This is very interesting. I hope it continues

ok, so things turned green and things look much better. Which I agree, looks great!

So why all the hate for cows in the green movement ,but bison are ok? Buffalo's and cows are very similar, similar enough that they are bred to each other.

only registered users can see external links


only registered users can see external links
methane from buffalo

only registered users can see external links

Yes, buffalo belch (or burp—the terms are often used interchangeably for the same action of expelling gas from the stomach).
Buffalo are ruminants, a group of herbivores that includes cattle, sheep, goats, bison (often called American buffalo), and water buffalo. Ruminants have a specialized four-chambered stomach where microbes ferment plant material, producing large amounts of gas (mostly carbon dioxide and methane) as a byproduct. To release this gas and prevent dangerous bloating (a condition called bloat that can be fatal if belching stops), ruminants continually eructate—belching silently about once per minute, unlike the louder human version.
This applies to both major types of buffalo:

American bison (commonly called buffalo in North America): They eructate during specific rumen contractions, similar to cattle. Their belches contribute methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Water buffalo (Asian buffalo): As ruminants, they follow the same digestive process and belch regularly.

In short, belching is a normal, essential part of how buffalo (and all ruminants) digest food—without it, they'd swell up like a balloon and potentially die.


Yes, buffalo do fart. This includes both American bison (often called buffalo in North America) and other species like water buffalo. They are ruminants, meaning they have multi-chambered stomachs where microbes ferment plant material, producing gases like methane as a byproduct. While most of this gas is released through belching (eructation), some does exit as flatulence from the rear.
Scientific studies on bison herds have measured significant enteric methane emissions (from digestion), with per-animal outputs comparable to or sometimes higher than cattle, and flatulence is explicitly part of how this gas is released. Historic estimates suggest pre-colonial bison populations (tens of millions) produced methane equivalent to modern livestock, including through farts.

Not yet, but they will, sooner than later.
Do understand that folks that actually USE trucks for their purposes,
are a tiny minority of truck users.

A study by Strategic Vision found that nearly 90 % of truck buyers said they never use their truck for business towing, mobile-office or worksites.
only registered users can see external links

Another summary shows:

Only about 7 % of pickup-truck owners frequently use their trucks to tow.
About 28 % frequently haul personal items; 47 % do so occasionally.
only registered users can see external links

According to a report by the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), only about 28 % of pickup owners say they see their truck as a “true work vehicle”.
only registered users can see external links

One statistic cited by an automotive-facts site: “Only 15 % of truck owners use their pickup trucks for work.”
only registered users can see external links

I don't own an electric car myself, because they don't provide me what I need for the price I am willing to pay. However, looking at the fast pace development of EV's, I'm confident that they will, when my current car has reached the end of it's economic repair lifetime.

The statement you quoted is partially true but also contains elements of unverified claims and sensationalism that should be treated with caution. Here’s a breakdown of what is known and what is not fully substantiated:

✅ What is true

1. The feed additive Bovaer (active ingredient 3-nitrooxypropanol, 3-NOP) is being used in Denmark in dairy cattle feed as part of efforts to reduce methane emissions.

2. Denmark has put in place policies to reduce methane emissions from dairy farming — including subsidies/confidence for feed additives — as part of its climate / agricultural emissions strategy.

3. There are reports from Danish farmers of animal health problems (e.g., reduced milk output, cows „sluggish“, some rumen-failure, some culls) after the introduction of Bovaer in some herds.

4. The manufacturer (DSM‑Firmenich) and Danish authorities have acknowledged and are investigating the reports of problems (though they do not conclude causation yet).

⚠️ What is not (yet) clearly proven

1. While farmers report cows “collapsing” and being euthanized, I did not locate independent, peer-reviewed or official veterinary data that confirms widespread collapses/euthanization directly caused by the additive. The media reports and farmer complaints are there, but causality is not established.

2. The claim that the policy “after Jan. 1 2025” mandated the additive in “large dairy farms” and that cows “started giving less milk, collapsing and in some instances getting so ill that they need to be euthanized” is a strong version of the claim and appears to be more sensational than the evidence currently supports. For example:

- The requirement noted in ­Agriland: “Since January 1, 2025, all conventional dairy farmers in Denmark with more than 50 cows are required to reduce methane emissions by either adjusting feed (increasing fat) or adding Bovaer for 80 days a year.”

- The phrase “collapsing cows” appears in certain farmer-complaint articles and blogs,
but not in official statistical data indicating a systemic collapse across Danish dairy herds.

Also be aware: Some of the articles you quoted (and similar ones) come from outlets with strongly charged language (“cows drop like flies,” etc). These may amplify or interpret anecdotal reports without full vetting.

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

Feeding cows "processed food" has been going on for a long time, with the goal
of maximizing profits. Your mental image of cows grazing in the pasture is obsolete.
31% of cows in The Netherlands never comes outside, the rest only (a small) part
of the year.



When they are inside, they are eating processed feed. Most farmers have their own production pasture or grain field to grow ingredients for the feed, but almost all of them
add large scale produced feed and additives.

De Heus Animal Nutrition
only registered users can see external links

ForFarmers
only registered users can see external links

Agrifirm
only registered users can see external links

The animal feed industry in The Netherlands has an estimated annual revenue of approximately $16.5 Billion.

Cows are milk and meat factories and don't get treated as animals that can suffer.
It's your side of politics that created that, and it's NOT your side of politics that is
aiming to make farming less cruel to animals. You celebrate 'profit over people',
so why would you care that profit hurts animals?

Feed additives like Bovaer are an alternative for reducing cattle.
Denying the reality of climate change is not helping anyone.
At least in Denmark they are trying a compromise. You better hope it works,
or you can say goodbye to milk and beef altogether.

Is there ANY actual scientific argument against climate change in there?

The kind of arguments that you are pushing are flat earth level arguments.

In one post you are proposing that climate change action is a waste of money and bad investments, but here you are saying that the whole goal of them are making money.
That doesn't compute, you cannot make money with bad investments.

How many threats and harassment do you think the OG Greta receives?

Throw yourself on your fainting couch for getting some hate back.
My side should stop being tolerant towards intolerance.

The side that you think is brainwashed, has science, facts and logic on its side.
Your side has nothing besides conspiracy theories and projection.

Why oh why would investments in clean energy drop in the US,
when you have a president who wants to destroy it?

Instead of investing in green energy, Trump is now trying to steal the oil of Venezuela.
If we are talking about bullshit, you are the one supporting it.

Alternative energy isn't bullshit, it's the cheapest least polluting energy.
It's California now, that is suffering from your ignorance, but soon it will be your whole country. You cannot win in global competition, by dragging your feet in innovation.
If you keep waging war and stealing shit, the rest of the world will shun you.
That will be the end of your empire, because global trade made you what you are.

When I bought my solar panels, they cost me about $6000.
I still made my money back in 3.5 years, because of high energy prices.
Now they are making me free electricity, every day, for the next 20-30 years.
That same amount of power on my roof would cost me about half of that today.
Explain what's bullshit about that.

Of course Bill Gates isn't going broke. Billionaires will be the last group to suffer
from climate change. Better think about yourself and people like you.

This is the actual post by Bill Gates:
only registered users can see external links

Here are some important statements:

"There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:
In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further."

"Although climate change will hurt poor people more than anyone else, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been. Understanding this will let us focus our limited resources on interventions that will have the greatest impact for the most vulnerable people."

"To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives."

"In short, climate change, disease, and poverty are all major problems. We should deal with them in proportion to the suffering they cause. And we should use data to maximize the impact of every action we take.
I believe that embracing the following three truths will help us do that."

Truth #1: Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization.
"Even if the world takes only moderate action to curb climate change, the current consensus is that by 2100 the Earth’s average temperature will probably be between 2°C and 3°C higher than it was in 1850."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He is referring to the “MODERATE ACTION” scenario, which is somewhat subjective; whether the world will indeed follow a moderate action path is uncertain. If action is weaker (or worse) the warming could exceed 3 °C.

At the moment Trump is refusing to do anything and he is ramping up fossil fuel consumption. Other countries are also not doing anything even close to reach that “moderate action” scenario. That means they are performing along the high emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5), of which the range is about 3.3–5.7 °C projected temperature increase.

That projection MIGHT not predict the complete end of civilization, but it will force billions
of people to move from the hottest places on Earth.

Still, there is the risk of a "Hothouse Earth" feedback loop.
The paper "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene", published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2018, explores how crossing certain tipping points could lead to a long-term temperature rise of 4–5°C even if human emissions cease, with devastating consequences like massive sea-level rise.

It describes conditions leading to "serious disruptions" and an environment "inhospitable to current human societies," suggesting such a trajectory would likely take the climate beyond human adaptation limits, making the planet "largely uninhabitable" and raising the specter of civilizational collapse.

Part of what's left of civilization could possibly survive on Greenland, which is why
your billionaires are interested in conquering it. They want their progeny to survive,
on Greenland (or on Mars), while everyone else suffers and dies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current temperature has increased by about 1.3 °C to 1.6 °C above 1850-1900 levels, with 2024 being the warmest year on record and exceeding the 1.5 °C threshold.

In the hottest regions on Earth, climate change is
intensifying existing threats and creating new ones, primarily through more frequent and severe heatwaves, water scarcity, and desertification. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is warming at twice the global average, providing a clear example of these accelerating impacts.

Extreme heat and health
The most immediate and life-threatening effect is the dramatic increase in the intensity, frequency, and duration of heatwaves.

Health crisis: Heat-related mortality is increasing, particularly among the elderly and outdoor workers. High temperatures also worsen existing health issues like cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
Threat to life: Some projections indicate that parts of the MENA region could experience heat and humidity levels that exceed the limits of human tolerance. In 2023, Al Hudaydah, a major city in Yemen, was projected to face over 300 days a year of unbearable heat if global warming continues at its current rate.
Urban heat island effect: Cities in hot regions trap and retain heat, making them significantly warmer than surrounding rural areas. This intensifies the effects of heatwaves for millions of urban residents.

Water scarcity and desertification
For regions already suffering from a lack of water, climate change is compounding a severe water crisis.

Accelerated water loss: Higher temperatures increase evaporation rates, drying out soil and reducing available water resources. The MENA region, with 12 of the world's 17 most water-stressed countries, is facing unprecedented water scarcity.
Desert expansion: Rising temperatures, less predictable rainfall, and land mismanagement are causing deserts to expand and consume fertile land. This process, known as desertification, reduces arable land and threatens food security.
Saltwater intrusion: In coastal areas like Egypt's Nile Delta, rising sea levels are causing saltwater to intrude into freshwater aquifers and farmland, poisoning the soil and displacing millions.

Food and agriculture
Agricultural systems are extremely vulnerable to heat and water stress, leading to a decline in food production.

Crop and livestock failure: High daytime and nighttime temperatures can damage crops and cause livestock to suffer from heat stress, resulting in reduced yields and productivity. Repeated droughts, such as those that contributed to the Syrian civil war, have devastated agricultural production in the Middle East.
Intensified food insecurity: Reduced crop yields and water scarcity are increasing food insecurity and malnutrition, especially in vulnerable communities.

Economic and social consequences
The environmental effects of climate change trigger a cascade of economic and social crises in the hottest areas.

Displacement and migration: Food and water shortages, combined with rising sea levels, are forcing people to flee their homes. Climate change adds another layer of pressure to already unstable regions, with millions projected to be displaced.
Infrastructure strain: Intense heat puts immense pressure on power grids and other infrastructure. Increased demand for air conditioning can cause energy shortages and blackouts, and heat can damage transport systems like railways.
Socioeconomic inequality: Those with the fewest resources suffer the most from climate change impacts. In hot areas, wealthier individuals can use air conditioning and migrate during heatwaves, while low-income workers, particularly those in outdoor jobs, face much higher risks.

I agree

You're still using those old blue LEDs?
What a third world country you live in.
We have LEDs in every natural color possible now.

Thomas Edison would love how innovation obsoleted his invention.
He would love how it lasted for more than 100 years too.
That's what scientists LIVE for. Progress!

The reason given by its operators for ending contracts includes that the project
“was successful, but unable to compete with rival photovoltaic solar technology,
such as rooftop panels, which have much lower capital and operating costs.”

It's solar that cannot compete with superior solar.
Still, PV solar cannot compete with onshore wind.
But, for areas with lots of sun and not much wind, it's better.

According to IRENA, in 2024 onshore wind had an average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of about US $0.034 per kWh.
Solar PV was next cheapest, averaging around US $0.043 per kWh globally.

Interesting, but he made at least one mistake;
the global average temperature obviously wasn't -5°F.
That would have caused a global mass extinction event.