the Amish. Your homestead is next.

[–] 1 pt

You probably know facts don't matter. My guess is whoever did this study, cherry picked only what shows urban gardens are worse than production farms. The idea is to eliminate us from being sovereign, so all they need to do is find some way to explain why they need to make home gardens illegal.

Sure, they don't look at everything. The whole exercise is meaningless since global warming is made up. It doesn't exist. Any study is going to make their point, so the studies are also flawed.

Even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. We have a right to grow our own food. Period.

[–] 2 pts

So you’re saying we need more taxes to offset it?

[–] 2 pts

Wouldn't put it past them. They loves them some carbon credits.

[–] 1 pt

Your answer is here. (pic8.co)

[–] 1 pt

There's no way to access the paper without paying 120 USD.

Anyway, shocker, despite being 0.2% of the world population, the paper's authors are a den of jews:

Author(s) Jason (Jake) Hawes Benjamin Goldstein Joshua P. Newell Co-Author(s) Erica Dorr Silvio Caputo Runrid Fox-Kämper Baptiste Grard Rositsa T. Ilieva Agnès Fargue-Lelièvre Lidia Poniży Victoria Schoen Kathrin Specht Nevin Cohen

[–] 0 pt

Sorry, never tried to access the study itself so I didn't realize there was a fee.

I'm sure most here didn't need to see the names to know what they were.

[–] 1 pt

You can't have a study condemning growing your own food without a Cohen or Goldstein in the credits. Well poisoning rats.

[–] 1 pt

Must be where the word 'cohencidence' came from! 😄

[–] 1 pt

The “experts” are fucking retarded.