China to impose 34% retaliatory tariff on all goods imported from the U.S.

[u/johnk317]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/04/china-to-impose-34percent-retaliatory-tariff-on-all-goods-imported-from-the-us.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard

[u/Anguis1908]

Crops that would be frozen or canned? From a farm in Iowa/Nebraska/ect to NY/CA/AK?...there are plenty of food crops that rot instead of being available for the market price to drop.

Greenhouse gases is a red herring. A community park uses a ridiculous amount of water, while also contributing a ton to greenhouse gasses.

[u/PrinceBunnyBoy → u/Anguis1908]

Freezing and canning are very viable methods of food preservation. It is well known that California produces a majority of the United States food, as someone who lived most of their life in Louisiana i can't tell you how many times I saw californian grapes for example.

Louisiana doesn't grow grapes to feed it's population, we grow corn and cotton.

Show me a single study that a community park uses more water than Animal agriculture and I'll eat my hat. Not only that parks and other wild areas are demolished for animal ag cause it uses more land than plants.

Wilderness doesn't have an equivalent, Animal ranching does.

[u/Anguis1908 → u/PrinceBunnyBoy]

According to this about 20% of GHG emissions is attributed to urban greenery. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3043/study-urban-greenery-plays-a-surprising-role-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

According to this about 14.5% GHG emissions from Animal Ag. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7929601/

It is not apples to apples as the greenery study tracked Carbon-14 to isolated from other carbon footprint such as fuels; meanwhile the information on animal ag focuses on nitrous oxide. The scale is also different where the greenery targets at the city level while the animal ag looks at world. Even with those distinctions it is not insignificant and worth knowing when determining policy.

For water usage, a 2015 US report put Livestock usage at 2 Bgal, while thermoelectric was 4.31 Bgal, total irrigation (I assume farming) 118 Bgal, and public-supply (pop. 325 mil) at 39 Bgal.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/cir1441

By this article in LA, similar target of the greenery emissions study, gave 769,656,000 gallons as 30% saved from prior year usage. Meaning prior year (2015) usage was 769,656,000 / 0.30 = 2,565,520,000 (2.5 Bgal)

https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2016/april/doubling-down-on-water-and-energy-conservation/

[u/PrinceBunnyBoy → u/Anguis1908]

"Our analysis further reveals that the amplitude of CO 2originating from the urban biosphere (4.3 ppm) is 33% of the annual mean fossil fuel contribution.

A recently published study showed that among the overall sources of carbon dioxide in urban environments, a fraction is from decaying trees, lawns, and other urban vegetation. The contribution is modest - about one-fifth of the measured CO2 contributed by the urban environment - and varies seasonally."

That's from that one study, I have no idea where they got the 20% annual mean of fossil fuels and when I try to look up that data it only links back to that one study, also they state that in some seasons its a CO2 sink not contributor. This study is using data that is 5 years old.

"In short, livestock production appears to contribute about 11%–17% of global greenhouse gas emissions, when using the most recent GWP-100 values, though there remains great uncertainty in much of the underlying data such as methane emissions from enteric fermentation, CO2 emissions from grazing land, or land-use change caused by animal agriculture."

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Your water studies are over a decade old, so I'm not even going to take them into consideration.