3 ms·
Yes, you are right. I have conveyed my point only half-way and I apologize. What I meant is that methane is known to have a bigger heating effect than other gr
by glastra 7y ago
Yes, you are right. I have conveyed my point only half-way and I apologize.
What I meant is that methane is known to have a bigger heating effect than other greenhouse gases, like x28 that of CO2 if I recall correctly. This is used as part of the anti-ruminant argument, when comparing the effect of methane expelled by animals to the rest of greenhouse gas emissions.
However, if you take into account the reduced lifespan, that 28-time increase is definitely less relevant.
- the8472 7y agoFrom the WP article you linked: > Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is a strong greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 104 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame; methane is not as persistent a gas as CO2 and tails off to about GWP of 28 for a 100-year time frame And once you take positive feedbacks into account additional emissions can be problematic even within "short" timeframes.
- glastra 7y agoAbsolutely, I never said methane was without effect. However, its effects on global warming are greatly exaggerated by environmentalists and/or those with vegan ideologies. In my opinion, focus should definitely not be on meat consumption. Anyway, as a disclaimer, I follow a carnivore diet consisting of only animal products. You can expect me to be heavily biased.