4 ms·

CO2 emissions have remained relatively constant from energy producing sources since the 90's in the U.S.[1]. Obviously, this is not the case for China and the a

CO2 emissions have remained relatively constant from energy producing sources since the 90's in the U.S.[1]. Obviously, this is not the case for China and the alike. However, what we also don't consider is that cattle, swine, and most of all Humans digestion produce an exorbitant amount of those emissions. I just spend ~10 minutes searching and couldn't find a source regarding how much CO2 we as humans produce, but I would guess it's a lot more than other livestock. CO2 levels have less of an impact than other chemicals on the atmosphere[2]: > It (livestock) generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure. [1]https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.ht... [2]http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772

spdustin 10y ago
Human digestion doesn't produce nearly the amount of methane as cattle. Our digestive processes don't rely so heavily on fermentation. Of course, if we stopped eating meat, our digestive processes over time would evolve to include more fermentation, so... Hard to say. But, now, humans aren't ruminants, and so produce climatically insignificant amounts of methane. Livestock doesn't even account for the majority of methane production anyway; landfills, fossil fuel production, and burning of biomass produce even more. That said, we do need to reduce our dependence on ruminants as a food source. Methane production aside, a significant amount of deforestation occurs to make grazing land for cattle. Add in carbon/methane emissions during transportation of livestock products, environmental effects of the deforestation... Cattle have a fairly large carbon "hoofprint". (I use carbon footprint, or humorous derivation thereof, to include methane, which does after all include carbon)

spdustin 10y ago

Human digestion doesn't produce nearly the amount of methane as cattle. Our digestive processes don't rely so heavily on fermentation. Of course, if we stopped eating meat, our digestive processes over time would evolve to include more fermentation, so... Hard to say. But, now, humans aren't ruminants, and so produce climatically insignificant amounts of methane. Livestock doesn't even account for the majority of methane production anyway; landfills, fossil fuel production, and burning of biomass produce even more. That said, we do need to reduce our dependence on ruminants as a food source. Methane production aside, a significant amount of deforestation occurs to make grazing land for cattle. Add in carbon/methane emissions during transportation of livestock products, environmental effects of the deforestation... Cattle have a fairly large carbon "hoofprint". (I use carbon footprint, or humorous derivation thereof, to include methane, which does after all include carbon)