this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
125 points (97.7% liked)

Climate

8263 readers
229 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
125
Farming insects mostly replaces already low-impact plant ingredients, not high-emission animal products. Farming insects is “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution. (drawdown.org)
submitted 1 day ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

I read the summary and I half agree. They draw the conclusion based on the insects not being consumed directly but if they would be it's a whole another ball game.

The thing is that nobody has tried to make protein bars from processed finely ground insects and marketed it as keratin protein bars. Maybe even fried bug-nuggets and just call them nuggets to save money or anything else that is not just directly eating tiny crispy legs that get stuck in the teeth.

If there's a protein bar with bugs and chocolate that's cheaper than whey bars I'd buy it every now and then. If it would be sold in a fast food shops in a homogeneous fried blob I'd also try it out of curiosity.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Chirps (chips made of powdered cricket) exist, but they never took off. People have tried a lot of ideas, its moreso that consumers havent really shown much motivation towards insects as a protein

Keratin protein bars is one of the better ideas Ive heard. Even still a lot of people wouldnt touch it if they saw it was insect-derived protein on the label

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

Yeah, people don't want it if they know it has bugs in it. That's why you have to put it under some alias such as the Latin name under ingredients only. Putting "it has bugs" on the label is pretty much the opposite of what you should do because then you only target like 0.1% of the population.

Later on you could make an "organic" version "with real insect keratin" or whatever.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

There are huge cultural barriers to direct intentional human consumption of insects in the US and Europe. I will be very surprised if this can actually be achieved

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

I think that the cultural barriers can be overcome with a pricing strategy. If the bug nuggets can be a lot cheaper than normal nuggets for example, people would be more willing to try it and adopt it.