Agreed geoengineering is bad science/engineering IMO. You can't know what the long term effects would be until after its been deployed. The safest bet would be to just ditch fossil fuels but that's not as sexy.
An economic system that is predicated on perpetual growth and resource extraction will eventually collapse as there is no more growth or resources to extract. Everyone is tapped out and there is nothing more you can squeeze. So it's not surprising that the people on the lower end of the economic pole are taking what they need to survive, if the economy can't provide for your basic needs then fuck the economy.
I mean yeah shit's toxic. How it's allowed in the regular food supply is beyond me.
The land barons of CA are no joke. They are a problem that we are going to have to deal with one way or another.
As a born/raised/living Californian I can attest to the fact that its not California that is the problem. But as my ancestors would say it's "El Pinche Gringo's" that tend to be the problem.
Based on this statement it looks like they were compelled by the courts:
They also provided an update:
So it sounds like they had their hand forced in that instance to provide the data and got a court ruling that allows them in the future to not retain that data. I would trust them.
Because he is not an actual progressive. Hes just a spoiled rich kid who like to pretend to be a progressive.
There is also the fact that they consume a lot less water. In regions where solar and wind energy are a surplus but fresh water is scarce, indoor farming makes more sense.
It's not unfeasible its just never going to have the high profit margins these companies keep pitching to VC's and banks. Farming is something that is done not because you make a huge profit from it but because you need food to survive.
Vertical farms fit in the niche for regions that have a significant population but have little water and large amount of arid land. They can allow for food to be grown closer to population centers and reduce the need for large water projects that are needed for irrigation farming. There is still going to be a need for irrigation farming for certain staple crops, but vertical farms can be used to grow certain fruiting vegetables and other leafy greens that would generally need a large amount of water in the same arid region.
Building a new food system is going to need vertical farms and other sustainable agriculture techniques, but it cannot be built on the same profit-for-profits sake economic system we currently have.
Its always fun watching the media machine work in real time. COP was a joke to begin with, it was a joke at the end. Nothing in that statement has any real measurements on how/when they are going to stop fossil fuel use and that's because they legitimately don't have one. The profit margins, the societal infrastructure that is built on fossil fuel use make them not want to touch it. They are addicted to constant non-stop GDP growth and nothing gets them there faster then using fossil fuels.
It is being discussed but in the context of Economics. Neo-liberal economic theory presupposes an economy that is infinitely growing and infinitely consuming. That is running head-on to the fact that there are natural limits to our consumption. Politicians, financial/business leaders and mainstream economists have skirted by talking about serious issues when it comes to health, society and equality by saying "growth will even it all out". Now growth hasn't even things out its just made inequality worse, our planets biosphere is collapsing and our leaders have no answers, why? Because they have been brainwashed by sudo-science and fairy tales of infinite growth and wealth.
People are discussing solutions to this within the context of Degrowth, ecological economics and doughnut economics. However those theories are not popular to the mainstream because it accepts limits and advocates for things like wealth redistribution and limits on wealth, and the extremely rich/powerful don't like that.
Not how economics work.