In a paper published in Science, Michael Clark and his colleagues looked at how food emissions might evolve over the coming century, and they studied whether these would be compatible with our global climate targets. 1 These emissions come from various sources: deforestation and land use change emissions from fertilizers and manure methane from cattle methane from rice production energy use on the farm supply chain emissions from food processing, refrigeration and transport. One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems (I’ve discussed the range and sources of these emissions in an earlier article). In a business-as-usual scenario emissions from food production alone could use up all of our 1.5☌ or 2☌ carbon budget
In this article I take a look at projections of emissions from food over the coming century, and what options we have to reduce them. Ignoring food emissions is also not an option. Getting off of fossil fuels should be our top priority.īut equally, as we will see in this article, even if we reduce non-food emissions to zero tomorrow, emissions from food production alone could hinder our chances of keeping temperature rise below 1.5☌ or 2☌ by the end of the century. We don’t have the option of neglecting one or the other.Įnergy accounts for two-thirds to three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. If we don’t achieve large changes to both, then we stand little chance of coming close to our climate targets. This often raises debate of where our attention should be: do we focus on energy or food fossil fuels or meat? But this is a false dichotomy. To address global climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a low climate impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone. There are a range of options to successfully reduce food emissions: a shift to more plant-based diets healthy calorie consumption less food waste and improvements in crop yields and farming practices. Even if we stopped emissions from fossil fuels right now, emissions from food production alone would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5☌, and leave little room to reach our 2☌ target. Equally, as we show in this article, we cannot reach our climate targets without tackling global food production. We cannot address climate change without moving away from fossil fuels. It’s sometimes argued that we should focus on one or the other. No idea why they're bringing Shaft into this however.The two big sources of greenhouse gas emissions are energy and food production. But where they truly stand out is in their use of "after effects" or post production process that give them their characteristic visual style, which I think it's great but I'm not entirely sure if it fits or not in a potential part 7 or even part 8 of Jojo
#DOES DAVID PRODUCTION HAVE ENOUGH BUDGET SERIES#
They are good and I love their adaptations to the Fate series (the only ones worth watching for other several reasons too). What Ufotable is known for isn't its good animation or what people refer to as "CGI" (umbrella term popularly meant to indicate use of 3d models in movement). I think Part 6 and beyond will be just fine, whether they're collabs or not JoJo is the only adaptation I've ever watched where I truly believe it wouldn't've been as good if another studio made it. And when they're not doing "trippy", their shows look like regular anime from any other studio, IMOĭavidpro, however, produced the first 5 JoJo parts on their own and they look phenomenal. Sure, they do a fantastic job doing it, but it isn't my cup of tea. Every time without fail that someone says that, the image provided has characters fighting who, to me, are blatantly CGĪs for Shaft, I just don't like their "trippy" style, TBH. Most of the time when I ask, people point to the Fate/ series and talk about how the CGI is so good because it's unnoticeable. I honestly dunno why Ufotable are considered one of the best animation studios, TBH.
0 kommentar(er)
