You just quoted an article with no credibility and zero comparison to natural methane emissions. Mind reading before plugging links? That was the first thing th

You just quoted an article with no credibility and zero comparison to natural methane emissions. Mind reading before plugging links? That was the first thing that came up for me in Google too, and the reason why I said what I did. Edit: just looked up EPA website and found this: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#m... - couple things to note: "50-65% of all methane emissions are caused by human activity" - I wonder how they define that though? Is feedback from human activities that flows into natural-seeming emissions such as permafrost melt considered natural? If it is, that's excluded from the 50-65% figure! - Other thing: "Natural gas and petroleum systems are the largest source of CH4 emissions in the United States." - 31% - Landfills - 16%, coal mining - 8% That right there is 55% of human-caused methane and has nothing to do with cows. I'm not saying the solution should not include all of the sources, but to what degree should we be worrying about cows vs. all that other crap? Shouldn't the focus be on natural gas and petroleum emissions? Edit 2: I don't appreciate your personal attack on my attitude. If questioning sources and solutions that make the biggest impact is considered an attitude, then forget all civil discussion. Why bother commenting?