Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

It comes from the goddamn sun. If you don’t load your pastures with monoculture grass stock and chew it to the dirt every season, you don’t have to constantly plow and fertilize it to keep it grazeable.

Cows aren't necessary.

It comes from the goddamn sun. If you don’t load your pastures with monoculture grass stock and chew it to the dirt every season, you don’t have to constantly plow and fertilize it to keep it grazeable.

Same, but I have actual degrees in Ag. & Life Sci.

When you promote this grazing idea, you're also bringing in land use change, which means that you're destroying food provisioning and, thus, food security, in order to create a luxury commodity for a few people.

If you don't keep in mind what the point is to feed people, you're going to keep missing the big picture.

And the transportation costs I referred to are costs transporting and producing those fertilizers – and the supplemental feeds you need when you overextend the land and thus have to stop grazing on them during long stretches.

Sure. The main problem there is the nitrogen fertilizers, not just because of the production GHGs, but also because of N2O emissions, just like from animal farming.

I’m not sure if this point is lost on you or if you’re being obtuse, but you have dodged it again here even though I think I mentioned it pretty directly here.

It's unclear what you're arguing for. I'm trying to tell you that regenerative grazing is a scam, [2], [3], [4]. If you want to skip those links, go here: https://tabledebates.org/publication/grazed-and-confused they have a short documentary along with the report.

Cows aren't necessary in regenerative agriculture, there are other ways which actually help with restoration and carbon storage.

Your argument here is that it may not work everywhere and is therefore bad… that’s a bad argument.

No, my argument is that it's bad to promote scams and greenwashing.