3 ms·

Chemical composition matter. Scenario one: CH4 + 2 02 Scenario two: 2 H20 + C + 02 Scenario three: C02 + 2 H2 + 02 All of the above have the same molecules

Chemical composition matter. Scenario one: CH4 + 2 02 Scenario two: 2 H20 + C + 02 Scenario three: C02 + 2 H2 + 02 All of the above have the same molecules but they have a wildly different impact on from a climate change perspective.

tomp 4y ago
Not long term they don’t. CH4 breaks down into CO2 in a few decades, forming a natural cycle. The only long-term climate impact is from additional CO2 from fossil fuels.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  Which is why the article points out that offsetting meat production entirely from fossil fuel would require unrealistic changes. Going vegetarian would be easier, but, if (and it’s a big if, as many experts highlighted) they manage to accomplish even a small part of their goal, the impact is still very large.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  If you are constantly pumping CH4 into the atmosphere over the long-term then you have a long-term climate impact as a result. This is without even taking into account whether the increased heating from the "short-term" impact of CH4 over a few decades causes us to hit tipping points sooner than otherwise, or that in the best case scenario we may have been able to avoid hitting at all.
  - tomp 4y ago
    No that’s not how physics works. If you keep pumping a constant amount of CH4 into the atmosphere, it keeps degrading into CO2, which is transformed into grass, which is transformed into cows. It’s a cycle. There is no long-term impact.
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      Let's say you have 100 units of CO2, and 0 units of CH4 in the atmosphere, you are producing 100 units of warming per year. Then you do something that converts 20 of those units of CO2 to 20 units of CH4, you are now producing 80 x 1 + 20 x 84 = 1,760 units of warming per year. If you are performing this action at a rate that keeps replenishing the CH4 as quickly as it is degrading, let alone faster than it's degrading and subsequently increasing the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere, the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere is constantly being kept higher than it would be were you not performing this action, for as long a term as you continue to perform it. So you've now ended up with a planet that is constantly experiencing more warming than you would have otherwise. If the permafrost requires 1,000 units of warming to melt and release its stores of CO2 and CH4, then this further makes the difference between triggering this tipping point or not. Am I misunderstanding something?
      - tomp 4y ago
        Yes. We didn’t start with zero. > There are 30m cows in the US, compared to 60m bison 150 years ago.
        virgildotcodes 4y ago
        I mean, you don't have to start with 0, nor does the fact that we had more bison emitting (for the sake of argument, although given all the deforestation, petrochemical use, and other agricultural processes involved in sustaining modern cows I'm not sure it's a given, especially when taking a global view) more methane in the past excuse the damage of the methane emitted by current cows. We could have had X units of CO2, and Y units of CH4 produced by bison under the past era. We've eradicated the bison, replaced them with 1/2 their number in cows. We now have X units of CO2, Y/2 units of CH4 produced by cows. This is still producing more warming than if we eliminated the cows, and went to X units of CO2, 0Y units of CH4 produced by cows. The existence of the cows still results in more CH4, and more warming, than would be the case if we phased them out, no? In any case, if we replaced the cows by food sources that produced less than X + Y/2 units of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 respectively, we're better off.

tomp 4y ago

Not long term they don’t. CH4 breaks down into CO2 in a few decades, forming a natural cycle. The only long-term climate impact is from additional CO2 from fossil fuels.

rbanffy 4y ago
Which is why the article points out that offsetting meat production entirely from fossil fuel would require unrealistic changes. Going vegetarian would be easier, but, if (and it’s a big if, as many experts highlighted) they manage to accomplish even a small part of their goal, the impact is still very large.
virgildotcodes 4y ago
If you are constantly pumping CH4 into the atmosphere over the long-term then you have a long-term climate impact as a result. This is without even taking into account whether the increased heating from the "short-term" impact of CH4 over a few decades causes us to hit tipping points sooner than otherwise, or that in the best case scenario we may have been able to avoid hitting at all.
- tomp 4y ago
  No that’s not how physics works. If you keep pumping a constant amount of CH4 into the atmosphere, it keeps degrading into CO2, which is transformed into grass, which is transformed into cows. It’s a cycle. There is no long-term impact.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    Let's say you have 100 units of CO2, and 0 units of CH4 in the atmosphere, you are producing 100 units of warming per year. Then you do something that converts 20 of those units of CO2 to 20 units of CH4, you are now producing 80 x 1 + 20 x 84 = 1,760 units of warming per year. If you are performing this action at a rate that keeps replenishing the CH4 as quickly as it is degrading, let alone faster than it's degrading and subsequently increasing the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere, the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere is constantly being kept higher than it would be were you not performing this action, for as long a term as you continue to perform it. So you've now ended up with a planet that is constantly experiencing more warming than you would have otherwise. If the permafrost requires 1,000 units of warming to melt and release its stores of CO2 and CH4, then this further makes the difference between triggering this tipping point or not. Am I misunderstanding something?
    - tomp 4y ago
      Yes. We didn’t start with zero. > There are 30m cows in the US, compared to 60m bison 150 years ago.
      - virgildotcodes 4y ago
        I mean, you don't have to start with 0, nor does the fact that we had more bison emitting (for the sake of argument, although given all the deforestation, petrochemical use, and other agricultural processes involved in sustaining modern cows I'm not sure it's a given, especially when taking a global view) more methane in the past excuse the damage of the methane emitted by current cows. We could have had X units of CO2, and Y units of CH4 produced by bison under the past era. We've eradicated the bison, replaced them with 1/2 their number in cows. We now have X units of CO2, Y/2 units of CH4 produced by cows. This is still producing more warming than if we eliminated the cows, and went to X units of CO2, 0Y units of CH4 produced by cows. The existence of the cows still results in more CH4, and more warming, than would be the case if we phased them out, no? In any case, if we replaced the cows by food sources that produced less than X + Y/2 units of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 respectively, we're better off.