6 ms·

> Cattle are such a big part of greenhouse emissions that if this really had legs without some underlying problem it would be funded like a war effort. Accordi

by tpxl 5y ago

> Cattle are such a big part of greenhouse emissions that if this really had legs without some underlying problem it would be funded like a war effort. According to a brief search, cattle represent about 3.3% of greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation is 29%, electricity is 25%. Seems to me better logistics (not transporting stuff that needn't be transported) and better electricity generation is worth more trillions than cows burping.

throwawaygimp 5y ago
Good point. Random thought experiment - how much should the global 'fund' be to attack greenhouse gas emissions. Not that it should be spent in proportion to % of total emissions, but I wonder what 3.3% of that number would be. Say you spent 1T on cows, and spent it proportionally. That's a 30T fund overall. So around half from memory of what the US spent on the post 9/11 wars.
spicymaki 5y ago
3.3% of greenhouse emissions seems too low. Global livestock overall may contribute to about 14% of greenhouse gas emissions[1]. There are also other forms of pollution including farm runoff (ocean dead zones , zoonotic disease), land use (forest destruction), soil degradation, etc. [1] http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ correction: removed N2O nitrous oxide is also a greenhouse gas which is included.
- tpxl 5y ago
  My source only looked at the US so numbers differ from global[0]. Your source also says 14.5% is all livestock, of which 9.4% is cattle (so about 3x globally compared to the US). There are of course other forms of pollution, a big one we could easily tackle I think is water pollution by the textile industry [1]. So much clothing today is of garbage quality and completely unmendable (the fabric is too thin to be repaired ):, I tried). [0] https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019... [1] https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/water-pollution-due-textile-industry/ https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/water-pollution-due-textile-...

by tpxl 5y ago

throwawaygimp 5y ago

Good point. Random thought experiment - how much should the global 'fund' be to attack greenhouse gas emissions. Not that it should be spent in proportion to % of total emissions, but I wonder what 3.3% of that number would be. Say you spent 1T on cows, and spent it proportionally. That's a 30T fund overall. So around half from memory of what the US spent on the post 9/11 wars.

spicymaki 5y ago

3.3% of greenhouse emissions seems too low. Global livestock overall may contribute to about 14% of greenhouse gas emissions[1]. There are also other forms of pollution including farm runoff (ocean dead zones , zoonotic disease), land use (forest destruction), soil degradation, etc. [1] http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ correction: removed N2O nitrous oxide is also a greenhouse gas which is included.

tpxl 5y ago
My source only looked at the US so numbers differ from global[0]. Your source also says 14.5% is all livestock, of which 9.4% is cattle (so about 3x globally compared to the US). There are of course other forms of pollution, a big one we could easily tackle I think is water pollution by the textile industry [1]. So much clothing today is of garbage quality and completely unmendable (the fabric is too thin to be repaired ):, I tried). [0] https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019... [1] https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/water-pollution-due-textile-industry/ https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/water-pollution-due-textile-...