4 ms·
Really interesting, and potentially highly relevant to New Zealand where our many cows and sheep make up about a third of our emissions. Since cows produce quit
by abraae 8y ago
Really interesting, and potentially highly relevant to New Zealand where our many cows and sheep make up about a third of our emissions. Since cows produce quite variable emissions it sounds quite credible that some out of the box thinking like feeding seaweed could actually work in cutting emissions.
> (https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/greenhouse-gases/agricultural-greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/greenhouse-gases/...): Measurements of methane emission rates on sheep and dairy cows have repeatedly shown that the variability of emissions between individual animals is large (e.g. for young sheep grazing the same pasture, emission rates varied from 9 to 35 g/day per sheep). While this variability may one day be exploited to reduce methane release by selecting for low-emitting animals, it is not well understood.
- LoSboccacc 8y agothis news has made the run once a year since I was in high school https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257589662_Methane_production_and_theoretical_consumption_in_UK_livestock_production_Is_a_realistic_balance_possible https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257589662_Methane_p... so there's something to it that doesn't add up. either the economics of producing enough algae make it infeasible, or other factors come into play like milk/meat taste or even what to do with pastures if they aren't used for pasturing, it's not like you can grow stuff there.
- abraae 8y agoAs to your last point, pastures could be used to plant forestry, which locks up carbon in timber.
- LoSboccacc 8y agoThere are lot of pastures that can't grow anything because they're too hig, I was taking about those kind of fields.
- asdff 8y agoBasic economics. There's no reason why farmers should switch to more expensive feed even if its better for the environment or cows. At least near term they will end up selling the same meat for a higher price to compensate for the feed, will sell less meat due to the price, ultimately hurting profits, and the plan will be scorned until it's abandoned. It doesn't even matter that seaweed is cheap and resource-light to farm, nor does it matter that only a small amount of this compound needs to be put in the feed. Shareholders will not tolerate more overhead unless forced. This is the perfect place for government action to incentivize switching to this kind of feed, be it subsidy or tax break. Pollution is sadly profitable, and corporations need to be either fined for polluting or incentivized for reducing pollution; shareholders rarely see beyond quarterly profits, let alone the great economic consequences of pollution a century down the line.
- abraae 8y agoPerhaps this is why we might lose the battle on climate change. Its the ultimate tragedy of the commons and we are genuinely all in it together. It takes not government action, but global action. Why would producers in e.g. Germany put up with a carbon tax (or a methane tax) if producers in the US have their fingers in their ears, denying that climate change is a thing at all? I believe the only way action will ever happen is if a global enforcement agency imposes environmental taxes on the world and backs it up with force. Its hard to even imagine what the world would look like as something like that comes to pass. At the same time its a good thing to be preparing some solutions, e.g. carbon capture, seaweed eating cows. Just in case the world comes to its senses and decides to actually deploy/enforce said solutions.
- LoSboccacc 8y agoPersonally I'd prefer to tax pollution instead of rewarding good behavior with subsidies or cuts, hate to see tax dollars go to increase margins of private entities just because they're marginally less worse than the next one.