3 ms·

Most estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are misleading. Cows might emit methane and co2, but that carbon came from their food, and that carbon in their food

Most estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are misleading. Cows might emit methane and co2, but that carbon came from their food, and that carbon in their food was captured from the air, so it's actually a cycle without net increase in carbon in the air. That's unlike fossil fuels, which bring carbon from the ground into the air and actually increase the carbon in the air in the process. The only real net emissions in the process of creating beef are the fossil fuels burned in the process, from transportation. This distinction between real carbon emission, and carbon cycle is important because there's misguided notion of how much of a real difference it would make if people stopped eating meat. The decrease in emissions will be offset by a decrease in carbon capture from their food, and the net difference will be much less than assumed. Moreover, if the process of creating meat replacements requires more fossil fuels to be burned than the natural process of growing food and feeding cattle, it might be that alternative meats are detrimental to the environment. I haven't seen a fair comparison of the net emissions of the whole process, they always count the cows farts without discounting for the carbon capture while growing their food.

wffurr 5y ago
>> The only real net emissions in the process of creating beef are the fossil fuels burned in the process, from transportation I think you are drastically oversimplifying the carbon impact of modern agriculture. Artificial fertilizer production, irrigation, mechanized farm equipment all substantially contribute to CO2 emissions and other serious environmental impacts. Edit: Reading the EPA report, the sources I mentioned aren't even in the top 3: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions,by%2012%20percent%20since%201990 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis.... Soil management practices (aka tilling) causing N2O release, digestive methane from cattle, methane, and methane and N2O from manure handling. Fertilizer was lumped in with crop residue burning and rice cultivation in 4th place. Two of the top three are directly related to animal husbandry, and the rest are heavily impacted by the vast amount of land used to grow feed for cattle in feedlots instead of directly feeding people.
- bronzeage 5y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong but that agricultural impact happens for vegetarian food as well? And lab grown meat also requires the same agricultural costs, there doesn't exist some magic chemistry that creates food from raw materials without agriculture.
  - wffurr 5y ago
    I updated my post with some details, but to that point directly it is far, far more efficient to feed people rather than feeding animals to feed people. The vast majority of cattle are raised in feedlots and fed crops from agriculture.
    - hispanic 5y ago
      Grains make up 10–13 percent of the diet for cattle, globally. The rest is composed of grass, leaves, and "crop residue" such as cornstalks. Source: Sacred Cow by Rodgers
- bronzeage 5y ago
  Again you're using sham accounting. Where did that methane come from? From the food. It came into the food from the air. There are again no net emissions. Just like a company requires expenditures to generate revenue. This is misleading. That carbon was borrowed from the air and then returned. Net emission zero. You only increase carbon in the air when you take carbon from elsewhere and put it in the air. Otherwise it's a cycle with net flow zero.
  - wffurr 5y ago
    I am pretty sure it's not methane in, methane out. There's a digestive process and bacteria involved that produce methane from sugars and cellulose. So CO2 in via plants, methane (a much more potent greenhouse has) out. I think you need to research this "sham accounting" idea, maybe do some studies, collect some data, publish in a peer reviewed journal, before you go about spouting it as gospel.
MayeulC 5y ago
That's true, and I hadn't considered that angle too much. However, methane's greenhouse effect is 25 times more potent[1] than the one of CO2, so converting carbon to methane is worse than just burning it. And lastly, farming meat is not neutral either: at the very least, that's land you're not going to use as forest (carbon sink). And then there's the other net emissions. I think the IPCC is doing a very thorough job at getting accurate estimations. They have many lobbies to go against, which will carefully examine discrepancies on their reports. Like wikipedia, having persons of different opinions and interest cooperate on a report, the report comes out as generally more objective and accurate, as that's the only compromise acceptable by both parties. [1] https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...

wffurr 5y ago

>> The only real net emissions in the process of creating beef are the fossil fuels burned in the process, from transportation I think you are drastically oversimplifying the carbon impact of modern agriculture. Artificial fertilizer production, irrigation, mechanized farm equipment all substantially contribute to CO2 emissions and other serious environmental impacts. Edit: Reading the EPA report, the sources I mentioned aren't even in the top 3: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions,by%2012%20percent%20since%201990 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis.... Soil management practices (aka tilling) causing N2O release, digestive methane from cattle, methane, and methane and N2O from manure handling. Fertilizer was lumped in with crop residue burning and rice cultivation in 4th place. Two of the top three are directly related to animal husbandry, and the rest are heavily impacted by the vast amount of land used to grow feed for cattle in feedlots instead of directly feeding people.

bronzeage 5y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but that agricultural impact happens for vegetarian food as well? And lab grown meat also requires the same agricultural costs, there doesn't exist some magic chemistry that creates food from raw materials without agriculture.
- wffurr 5y ago
  I updated my post with some details, but to that point directly it is far, far more efficient to feed people rather than feeding animals to feed people. The vast majority of cattle are raised in feedlots and fed crops from agriculture.
  - hispanic 5y ago
    Grains make up 10–13 percent of the diet for cattle, globally. The rest is composed of grass, leaves, and "crop residue" such as cornstalks. Source: Sacred Cow by Rodgers
bronzeage 5y ago
Again you're using sham accounting. Where did that methane come from? From the food. It came into the food from the air. There are again no net emissions. Just like a company requires expenditures to generate revenue. This is misleading. That carbon was borrowed from the air and then returned. Net emission zero. You only increase carbon in the air when you take carbon from elsewhere and put it in the air. Otherwise it's a cycle with net flow zero.
- wffurr 5y ago
  I am pretty sure it's not methane in, methane out. There's a digestive process and bacteria involved that produce methane from sugars and cellulose. So CO2 in via plants, methane (a much more potent greenhouse has) out. I think you need to research this "sham accounting" idea, maybe do some studies, collect some data, publish in a peer reviewed journal, before you go about spouting it as gospel.

MayeulC 5y ago

That's true, and I hadn't considered that angle too much. However, methane's greenhouse effect is 25 times more potent[1] than the one of CO2, so converting carbon to methane is worse than just burning it. And lastly, farming meat is not neutral either: at the very least, that's land you're not going to use as forest (carbon sink). And then there's the other net emissions. I think the IPCC is doing a very thorough job at getting accurate estimations. They have many lobbies to go against, which will carefully examine discrepancies on their reports. Like wikipedia, having persons of different opinions and interest cooperate on a report, the report comes out as generally more objective and accurate, as that's the only compromise acceptable by both parties. [1] https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...