Counterproductive environmental measures

[Obamot]

methanization, [...] pressure from environmental lobbies, [...] green industrialists who recover them.
The former therefore receive in the face the results of their ill-inspired activism, while the latter will feel.

Did I understand anything about your various ideological remarks on methanization?

In figures STP: What are the tolerated VS acceptable emissions in the livestock sector per thousand head of cattle?
Just so that we understand something based on the tangible.

Because there, all of you, it gives the impression of blowing the wind

[Exnihiloest]

methanization, [...] pressure from environmental lobbies, [...] green industrialists who recover them.
The former therefore receive in the face the results of their ill-inspired activism, while the latter will feel.

Did I understand anything about your various ideological remarks on methanization?
...

Well, however, it's super simple.
The green lobby puts pressure on those in power, especially for renewable energies.
As a result, the rulers are launching an ecological transition project.
The ecological transition encourages anaerobic digestion.
And the ecologists today complain about this methanization ...

They do not even understand that they are at the origin ?!

[Obamot]

That does not answer my question!

It is to you that I asked the factual question to get out of the ideological rants that you denounce elsewhere.

[Ahmed]

This message was indeed very clear and I am surprised that it raises so many questions.
Although it is inadequate to reduce the green movements to a univocal thought, the fact remains that, with a few exceptions, the green people commit the same theoretical fault as their left-wing predecessors, when they agreed to challenge within a framework that denied them, which inevitably led, over time, to their disintegration. Today, political environmentalism (no, that's not a bad word!) Is obviously soluble in any party, and if they do not want to suffer the fate mentioned above, the good questions: we do not make a policy with good feelings which are incompatible with the framework to which we restrict ourselves for the sake of "pragmatism" ...
The only thing to hope (sic!) From such an attitude (besides the one already mentioned) is that the options which maximize the dissipation of the energy will all be acclaimed, whatever the fights waged. This is due to a ratchet effect: only highly dissipative projects will be selected by development, even if they appear in the opposite aspect (the case of LEDs, for example).

[Exnihiloest]

That does not answer my question!

It is to you that I asked the factual question to get out of the ideological rants that you denounce elsewhere.

The facts, I have already provided them:
https://lejournalminimal.fr/confisquer- ... ourriture/

If you can't see them, put on glasses. If you want details, find them.

These facts are the consequence of ideology and environmental activity. They do not hesitate to "denounce" anything and everything, so I do not see why I should be embarrassed when they are the origin of anti-ecological measures.

[Obamot]

That does not answer my question!

It is to you that I asked the factual question to get out of the ideological rants that you denounce elsewhere.

The facts, I have already provided them:
https://lejournalminimal.fr/confisquer- ... ourriture/

If you can't see them, put on glasses. If you want details, find them.

These facts are the consequence of ideology and environmental activity. They do not hesitate to "denounce" anything and everything, so I do not see why I should be embarrassed when they are the origin of anti-ecological measures.

I point out to you that ideology works on both sides during wars. So no, your article does not answer my question at all, which Ahmed seems to have understood since he suggests that a solution must be reasonably applicable in the context in which it is exercised!

In figures STP: What are the tolerated VS acceptable methane emissions in the livestock sector per thousand head of cattle?
Just so that we understand something in YOUR ARTICLEbased on the tangible.

[Obamot]

That does not answer my question!

It is to you that I asked the factual question to get out of the ideological rants that you denounce elsewhere.

The facts, I have already provided them:
https://lejournalminimal.fr/confisquer- ... ourriture/

If you can't see them, put on glasses. If you want details, find them.

These facts are the consequence of ideology and environmental activity. They do not hesitate to "denounce" anything and everything, so I do not see why I should be embarrassed when they are the origin of anti-ecological measures.

I point out to you that ideology works on both sides during wars. So no, your article does not answer my question, which Ahmed seems to have understood since it suggests that a solution must be reasonably applicable in the context in which it can be exercised!

In figures STP: What are the tolerated VS acceptable methane emissions in breeding per thousand head of cattle?
Just so that we understand something A YOUR ARTICLE, and based on the tangible.

[Exnihiloest]

...
In figures STP: What are the tolerated VS acceptable methane emissions in breeding per thousand head of cattle?
Just so that we understand something A YOUR ARTICLE, and based on the tangible.

Like I said, it's up to you to find out. And amha, you did not leave the hostel because your question is based on unrealized innuendos, such as the fact that there would be objective criteria for the tolerance and acceptability of the programs.
I'm not going to take everyone who needs numbers by the hand.

I have only observed that those who complain about "agricultural methanization" are those who have motivated it.
You are of course free to go beyond the subject.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I have only observed that those who complain about "agricultural methanization" are those who have motivated it.

No. You made a selection bias to fuel and disseminate your hatred of ecology. Methanization is not only cultivated areas on purpose (bullshit, I agree), it is also the recovery of waste that until then went to the incinerator and a lot of small farms with plant biomass and / or animal heretofore not or misused. In short, you don't care about the world, as with your heatwave of the XNUMXth century.

[Janic]

without forgetting that the dry residues are collected for composting or to be spread directly. Jojo the handjob should go soft on the masturbation! IT'S ECOLOGICAL BUT COUNTER PRODUCTIVE '!