Kim Lund
@sustainabletakes.bsky.social
Here for learn. I run the cross-genre gaming studio Aftermath Interactive and also founded the communication agency Formatfabriken which predominately serves sustainability NPOs and impact tech. Plan to advance climate impact awareness through play...
I'm just a communicator so what do I know, but it makes a huge difference to argue that you have to give all of the meat and saying you have to give up all of it except this bit here. You can have as much of that as we can sustainbly produce (which is not going to be much).
November 11, 2025 at 1:03 PM
I'm just a communicator so what do I know, but it makes a huge difference to argue that you have to give all of the meat and saying you have to give up all of it except this bit here. You can have as much of that as we can sustainbly produce (which is not going to be much).
Right. Arguing for grass-fed beef from an emission perspecive seems very flawed. But I just don't think it's reasonable to push a strategy that say ignores the fact that under ideal conditions grass-fed dairy cows can have a Protein Conversion Rate < 1.
It's way too hard a sell.
It's way too hard a sell.
November 11, 2025 at 1:01 PM
Right. Arguing for grass-fed beef from an emission perspecive seems very flawed. But I just don't think it's reasonable to push a strategy that say ignores the fact that under ideal conditions grass-fed dairy cows can have a Protein Conversion Rate < 1.
It's way too hard a sell.
It's way too hard a sell.
That's a perplexing binary premise. To suggest it’s one or the other is disingenuous and, I think, very destructive to efforts aimed at promoting behavioral change.
November 11, 2025 at 11:51 AM
That's a perplexing binary premise. To suggest it’s one or the other is disingenuous and, I think, very destructive to efforts aimed at promoting behavioral change.
I mean, not impossible. I think I choose to believe the take the destruction of USAid etc has exposed (an even more) urgent need that he's chosen to focus on but...
October 30, 2025 at 4:25 PM
I mean, not impossible. I think I choose to believe the take the destruction of USAid etc has exposed (an even more) urgent need that he's chosen to focus on but...
If there ever was a published correction to any wording in the above post then I did not read it, will not read it and it never existed :-)
October 30, 2025 at 4:23 PM
If there ever was a published correction to any wording in the above post then I did not read it, will not read it and it never existed :-)
Not sure how that is related but I tend to believe the many claims that he is - in some capacity.
October 30, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Not sure how that is related but I tend to believe the many claims that he is - in some capacity.
I guess my point is that it seems to me that the "2-3 degrees will be fine" crowd aren't clear on what is baked into those projections.
The SSPs are what they are. I'm not qualified to opine really, but I mean, SSPs population projections for exampe are likely way off so they're not gospels.
The SSPs are what they are. I'm not qualified to opine really, but I mean, SSPs population projections for exampe are likely way off so they're not gospels.
October 30, 2025 at 3:59 PM
I guess my point is that it seems to me that the "2-3 degrees will be fine" crowd aren't clear on what is baked into those projections.
The SSPs are what they are. I'm not qualified to opine really, but I mean, SSPs population projections for exampe are likely way off so they're not gospels.
The SSPs are what they are. I'm not qualified to opine really, but I mean, SSPs population projections for exampe are likely way off so they're not gospels.
Sure. I look forward to it. But The New Yok Post has an audience separate from your Substack. And they take from it what is there on paper.
October 30, 2025 at 2:29 PM
Sure. I look forward to it. But The New Yok Post has an audience separate from your Substack. And they take from it what is there on paper.
It's fine to argue that 2-3 degrees of warming is the realistic span for 2100 but not imho if one - at the same time - ignores the dangers of the current path being disrupted by those eager to execute on the denialist narrative. We can easily get to 4-5 degrees if the wheels fall off.
October 30, 2025 at 2:08 PM
It's fine to argue that 2-3 degrees of warming is the realistic span for 2100 but not imho if one - at the same time - ignores the dangers of the current path being disrupted by those eager to execute on the denialist narrative. We can easily get to 4-5 degrees if the wheels fall off.
I mean what is this criticism:
"Your comment is rather like criticising promoters of renewable energy for not being objective about fossil fuels."
Of course that's what it is. Scientific rigour requires that objectivity.
"Your comment is rather like criticising promoters of renewable energy for not being objective about fossil fuels."
Of course that's what it is. Scientific rigour requires that objectivity.
October 23, 2025 at 12:49 PM
I mean what is this criticism:
"Your comment is rather like criticising promoters of renewable energy for not being objective about fossil fuels."
Of course that's what it is. Scientific rigour requires that objectivity.
"Your comment is rather like criticising promoters of renewable energy for not being objective about fossil fuels."
Of course that's what it is. Scientific rigour requires that objectivity.
What did I reject precisely? Pretty much nothing that has been presented in this thread deals with the initial claim which is that there is A scale on which meat can be produced sustainably. It might be very, very small but the scale exists.
October 23, 2025 at 12:45 PM
What did I reject precisely? Pretty much nothing that has been presented in this thread deals with the initial claim which is that there is A scale on which meat can be produced sustainably. It might be very, very small but the scale exists.