14 ms·

Agriculture produces 10% of the greenhouse gases emitted by humans. Let's say we can make a wish, and snap our fingers and have all the necessary factories in

Agriculture produces 10% of the greenhouse gases emitted by humans. Let's say we can make a wish, and snap our fingers and have all the necessary factories in place to replace *ALL* food farming for the globe. I doubt the entirety of the 10% of green houses gases will be eliminated, probably cut in half, however then we'll need to take into account the electricity needed to run all the new food factories, which will probably add back in another 3%, so once the dust clears we'll see a reduction of about %2 of green house gases, that's assuming all food agriculture is automatically replaced, via a wish.

lkramer 5y ago
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Where did the first 5% come from if not electricity to run factories? Also climate impact is more than just greenhouse gasses, water usage is huge and if it can be optimized can be a huge win. I'm also not sure about your 10% figure, 25% is the first figure I stumble across, of which animal production for food consists of about 50%: https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ollifi 5y ago
Where is the 10% figure from? IPCC puts agriculture, forestry and other land use at 24% https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  There's no contradiction between only agriculture at 10% and agriculture, forestry and other land use at 24%.
awillen 5y ago
First off, removing 2% of greenhouse gases isn't something to scoff at - it would be a really important accomplishment. Secondly, your back of the napkin math doesn't seem great - you're just making up that gases would be cut in half with nothing to back that up. You seem to ignore the fact that electricity for agriculture would disappear but then you factor in electricity that would be added back for food factories, so that doesn't make sense either. Then of course there's the fact that lab-grown meat doesn't require the vast swaths of land required by traditional agriculture. That means you can put food factories closer to urban centers, so now you've eliminated a lot of emissions from transportation.

lkramer 5y ago

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Where did the first 5% come from if not electricity to run factories? Also climate impact is more than just greenhouse gasses, water usage is huge and if it can be optimized can be a huge win. I'm also not sure about your 10% figure, 25% is the first figure I stumble across, of which animal production for food consists of about 50%: https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ollifi 5y ago

Where is the 10% figure from? IPCC puts agriculture, forestry and other land use at 24% https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

Ma8ee 5y ago
There's no contradiction between only agriculture at 10% and agriculture, forestry and other land use at 24%.

awillen 5y ago

First off, removing 2% of greenhouse gases isn't something to scoff at - it would be a really important accomplishment. Secondly, your back of the napkin math doesn't seem great - you're just making up that gases would be cut in half with nothing to back that up. You seem to ignore the fact that electricity for agriculture would disappear but then you factor in electricity that would be added back for food factories, so that doesn't make sense either. Then of course there's the fact that lab-grown meat doesn't require the vast swaths of land required by traditional agriculture. That means you can put food factories closer to urban centers, so now you've eliminated a lot of emissions from transportation.