▲ 1180 ▼ Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world 161 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) GMO != organic as far as I know? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) In the US organic means no GMOs as well according to usda permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago Gotcha. That’s a shame permalink fedilink source parent [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Usually people assume organic is the opposite of GMOs and stuff, but it's also nonsense because they'd never drink water straight from a puddle, but want the shit on their crops to be as untreated as possible. Or well, sold to them that way, of course it's not, it's just fertilizer #2 instead of the - more efficient and hence indirectly better for the environment - fertilizer #1. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) In the US organic means no GMOs as well according to usda permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago Gotcha. That’s a shame permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago Gotcha. That’s a shame permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Usually people assume organic is the opposite of GMOs and stuff, but it's also nonsense because they'd never drink water straight from a puddle, but want the shit on their crops to be as untreated as possible. Or well, sold to them that way, of course it's not, it's just fertilizer #2 instead of the - more efficient and hence indirectly better for the environment - fertilizer #1. permalink fedilink source parent