5 ms·

Let's also look at greenhouse gases in general: "According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of U.S. GHG emissions in 2016 were

by ar-jan 7y ago

Let's also look at greenhouse gases in general: "According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of U.S. GHG emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28 percent of total emissions), transportation (28 percent) and industry (22 percent). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9 percent. All of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing 3.9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That’s very different from claiming livestock represents as much or more than transportation." [0] Global direct greenhouse gas emissions from transportation versus livestock represent 14 versus 5 percent respectively. [1] Also consider: "According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock." [1] [0] https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968 https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-envi... [1] http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0 http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0

rewq4321 7y ago
> Global direct greenhouse gas emissions from transportation versus livestock represent 14 versus 5 percent respectively. The FAO's latest number for livestock emissions is 14.5% when considering the full life-cycle. It doesn't matter that we don't have a full life-cycle analysis for transportation - that doesn't change the number for livestock. The author tries to dismiss the 14.5% because "[transportation might be a bigger culprit]" and talks about "unringing" the bell on the FAO report simply because of a correction from 18% to 14.5%, which seems a bit of an overstatement. On top of this, new (2017) data seems to suggest that our predictions of livestock emissions were too low: > Using the new emissions factors, we estimate global livestock emissions of 119.1 ± 18.2 Tg methane in 2011; this quantity is 11% greater than that obtained using the IPCC 2006 emissions factors, encompassing an 8.4% increase in enteric fermentation methane, a 36.7% increase in manure management methane, and notable variability among regions and sources. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5620025/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5620025/
- ar-jan 7y ago
  It does matter, because it makes sense to focus on the biggest contributors to emissions, where the most gains could be made. The current thinking goes we should eat "less or no meat", when the effort could be put towards not using grain for livestock feed, and promoting other changes such as reducing methane specifically by adding seaweed to the livestock's diet. That's not to mention that grazing is essential to both prevent and reverse desertification.
  - rewq4321 7y ago
    I think this is a "we shouldn't bother with X because Y also helps (and is more convenient for me), even though they're not mutually exclusive" argument.

by ar-jan 7y ago

rewq4321 7y ago

> Global direct greenhouse gas emissions from transportation versus livestock represent 14 versus 5 percent respectively. The FAO's latest number for livestock emissions is 14.5% when considering the full life-cycle. It doesn't matter that we don't have a full life-cycle analysis for transportation - that doesn't change the number for livestock. The author tries to dismiss the 14.5% because "[transportation might be a bigger culprit]" and talks about "unringing" the bell on the FAO report simply because of a correction from 18% to 14.5%, which seems a bit of an overstatement. On top of this, new (2017) data seems to suggest that our predictions of livestock emissions were too low: > Using the new emissions factors, we estimate global livestock emissions of 119.1 ± 18.2 Tg methane in 2011; this quantity is 11% greater than that obtained using the IPCC 2006 emissions factors, encompassing an 8.4% increase in enteric fermentation methane, a 36.7% increase in manure management methane, and notable variability among regions and sources. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5620025/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5620025/

ar-jan 7y ago
It does matter, because it makes sense to focus on the biggest contributors to emissions, where the most gains could be made. The current thinking goes we should eat "less or no meat", when the effort could be put towards not using grain for livestock feed, and promoting other changes such as reducing methane specifically by adding seaweed to the livestock's diet. That's not to mention that grazing is essential to both prevent and reverse desertification.
- rewq4321 7y ago
  I think this is a "we shouldn't bother with X because Y also helps (and is more convenient for me), even though they're not mutually exclusive" argument.