4 ms·

No commercial incentive to do so. If we had any effective climate regulation, you'd see these things rapidly put into practice.

lazyguy 7y ago
regulation can't change reality. It's about as realistic as having congress declare the world flat.
- moultano 7y ago
  We can measure methane emissions per farm from space. If there were fines for emissions, it would get fixed quickly. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellites-that-can-pinpoint-methane-and-carbon-dioxide-leaks/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellit...
  - majinuub 7y ago
    I'm more of the opinion that rewarding the reduction of emissions would work better than punishing the production of emissions.
- orasis 7y ago
  I’m as anti-regulation as anyone but your comment is just silly. Regulation changes reality all the time.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    In fact if regulation didn't change anything there would be no reason to be against regulation.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > regulation can't change reality Sure it can. Regulation changed the reality of passenger planes regularly falling out of the sky and being hijacked. Regulation made drastic reductions in road deaths via seat belts, crumple zones, air bags, and the like.
briandear 7y ago
Are cows really our biggest problem? The hysteria over cow farts is laughable. When everything is an “emergency” and, as a previous poster suggested, “genocide,” it’s hard to take any of this seriously. It’s not unlike religious nuts on street corners proclaiming “the end is nigh!”
- moultano 7y ago
  No they aren't the biggest part of the problem, but the difficulty is that we have to solve the whole thing. Carbon emissions need to get to zero and then go negative. That means ideally we need solutions for every contributor, no matter how small.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    And this is one of the ideal solutions where we can make things much much better without giving up anything at all.
  - maxdamantus 7y ago
    I agree that cows are an issue that should be looked into, but ultimately cows themselves aren't causing more carbon to be taken from the ground and left in the atmosphere indefinitely (the issue is that methane is a greater contributor to the greenhouse effect over carbon dioxide, per unit carbon), so presumably in this case it's a matter of keeping methane levels below a certain amount rather than reversing carbon emissions.
    - abraae 7y ago
      Cows are carbon to methane convertors. AFAIK, although methane dissipates more quickly (good in the longer term) it has a more powerful effect in the shorter term. So the rationale while we are stick deep in the shit is not too think so much of the long term, but just to survive the short term - i.e reduce the methane.
      - maxdamantus 7y ago
bagacrap 7y ago
Surely there is a commerical incentive. Environment- or image-minded companies that want to buy carbon offsets can do so by paying cattle producers to use this tech.

lazyguy 7y ago

regulation can't change reality. It's about as realistic as having congress declare the world flat.

moultano 7y ago
We can measure methane emissions per farm from space. If there were fines for emissions, it would get fixed quickly. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellites-that-can-pinpoint-methane-and-carbon-dioxide-leaks/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellit...
- majinuub 7y ago
  I'm more of the opinion that rewarding the reduction of emissions would work better than punishing the production of emissions.
orasis 7y ago
I’m as anti-regulation as anyone but your comment is just silly. Regulation changes reality all the time.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  In fact if regulation didn't change anything there would be no reason to be against regulation.
ceejayoz 7y ago
> regulation can't change reality Sure it can. Regulation changed the reality of passenger planes regularly falling out of the sky and being hijacked. Regulation made drastic reductions in road deaths via seat belts, crumple zones, air bags, and the like.

briandear 7y ago

Are cows really our biggest problem? The hysteria over cow farts is laughable. When everything is an “emergency” and, as a previous poster suggested, “genocide,” it’s hard to take any of this seriously. It’s not unlike religious nuts on street corners proclaiming “the end is nigh!”

moultano 7y ago
No they aren't the biggest part of the problem, but the difficulty is that we have to solve the whole thing. Carbon emissions need to get to zero and then go negative. That means ideally we need solutions for every contributor, no matter how small.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  And this is one of the ideal solutions where we can make things much much better without giving up anything at all.
- maxdamantus 7y ago
  I agree that cows are an issue that should be looked into, but ultimately cows themselves aren't causing more carbon to be taken from the ground and left in the atmosphere indefinitely (the issue is that methane is a greater contributor to the greenhouse effect over carbon dioxide, per unit carbon), so presumably in this case it's a matter of keeping methane levels below a certain amount rather than reversing carbon emissions.
  - abraae 7y ago
    Cows are carbon to methane convertors. AFAIK, although methane dissipates more quickly (good in the longer term) it has a more powerful effect in the shorter term. So the rationale while we are stick deep in the shit is not too think so much of the long term, but just to survive the short term - i.e reduce the methane.
    - maxdamantus 7y ago

bagacrap 7y ago

Surely there is a commerical incentive. Environment- or image-minded companies that want to buy carbon offsets can do so by paying cattle producers to use this tech.