Caravan owners will often holiday in them frequently, though others will mostly/exclusively use them as holiday lets. I believe that they can't be occupied all the time (maybe 10 months in a year) so no permanent residents (I could be wrong on that though.)
atan
joined 2 years ago
If we don't act soon, literally the entirety of the world's GDP will be spent on treating type-2 diabetes! It will be totally unavoidable!
For real though, I have to work now. Go tell your jokes to someone else.
No comrade - forsake this heresy! Never forget that "It is impossible to get type 2 diabetes eating a ASF diet." To save the planet and eliminate type-2 diabetes and metabolic dysfunction we must convert all available land to the raising of livestock. It is the only way!
I wish to join your crusade against the scourge of type-2 diabetes. Let's get the whole planet on a keto diet - it's the only way to stamp out what is clearly the biggest threat to civilisation! I'm not sure how we're going to rear all the livestock needed ... perhaps we focus on eating 'long pig' for a generation or two.
And now we're back to equivocating and straight-up bullshit. The idea that the treatment of diet-based health problems has an environmental impact at anywhere near the level of rearing livestock is so laughable, that it's hard to believe that you're not just trolling now.
"It is impossible to get type 2 diabetes eating a ASF diet."
You mean a zero-carb diet?! I've clearly taken you far more seriously than you deserve - more fool me.
I'd love to engage in productive discussion, but you're clearly being disingenuous and I'm not prepared to waste anymore time with you.
I'm sorry but while it might be your first priority, your health condition is irrelevant to the science. The overwhelming majority of the planet's population can get all the nutrients they need from non-animal sources. Dedicating so much land to the raising of livestock is extremely destructive and utterly unnecessarily.
Have you considered an ortholinear layout? Can use the whole keyboard as a numpad if you like (I'm a programmer too and specifically went for a 40% ortho for this reason.)
You're denying well established science to try to justify your lifestyle. It's time to start being honest with yourself.
Did you actually read that paper? It's talking about hundreds of nanograms of methane produced per gram of plant matter. The rumen produces about 20,000,000ng of methane per gram of grass.
No, removing livestock will generally lead to increased vegetation and biodiversity, longer growth and more photosynthesis. There would be an increase in plant litter leading to increased microbial activity - releasing some carbon as CO2, and sequestering most of the rest in the soil.
Methane production would occur in anaerobic conditions (e.g. waterlogged or more compacted soil,) but nowhere near as efficiently as it does in the rumen of livestock.
No. Without addressing water sources, if livestock only produced carbon dioxide they might come close to net neutral, but the methane they produce is a huge component of their effect on the climate; that methane simply wouldn't be a factor if the land were left fallow. They also engineer the land, preventing the growth of forest and creation of peat in areas where it would naturally occur.
view more: next ›
Dithering... Shit or get off the pot.