5 ms·

> There is not one shed of science that can suggest with any amount of confidence that eliminating livestock will make a difference with global warming meaning

> There is not one shed of science that can suggest with any amount of confidence that eliminating livestock will make a difference with global warming meaningful enough to justify not being able to eat the food that we developed to subsist on. As long as that gas continues to go into the atmosphere, it's going to keep causing problems for climate change. It accounts for 14.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions[1] and a phase out presents a massive opportunity to sequester carbon. > We show that, even in the absence of any other emission reductions, persistent drops in atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide levels, and slower carbon dioxide accumulation, following a phaseout of livestock production would, through the end of the century, have the same cumulative effect on the warming potential of the atmosphere as a 25 gigaton per year reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, providing half of the net emission reductions necessary to limit warming to 2°C. The magnitude and rapidity of these potential effects should place the reduction or elimination of animal agriculture at the forefront of strategies for averting disastrous climate change. https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/07/20-meat-and-dairy-firms-emit-more-greenhouse-gas-than-germany-britain-or-france https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/07/20-meat-...

Rury 4y ago
Again cows don't emit completely new gas into the atmosphere; all gas they emit originally came from the atmosphere. So their emissions are not in anyway a problem, as it's really just recycled atmosphere. You'd might argue that they change the composition (eg changing it to methane gas), but methane also breaks down in the stratosphere. Sure it takes like 100+ years to happen, but it's temporary. You can set a population of cows, and keep it steady, and the amount of methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere attributed to the cows won't change after some period of time. Now, growing the population of cows will grow this temporary store of gas, but cows bodies also are carbon sinks themselves which offsets it somewhat. And likewise, as you cite, reducing the population of cows and livestock would decrease their temporary contribution of gas. But this temporary store of methane isn't the root of our problems. The real problem, is taking carbon from underground, and burning it. For nature to naturally reverse this process, takes millions of years. The only real solution is to stop burning fossil fuels, and/or to reverse the natural process faster somehow (like by repeatedly burying trees and growing new ones).
- roboticmind 4y ago
  As long as the methane stays in the atmosphere it does warming. Taking 100+ year to reach equilibrium concentrations still means having massive amounts of methane in the atmosphere doing warming, just at an equilibrium. Because it breaks faster than CO2 is why we should really reduce the emissions today because it presents us a great opportunity to save more warming effect in the future > Nevertheless, while methane may have a short atmospheric lifetime, its effects are not ephemeral provided the source of the methane continues to exist. For as long as livestock continue to be farmed, methane continues to exert a warming effect upon the climate. > As such the argument that since methane’s impacts are temporary, they do not matter, is wrong. Its effects will in practice be permanent, unless ruminant production is halted. > Methane emissions also increase the risk of us ‘overshooting’ the 1.5°C/2°C target, potentially tipping us into unknown climatic territory, with possibly devastating effects on agriculture, wildlife’s ability to adapt, heat stress in humans and animals, and more https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc...

Rury 4y ago

Again cows don't emit completely new gas into the atmosphere; all gas they emit originally came from the atmosphere. So their emissions are not in anyway a problem, as it's really just recycled atmosphere. You'd might argue that they change the composition (eg changing it to methane gas), but methane also breaks down in the stratosphere. Sure it takes like 100+ years to happen, but it's temporary. You can set a population of cows, and keep it steady, and the amount of methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere attributed to the cows won't change after some period of time. Now, growing the population of cows will grow this temporary store of gas, but cows bodies also are carbon sinks themselves which offsets it somewhat. And likewise, as you cite, reducing the population of cows and livestock would decrease their temporary contribution of gas. But this temporary store of methane isn't the root of our problems. The real problem, is taking carbon from underground, and burning it. For nature to naturally reverse this process, takes millions of years. The only real solution is to stop burning fossil fuels, and/or to reverse the natural process faster somehow (like by repeatedly burying trees and growing new ones).

roboticmind 4y ago
As long as the methane stays in the atmosphere it does warming. Taking 100+ year to reach equilibrium concentrations still means having massive amounts of methane in the atmosphere doing warming, just at an equilibrium. Because it breaks faster than CO2 is why we should really reduce the emissions today because it presents us a great opportunity to save more warming effect in the future > Nevertheless, while methane may have a short atmospheric lifetime, its effects are not ephemeral provided the source of the methane continues to exist. For as long as livestock continue to be farmed, methane continues to exert a warming effect upon the climate. > As such the argument that since methane’s impacts are temporary, they do not matter, is wrong. Its effects will in practice be permanent, unless ruminant production is halted. > Methane emissions also increase the risk of us ‘overshooting’ the 1.5°C/2°C target, potentially tipping us into unknown climatic territory, with possibly devastating effects on agriculture, wildlife’s ability to adapt, heat stress in humans and animals, and more https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc...