I believe the digitization is to promote access to materials. I really like that. But I’ve heard that film still being used for archival purposes... ironically, even for archival storage of digital imagery.
Just like the batteries in film cameras. And, AFIK electric car batteries are replaceable with some that are past their prime are being used as storage for home solar systems.When the battery in these digital cameras have to be replace, what do we do with them just like in the electric cars PROBLEM
I believe the digitization is to promote access to materials. I really like that. But I’ve heard that film still being used for archival purposes... ironically, even for archival storage of digital imagery.
You can only take lunacy as far. Still.
As long as science and its connected methods has any sway, you won’t get the last say if you are dumber than dirt, but aggressive.
Let’s worry about things like single-use bottled water plastics first.
Since Hollywood seems to be the main source of information for the politicians it seems unlikely they allow the banning of film. On a more serious note, do you really think film production and processing is worse on the environment that battery powered digital cameras?In a word........Hollywood. I'm well aware many use digital but others.........big names in fact prefer film. Still don't believe it will come to that. There are many other far more wasteful and destructive things in widespread use so film is way down the list.
then we'll work with so-called alternative processes.What if the government decides that film is too wasteful? All those chemicals and everything polluting the environment. Would you support the cancellation of film like fossil fuels will be stopped in automobiles? What should we do to protect our hobby?
The Haber–Bosch process is a major environmental problem in many ways.I just want to point out that this video is full of crap with an obvious agenda. There's a reason journalists are taught to get contradicting opinions when writing articles and this video only interviews one scientist. I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a brain and here are a few things this video gets wrong; I list them below. I am sure if they interviewed another scientist in the field they would have raised these issues as well, but then it wouldn't be such a good video to make pseudo-intellectuals feel good about owning the libs by eating meat.
I took a look at the main PNAS paper they cite and it is very controversial for failing to consider what happens to land that grows feedstock if there are no animals to feed (they assume humans will eat the corn), and I think this problem continues throughout the video. There is a false equivalence made when the guy says 90% of things cows eat are not fit for human consumption, but that's because we grow feed corn for cows to eat!
Another problem is this video only looks at the US where livestock is 3% of emissions instead of the world where livestock is 15% and I don't quite understand the argument at 13:55 on why we shouldn't care about global numbers. He just says "you shouldn't care and they don't matter" but doesn't say why! Surely reducing consumption in the US can affect production around the world. And no one is suggesting that only Americans should eat a more plant based diet, greenhouse gas affects us all.
Also I think there are several straw men in this video, the worst is when they compare beef production to almond production -- this is the classic straw man fallacy -- no one suggested an almond based diet! Also it's not right to compare cows to coal power plants because they do different things. Of course burning coal is worse than almost anything else, but agriculture is also bad.
I think the argument he makes at 17:45 makes a mistake when he says methane fully converts to CO2 quickly, it has a half life of 9 years, and the wikipedia article on methane in atmosphere says amortizing over 100 years it is still 28x global warming potential of CO2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane)
I do think he is mostly right about grassfed cows on grazing land, and how it is very good land for grazing animals and isn't great for other purposes. And yes he is also right we should worry a lot about coal power plants and burning gasoline. Luckily, worrying about powerplants is not mutually exclusive from what food I eat. If I can be a bit to be better to the environment by eating less beef, and grass fed when I have the opportunity I don't think that's a bad thing...
..........................On a more serious note, do you really think film production and processing is worse on the environment that battery powered digital cameras?
So much discussion on meat. If I had a choice, I'd give up film before meat.
It might have something to do with all the dead and maimed people that sometimes resulted. Not to mention Timothy McVeigh and his like.Much depends upon possible actions by slip-and-fall lawyers. There is a reason that I can’t buy chemicals from supply shops that I could easily obtain 70+ years ago when I was 12 yrs old.
I seem to remember that he addressed all the problems or aber dabeis you mention.
You forget that meat production and film is interlinked.So much discussion on meat. If I had a choice, I'd give up film before meat.
Look I’m not going to go through the video point by point, or even give it a second watch-through, just to not convince you.Please read my post, I list things he gets wrong, not things that he omits. He claims to address several of my complaints but does not. For example, watch 13:55-15:44 of his video about why we shouldn't care about global numbers. Can you articulate what his argument is there? I think he talks for two minutes without saying anything convincing. I do not understand why he makes the assumption that anyone who suggests eating less meat is only talking to Americans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?