you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

https://archive.is/Gpibv

Around half of the entire Colorado river goes to animal feed alone and it's barely a part of the conversation. Meat consumption has been rising for decades and only leading to more of it

Agriculture also pollutes ground water, and at a far higher rate and frequency. The toxic algae blooms are from the runoff which means high nitrate levels in the local water level. Cancer rates are elevated nearby animal farms. It's not "just a blight"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935126006286

The pollution from animal farming is not just a US problem either

The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows.

https://theconversation.com/11-000-litres-of-water-to-make-one-litre-of-milk-new-questions-about-the-freshwater-impact-of-nz-dairy-farming-183806


My point is that it's weird to focus on if we're going to just ignore the way larger contributors of animal agriculture to all of those problems with water. I see at least 5x the amounts of posts around water than electricity which is helping datacenters get away with increasing their emissions with less attention

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -2 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Attention on issues does matter. Not all causes are equal and outsized attention leads to bad policy promoted and passed. We can't just focus all our time on datacenters and ignore the biggest water users. I'd argue that it's the other way around that focusing on datacenter water is the "pet gripe". There's a number of other bigger reasons to be concerned about datacenters. We should talk about those instead

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)