4 ms·

> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produce

by sampo 6y ago

> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produces over 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide per kilogram. These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60. For example this estimate is 26 [1] and this is 21 for beef from dairy herd and 60 from beef herd [2]. [1] http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet [2] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

xyzzyz 6y ago
This also depends on what you count as carbon dioxide production. For example, cattle produce methane through gut fermentation, which is a strong greenhouse gas. However, it contributes to warming only to the extent the cattle stocks are growing. If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time, than the methane produced by them does not contribute to new warming, as it forms closed cycle: methane decomposes to CO2 in atmosphere in a decade or two, which is then captured by grass, which is eaten by cattle. The result is a steady state of stable fraction of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere, and no warming. What really does contribute to climate change though is emissions that come from fossils, like fuel for machines, electricity for processing and storage, and gas for artificial fertilizer. The variation in reported numbers is caused by agenda, ie whether one wants to accurately assess impact of beef production, or whether they want to paint beef as worst thing ever.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  Can’t you apply this logic to other things too though? We have two ICE cars for the household, and as long as that remains stable the CO2 produced will be used by the plants in our garden.
  - jsight 5y ago
    I think that would only be the case if the plants in your garden eventually turn into biofuel.
  - klipt 5y ago
    No, because cows run on biofuel that is recently captured carbon, while your car is burning fossil fuel that is long ago captured carbon. Your houseplants aren't recapturing anywhere near that much.
    - samatman 5y ago
      No. They turn that carbon from carbon dioxide into methane, which has a 27x multiplier in warming over its lifetime in the atmosphere. It's not carbon neutral, it's equivalent to 26 extra tonnes for each tonne of CO2 which goes into the feed.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        And that methane does not stay in the atmosphere forever, but only for a decade or two. It’s all part of a cycle. If it makes it easier to think about it, here is one way: imagine a world with no humans, no fossil fuels, but stable population of 10 billion cows. These 10 billion cows produce tremendous amounts of methane. Do you expect this methane to warm the climate over next 1000 years? If you do, you’re wrong: if the population has been and will stay stable, the methane that cows emit is just enough to replace the methane decomposing to CO2 and H2O that was previously emitted by the cows. As long as population numbers are constant, the amount of methane in the atmosphere is also constant, and you’ll see no climate warming.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    No, because almost all of the CO2 that comes out of your tailpipe used to be buried underground in stable forms. The plants in your garden both won't absorb enough, and even if it did it would never end up in any long-term storage separate from the atmosphere.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    The CO₂ produced by cars is proportional to their use. You could have 100 cars sitting in your massive garage and they wouldn't emit CO₂ beyond what was used for their manufacturing.
- sampo 5y ago
  There's been some debate on the ways to account short-lived greenhouse gases vs. CO2: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-Climate-Pollutants-GWP https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-Climate-Pol... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2998 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2998
- robocat 5y ago
  Firstly you are presuming cattle are grass fed with no fertilizer used. Nitrogen fertilizer and stock feeds use petrochemicals directly or indirectly. > If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time Cattle numbers are mostly static. The amount of methane produced is not trivial, although as you point out not the same class of problem as CO² since CO² is cumulative. Was your 40 year figure the half-life? For comparison, CFCs break down over many decades (I couldn't find reliable figures) but the ozone hole is still a serious problem (it seriously affects us in New Zealand where I live).
  - sampo 5y ago
    > Was your 40 year figure the half-life? Half-life of methane in the atmosphere is 9.1 years (Wikipedia).
- barbazoo 5y ago
  > as it forms closed cycle Wouldn't that require the grass to grow more to compensate for the increase in CO2?
- aqme28 5y ago
  > methane decomposes to CO2 in atmosphere in a decade or two, which is then captured by grass But methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, so it's not neutral at all. You're also assuming that cattle are fed naturally occurring grass rather than industrial livestock feed, which I don't have numbers for but I assume is not carbon-neutral.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    But methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, so it's not neutral at all. It is worse, but it doesn’t matter: as long as cattle population stays at constant levels, so will the amount of methane in the atmosphere that resulted from cattle emissions. You only get climate change from growing amount of greenhouse gases. > You're also assuming that cattle are fed naturally occurring grass rather than industrial livestock feed, which I don't have numbers for but I assume is not carbon-neutral In fact, I’m not; I explicitly mention artificial fertilizer, for example, which is typically not used to produce hay. The point is that to assess the effect of cattle on warming, you should focus on fossil inputs into it, not on methane. I think is quite likely that methane production from gastric fermentation in North America these days is lower than, say, in 1500s, where 60 millions bisons alone roamed the plains, along with another tens of millions of deer and other ruminants.
- samatman 5y ago
  I keep seeing this and I don't understand it because it literally doesn't matter. There is a total amount of emissions in a year and it leads to a certain amount of atmospheric forcing. Let's say the algae food amendment works out and cattle methane can be eliminated with it. Some cattle are completely pastured, let's say you can get a 70% reduction in total methane emission from cows, just mandate that lot-fed cattle must receive this feed amendment and maybe subsidize it. That's huge. That reduces a big source of emissions. It's less atmospheric forcing in total for the year. That's the only thing that matters. It's an open-and-shut scenario for "shut up and calculate".
odiroot 5y ago
> These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60 Still, we'd be much better off, had we stopped eating beef (and other ruminants) and instead switched to pork, poultry and fish.

by sampo 6y ago

xyzzyz 6y ago

This also depends on what you count as carbon dioxide production. For example, cattle produce methane through gut fermentation, which is a strong greenhouse gas. However, it contributes to warming only to the extent the cattle stocks are growing. If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time, than the methane produced by them does not contribute to new warming, as it forms closed cycle: methane decomposes to CO2 in atmosphere in a decade or two, which is then captured by grass, which is eaten by cattle. The result is a steady state of stable fraction of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere, and no warming. What really does contribute to climate change though is emissions that come from fossils, like fuel for machines, electricity for processing and storage, and gas for artificial fertilizer. The variation in reported numbers is caused by agenda, ie whether one wants to accurately assess impact of beef production, or whether they want to paint beef as worst thing ever.

lostlogin 5y ago
Can’t you apply this logic to other things too though? We have two ICE cars for the household, and as long as that remains stable the CO2 produced will be used by the plants in our garden.
- jsight 5y ago
  I think that would only be the case if the plants in your garden eventually turn into biofuel.
- klipt 5y ago
  No, because cows run on biofuel that is recently captured carbon, while your car is burning fossil fuel that is long ago captured carbon. Your houseplants aren't recapturing anywhere near that much.
  - samatman 5y ago
    No. They turn that carbon from carbon dioxide into methane, which has a 27x multiplier in warming over its lifetime in the atmosphere. It's not carbon neutral, it's equivalent to 26 extra tonnes for each tonne of CO2 which goes into the feed.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      And that methane does not stay in the atmosphere forever, but only for a decade or two. It’s all part of a cycle. If it makes it easier to think about it, here is one way: imagine a world with no humans, no fossil fuels, but stable population of 10 billion cows. These 10 billion cows produce tremendous amounts of methane. Do you expect this methane to warm the climate over next 1000 years? If you do, you’re wrong: if the population has been and will stay stable, the methane that cows emit is just enough to replace the methane decomposing to CO2 and H2O that was previously emitted by the cows. As long as population numbers are constant, the amount of methane in the atmosphere is also constant, and you’ll see no climate warming.
- kadoban 5y ago
  No, because almost all of the CO2 that comes out of your tailpipe used to be buried underground in stable forms. The plants in your garden both won't absorb enough, and even if it did it would never end up in any long-term storage separate from the atmosphere.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  The CO₂ produced by cars is proportional to their use. You could have 100 cars sitting in your massive garage and they wouldn't emit CO₂ beyond what was used for their manufacturing.
sampo 5y ago
There's been some debate on the ways to account short-lived greenhouse gases vs. CO2: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-Climate-Pollutants-GWP https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-Climate-Pol... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2998 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2998
robocat 5y ago
Firstly you are presuming cattle are grass fed with no fertilizer used. Nitrogen fertilizer and stock feeds use petrochemicals directly or indirectly. > If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time Cattle numbers are mostly static. The amount of methane produced is not trivial, although as you point out not the same class of problem as CO² since CO² is cumulative. Was your 40 year figure the half-life? For comparison, CFCs break down over many decades (I couldn't find reliable figures) but the ozone hole is still a serious problem (it seriously affects us in New Zealand where I live).
- sampo 5y ago
  > Was your 40 year figure the half-life? Half-life of methane in the atmosphere is 9.1 years (Wikipedia).
barbazoo 5y ago
> as it forms closed cycle Wouldn't that require the grass to grow more to compensate for the increase in CO2?
aqme28 5y ago
> methane decomposes to CO2 in atmosphere in a decade or two, which is then captured by grass But methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, so it's not neutral at all. You're also assuming that cattle are fed naturally occurring grass rather than industrial livestock feed, which I don't have numbers for but I assume is not carbon-neutral.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  But methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, so it's not neutral at all. It is worse, but it doesn’t matter: as long as cattle population stays at constant levels, so will the amount of methane in the atmosphere that resulted from cattle emissions. You only get climate change from growing amount of greenhouse gases. > You're also assuming that cattle are fed naturally occurring grass rather than industrial livestock feed, which I don't have numbers for but I assume is not carbon-neutral In fact, I’m not; I explicitly mention artificial fertilizer, for example, which is typically not used to produce hay. The point is that to assess the effect of cattle on warming, you should focus on fossil inputs into it, not on methane. I think is quite likely that methane production from gastric fermentation in North America these days is lower than, say, in 1500s, where 60 millions bisons alone roamed the plains, along with another tens of millions of deer and other ruminants.
samatman 5y ago
I keep seeing this and I don't understand it because it literally doesn't matter. There is a total amount of emissions in a year and it leads to a certain amount of atmospheric forcing. Let's say the algae food amendment works out and cattle methane can be eliminated with it. Some cattle are completely pastured, let's say you can get a 70% reduction in total methane emission from cows, just mandate that lot-fed cattle must receive this feed amendment and maybe subsidize it. That's huge. That reduces a big source of emissions. It's less atmospheric forcing in total for the year. That's the only thing that matters. It's an open-and-shut scenario for "shut up and calculate".

odiroot 5y ago

> These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60 Still, we'd be much better off, had we stopped eating beef (and other ruminants) and instead switched to pork, poultry and fish.