8 ms·

This is terrible advice, because it makes people think they did "enough" themselves to combat climate change when dropping animal product methane to 0 would not

This is terrible advice, because it makes people think they did "enough" themselves to combat climate change when dropping animal product methane to 0 would not even be close to enough. Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions. These need to be dealt with, swiftly. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

simonh 7y ago
It’s great advice because it’s a tangible change individuals can make immediately. There is very little we can individually do about the 100 companies, or do at all in the short term. This problem will need to be tackled on multiple fronts simultaneously. Advising people not to do something that could make a real difference doesn’t seem particularly helpful. I’m fed up reading comments along the lines of ‘we shouldn’t try to solve this problem, because we should be solving this other problem instead’. In every case I’ve seen this argument, there’s absolutely no constraint at all preventing us from doing both.
- keymone 7y ago
  The advice may not be as great. Amount of land and water needed to grow crops that sufficiently replace nutrition provided by meat may be worse for climate change than just eating meat. Obviously that only applies to grass-fed cattle. I don’t have a source right now, but the choice is not as obvious as many think.
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    Isn’t most cattle fed grain?
    - keymone 7y ago
      Yes it is, which is the main issue because apart from impact on land, corn-fed cows do excrete(?) more methane than grass-fed.
      - Doubl 7y ago
        I thought it was the other way around, unfortunately, because I'd rather see cattle on pastures rather than in yards
  - perfunctory 7y ago
    > Obviously that only applies to grass-fed cattle. There is simply not enough land to replace all meat supply with grass-fed cattle meat. So if we all want to eat meat from grass-fed cattle only, that would mean exactly radical reduction in meat consumption.
    - keymone 7y ago
      There is not enough land to produce equal amount of meat at the same price point. There is plenty land to produce enough more expensive meat. Which also reduces meat consumption. It’s a win all around.
  - jaxr 7y ago
    The efficiency of converting plant based protein into animal protein to feed that to humans is very low [1]. A huge portion of the crops are actually used to feed cattle. If humans stopped eating meat tomorrow, we would have plenty of food (we'd better start eating a lot more soy, though) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/1...
    - keymone 7y ago
      Cattle doesn’t convert plant based protein into animal protein. Also cattle eats crop that humans can’t eat and which grows in significantly more tough conditions than those required for crops used as feed. Eating lots of soy is not healthy. It’s a very weird and unconvincing argument on your part, to suggest humans should just start eating crops fed to cattle and that would somehow work in terms of sufficiently healthy and available nutrition as well as being net positive on climate change. Cattle eats grass which grows everywhere in the world and cattle produces vastly healthier and nutritious profile of fat, protein, vitamins and other essential nutrients than what you could achieve by growing human edible crops for similar price. Sure you can achieve good nutrition with other expensive vegetables but that’s not what will happen if humans stop eating cattle. Let’s be realistic.
      - nmca 7y ago
        Baffled to read this, as I thought it was widely established as grossly inaccurate. Suggest you read Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; de Haan, Cees (2006), Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options Or alternatively anything about food culture and supply in India. I don't believe your current position is substantiated by any evidence; but I'm happy to look through any relevant numbers if you can find them.
        ar-jan 7y ago
        I suggest you also read Steinfeld's own correction regarding the 2006 claim that livestock accounts for 18% of GHG emissions: "The comparison measures direct emissions from transport against both direct and indirect emissions from livestock." http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0 http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0
ced 7y ago
All companies exist to serve customer demand, or to serve companies that serve customer demand. Sure, they should be regulated (... thus increasing the price of consumer goods?) On an individual level, traveling less, buying less stuff, or buying less damaging stuff is the best that most people can do.
- bamboozled 7y ago
  I think non-essentials and some types of food via an emissions tax would be a great thing. For example, flying is so cheap I would say people "over do it" just because they can. I often think it would be great if there was more cost associated with air fair to factor in the environmental damage each flight causes. Yeah people will be inconvenienced slightly but what is the alternative? Holiday in locations closer to home? Go by rail? Video conferencing ? They all seem like good options compared to the alternative.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ab8 7y ago
  belch
ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
>Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions Most of these 100 companies are oil companies, and the emissions from oil they sold on to consumers is unfairly attributed to them. Exxon don't burn oil for fun, they sell it to people to power their cars. This statistic is incredibly misleading.
- ced 7y ago
  Are they seriously counting Joe's car's CO2 as Exxon's responsibility? Can I ask for a reference/quote on that?
  - lustysocietyorg 7y ago
    The deadly misleading headline: Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says (2017-07-10). https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... The stupid original headline: New report shows just 100 companies are source of over 70% of emissions (2017-07-10). https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-... CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017 (2017-07). https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1501833772 https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1... Quote: 100 fossil fuel producers and nearly 1 trillion tonnes of greenhouse gas emission. Are 100 companies causing 71% of carbon emissions? https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbon-emissions/ https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo... Quote: Claim: 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Quote: Conclusion: Of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from human activity (excluding certain sources like agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions released when the fossil fuels they sold were subsequently used by their customers.
  - ced 7y ago
    lustysocietyorg's post is dead, but it bears repeating: https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbon-emissions/ https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo... Quote: Claim: 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Quote: Conclusion: Of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from human activity (excluding certain sources like agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions released when the fossil fuels they sold were subsequently used by their customers.
mrpopo 7y ago
Most of these companies are Chinese power companies, aramco, etc. How do you deal with them without dealing with humans personal consumption of energy?
Rovanion 7y ago
You got to start with what's within your control, right? Then you may continue with others. But until you do that you're a hypocrite.
perfunctory 7y ago
> because it makes people think they did "enough" It doesn't. I reduced my own meat consumption and I don't think it was enough. In fact, no single measure would be enough. There are no low hanging fruits here. We need lots and lots of different adjustments across the board. So, this is a good advice, along with all the other good pieces of advice.

simonh 7y ago

It’s great advice because it’s a tangible change individuals can make immediately. There is very little we can individually do about the 100 companies, or do at all in the short term. This problem will need to be tackled on multiple fronts simultaneously. Advising people not to do something that could make a real difference doesn’t seem particularly helpful. I’m fed up reading comments along the lines of ‘we shouldn’t try to solve this problem, because we should be solving this other problem instead’. In every case I’ve seen this argument, there’s absolutely no constraint at all preventing us from doing both.

keymone 7y ago
The advice may not be as great. Amount of land and water needed to grow crops that sufficiently replace nutrition provided by meat may be worse for climate change than just eating meat. Obviously that only applies to grass-fed cattle. I don’t have a source right now, but the choice is not as obvious as many think.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  Isn’t most cattle fed grain?
  - keymone 7y ago
    Yes it is, which is the main issue because apart from impact on land, corn-fed cows do excrete(?) more methane than grass-fed.
    - Doubl 7y ago
      I thought it was the other way around, unfortunately, because I'd rather see cattle on pastures rather than in yards
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > Obviously that only applies to grass-fed cattle. There is simply not enough land to replace all meat supply with grass-fed cattle meat. So if we all want to eat meat from grass-fed cattle only, that would mean exactly radical reduction in meat consumption.
  - keymone 7y ago
    There is not enough land to produce equal amount of meat at the same price point. There is plenty land to produce enough more expensive meat. Which also reduces meat consumption. It’s a win all around.
- jaxr 7y ago
  The efficiency of converting plant based protein into animal protein to feed that to humans is very low [1]. A huge portion of the crops are actually used to feed cattle. If humans stopped eating meat tomorrow, we would have plenty of food (we'd better start eating a lot more soy, though) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/1...
  - keymone 7y ago
    Cattle doesn’t convert plant based protein into animal protein. Also cattle eats crop that humans can’t eat and which grows in significantly more tough conditions than those required for crops used as feed. Eating lots of soy is not healthy. It’s a very weird and unconvincing argument on your part, to suggest humans should just start eating crops fed to cattle and that would somehow work in terms of sufficiently healthy and available nutrition as well as being net positive on climate change. Cattle eats grass which grows everywhere in the world and cattle produces vastly healthier and nutritious profile of fat, protein, vitamins and other essential nutrients than what you could achieve by growing human edible crops for similar price. Sure you can achieve good nutrition with other expensive vegetables but that’s not what will happen if humans stop eating cattle. Let’s be realistic.
    - nmca 7y ago
      Baffled to read this, as I thought it was widely established as grossly inaccurate. Suggest you read Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; de Haan, Cees (2006), Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options Or alternatively anything about food culture and supply in India. I don't believe your current position is substantiated by any evidence; but I'm happy to look through any relevant numbers if you can find them.
      - ar-jan 7y ago
        I suggest you also read Steinfeld's own correction regarding the 2006 claim that livestock accounts for 18% of GHG emissions: "The comparison measures direct emissions from transport against both direct and indirect emissions from livestock." http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0 http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0

ced 7y ago

All companies exist to serve customer demand, or to serve companies that serve customer demand. Sure, they should be regulated (... thus increasing the price of consumer goods?) On an individual level, traveling less, buying less stuff, or buying less damaging stuff is the best that most people can do.

bamboozled 7y ago
I think non-essentials and some types of food via an emissions tax would be a great thing. For example, flying is so cheap I would say people "over do it" just because they can. I often think it would be great if there was more cost associated with air fair to factor in the environmental damage each flight causes. Yeah people will be inconvenienced slightly but what is the alternative? Holiday in locations closer to home? Go by rail? Video conferencing ? They all seem like good options compared to the alternative.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ab8 7y ago
belch

ourlordcaffeine 7y ago

>Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions Most of these 100 companies are oil companies, and the emissions from oil they sold on to consumers is unfairly attributed to them. Exxon don't burn oil for fun, they sell it to people to power their cars. This statistic is incredibly misleading.

ced 7y ago
Are they seriously counting Joe's car's CO2 as Exxon's responsibility? Can I ask for a reference/quote on that?
- lustysocietyorg 7y ago
  The deadly misleading headline: Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says (2017-07-10). https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... The stupid original headline: New report shows just 100 companies are source of over 70% of emissions (2017-07-10). https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-... CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017 (2017-07). https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1501833772 https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1... Quote: 100 fossil fuel producers and nearly 1 trillion tonnes of greenhouse gas emission. Are 100 companies causing 71% of carbon emissions? https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbon-emissions/ https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo... Quote: Claim: 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Quote: Conclusion: Of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from human activity (excluding certain sources like agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions released when the fossil fuels they sold were subsequently used by their customers.
- ced 7y ago
  lustysocietyorg's post is dead, but it bears repeating: https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbon-emissions/ https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo... Quote: Claim: 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Quote: Conclusion: Of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from human activity (excluding certain sources like agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions released when the fossil fuels they sold were subsequently used by their customers.

mrpopo 7y ago

Most of these companies are Chinese power companies, aramco, etc. How do you deal with them without dealing with humans personal consumption of energy?

Rovanion 7y ago

You got to start with what's within your control, right? Then you may continue with others. But until you do that you're a hypocrite.

perfunctory 7y ago

> because it makes people think they did "enough" It doesn't. I reduced my own meat consumption and I don't think it was enough. In fact, no single measure would be enough. There are no low hanging fruits here. We need lots and lots of different adjustments across the board. So, this is a good advice, along with all the other good pieces of advice.