3 ms·

So what if methane is more "potent"? How potent and in relation to what, and in what amount? Large ruminants and other animals that produce methane roamed the

So what if methane is more "potent"? How potent and in relation to what, and in what amount? Large ruminants and other animals that produce methane roamed the Earth in greater numbers long before humans came up with the concept of livestock. Stable isotopes of carbon in atmospheric methane don't support livestock being a contributor to rising methane at all. Because livestock methane is part of the carbon cycle, and livestock aren't in greater numbers, problematic increases in atmospheric methane have to be coming from somewhere else, most likely things such as fracking. Carbon-14 would be increasing in the atmosphere if cows were responsible. Even if we eliminated meat consumption, hypothetically speaking, it's totally unclear and unfounded that any meaningful difference would be made. According to the United States EPA, agriculture as a whole makes up 11% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. That percentage includes everything from farm to table, meaning that cows in particular make up a fraction of that since most of the greenhouse gas will inevitably come from transportation and processing. Methane itself makes up ~11% of greenhouse gas. Show me any evidence whatsoever that correcting for the greenhouse gas from animals bred for food will make any appreciable difference in changing the climate in the favor of humans. By the way, most of the methane from cows comes from their burping, not farting.

IanCal 4y ago
> So what if methane is more "potent"? If you are concerned about global warming, swapping one thing for something else that has a greater negative impact is bad. Having a process or animal that converts CO2 to methane is not neutral just because the CO2 was already in the atmosphere. > How potent 25x more. > and in relation to what, CO2 over a period of 100 years usually. > and in what amount? Any amount, it's a relative figure.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  Doesn't methane break down much more rapidly than CO2?
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    Yes. And it turns into, guess what, CO2. And heat.
  - dagss 4y ago
    The 25x number already includes this effect. Methane is much much more potent than CO2, but since it breaks down rapidly then over the course of a 100 years the average effect is 25x. So: if you first say "25x" then you cannot say "break down" afterwards because that is included in the 25x, you are then mentally including the breakdown twice. There are also higher numbers in use than 25x that is used for the effect over shorter horizons. But 100 years seems like a good horizon for the humanity getting through the crisis or not.
dagss 4y ago
Total emissions of 100% is made up contributions of 1%+1%+1%+... By that logic there exists nothing that can help climate change...even if we are causing it. A bit like saying "shooting this one plane down out of 1000 enemy planes does not win the war; may as well not shoot it and give up". Yes, obviously if we had never touched fossil fuels, having even more lifestock than today would probably be fine too, but that is not very relevant.

IanCal 4y ago

> So what if methane is more "potent"? If you are concerned about global warming, swapping one thing for something else that has a greater negative impact is bad. Having a process or animal that converts CO2 to methane is not neutral just because the CO2 was already in the atmosphere. > How potent 25x more. > and in relation to what, CO2 over a period of 100 years usually. > and in what amount? Any amount, it's a relative figure.

snovv_crash 4y ago
Doesn't methane break down much more rapidly than CO2?
- rbanffy 4y ago
  Yes. And it turns into, guess what, CO2. And heat.
- dagss 4y ago
  The 25x number already includes this effect. Methane is much much more potent than CO2, but since it breaks down rapidly then over the course of a 100 years the average effect is 25x. So: if you first say "25x" then you cannot say "break down" afterwards because that is included in the 25x, you are then mentally including the breakdown twice. There are also higher numbers in use than 25x that is used for the effect over shorter horizons. But 100 years seems like a good horizon for the humanity getting through the crisis or not.

dagss 4y ago

Total emissions of 100% is made up contributions of 1%+1%+1%+... By that logic there exists nothing that can help climate change...even if we are causing it. A bit like saying "shooting this one plane down out of 1000 enemy planes does not win the war; may as well not shoot it and give up". Yes, obviously if we had never touched fossil fuels, having even more lifestock than today would probably be fine too, but that is not very relevant.