3 ms·

From wikipedia: Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 9 years in the atmosphere, whereas carbon dioxide

by plopz 8y ago

From wikipedia: Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 9 years in the atmosphere, whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period, having an estimated lifetime of over 100 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Methane_as_a_greenhouse_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Methane_as...

beat 8y ago
Based on this, it suggests that cattle, while problematic, are carbon-neutral and have been for a long time. I did bother to google about the number of cattle on Earth, which has bee stable at around one billion since the 1970s. The sharp increases in both global population and global wealth haven't changed that for decades. So unless I'm missing something (which is very possible), the amount of methane in the atmosphere from cattle is probably static rather than growing, and the amount of carbon consumed by said cattle is also static.
- totoglazer 8y ago
  Methane has reached a steady state. However, if CO2 lasts 100 years, and methane -> CO2 takes 9 years, only in 2079 will we have equilibrium. Right now 1billion cows are producing greenhouse gases, but <<1b cows worth of greenhouse gases generated in 1918 are "expiring."
  - beat 8y ago
    Well, yeah. How many cattle did we have then? The numbers I found go back to 1960, which was about 750M. Has it doubled in the last century, or quadrupled? Either way, though, it doesn't seem the problem is getting worse, at least. The question is, can we make it better? Can we reduce the level of greenhouse gasses related to cattle, short of just reducing the number of cattle, which seems more like wishful thinking than a plan. My thought from earlier is to act to reduce the amount of corn-feeding and encourage pasture feeding, which takes external carbon (fuel and fertilizer from corn farming) out of the equation. Grazing cattle are typically raised on land that isn't useful for more lucrative farming, living on wild pasture or scrub.

by plopz 8y ago

beat 8y ago

Based on this, it suggests that cattle, while problematic, are carbon-neutral and have been for a long time. I did bother to google about the number of cattle on Earth, which has bee stable at around one billion since the 1970s. The sharp increases in both global population and global wealth haven't changed that for decades. So unless I'm missing something (which is very possible), the amount of methane in the atmosphere from cattle is probably static rather than growing, and the amount of carbon consumed by said cattle is also static.

totoglazer 8y ago
Methane has reached a steady state. However, if CO2 lasts 100 years, and methane -> CO2 takes 9 years, only in 2079 will we have equilibrium. Right now 1billion cows are producing greenhouse gases, but <<1b cows worth of greenhouse gases generated in 1918 are "expiring."
- beat 8y ago
  Well, yeah. How many cattle did we have then? The numbers I found go back to 1960, which was about 750M. Has it doubled in the last century, or quadrupled? Either way, though, it doesn't seem the problem is getting worse, at least. The question is, can we make it better? Can we reduce the level of greenhouse gasses related to cattle, short of just reducing the number of cattle, which seems more like wishful thinking than a plan. My thought from earlier is to act to reduce the amount of corn-feeding and encourage pasture feeding, which takes external carbon (fuel and fertilizer from corn farming) out of the equation. Grazing cattle are typically raised on land that isn't useful for more lucrative farming, living on wild pasture or scrub.