10 ms·

Fortunately, satellite based CH4 detection is now becoming precise and reliable enough to be usable in the search for methane sources. GHGSat satellites have a

Fortunately, satellite based CH4 detection is now becoming precise and reliable enough to be usable in the search for methane sources. GHGSat satellites have a 25m resolution, and their sensor equipped airplanes can narrow it down to <1m. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-new-generation-of-satellites-is-helping-authorities-track-methane-emissions-180979181/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-new-generati... https://www.ghgsat.com/en/ https://www.ghgsat.com/en/ Roughly 1/3rd of emissions are from livestock. Hopefully the research into seaweed additives for feed pan out with their estimated 75% reduction. https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces...

rtev 4y ago
In the meantime, beef alternatives are quite convincing these days. It’s a fairly small step to take that can dramatically lower your individual footprint.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  The people preaching to us about reducing our footprints, are the same ones taking their private jets to Davos, and emitting a lifetime of CO2 in the process. Sorry, going to skip the highly processed chemicals plants that is fake meat, and will pass on the bug burgers too. No crickets for dinner here!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    I mean, the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians I know own zero private jets. That said, even if they did, and we all took the route of dismissing any change on the basis that the advocates of that change aren't perfect, as no advocates ever are, well then it seems that nothing would ever change.
    - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      It's said because meat consumption is a blip compared to all the things people do, most of those vegans and vegetarians included. It's also difficult for anything lacto-ovo vegetarian to get all they need without relying on imports way away from their home country. You'd arguably do more staying flexitarian but getting your produce as local and seasonal as possible to cut out the emissions caused by transport. And maybe not taking that second transatlantic flight. Notice how neither of those are pushed half as hard as "go vegan and save the planet".
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - virgildotcodes 4y ago
        >It's said because meat consumption is a blip compared to all the things people do, most of those vegans and vegetarians included. I mean, animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% of GHG emissions, roughly more than all global transport according to the IPCC.[1] Few of us have the ability to unilaterally shut down a coal plant or an oil company, but a large number of us do have the ability to change our consumption habits to be less destructive. >It's also difficult for anything lacto-ovo vegetarian to get all they need without relying on imports way away from their home country. >You'd arguably do more staying flexitarian but getting your produce as local and seasonal as possible to cut out the emissions caused by transport. Just to address the notion about food transport GHG emissions, you'd actually have a bigger impact on your emissions by eating vegan once a week than if all your food was entirely locally grown for the entire week.[2] Food miles are a very small fraction of the emissions of food production, especially that of animal products. Finally, it doesn't have to be either or. People can ride their bicycles, eat local, take fewer flights, as well as reduce their meat consumption. [1]https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf [2]https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
        BlargMcLarg 4y ago
        >[2] One source doesn't equate consensus. Given the myriads of criticisms among diets, food production and emissions, I'd ask you to remain skeptical of anything advocating for more open loops. Plenty of sources put transport far higher than agriculture, and many of the differences are based on methodology. No, this doesn't mean the critics are right. >Finally, it doesn't have to be either or. Not the point. One of these is pushed aggressively. The others aren't. That alone should warrant enough skepticism regarding the entire thing. Even if we don't agree on what is the worst, it's ridiculous to push one but not the other. That's how you create political friction. >Few of us have the ability to unilaterally shut down a coal plant or an oil company, but a large number of us do have the ability to change our consumption habits to be less destructive. You can't keep compensating for a few unwilling individuals taking advantage of the breathing room opened up. Playing a game prisoner's dilemma should be the first thing to get your head closer on the wanted list. How this is even negotiable in the face of a global threat is beyond me.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    Who said anything about private jets? Who said anything about crickets? Since when are meat alternatives any more full of "highly processed chemicals" than ordinary meat products? Why does this read like a Facebook comment?
    - newsclues 4y ago
      There is a big push in the media and from food industry to normalize meat substitutes and bug protein.
      - seized 4y ago
        Meat substitutes sure. No one is trying to normalize crickets, don't be dramatic. And I say that as someone always searching for new vegetarian or vegan recipes and ideas.
        byyll 4y ago
        No one except for the EU Commission[1], WEF[2][3] and other such small institutions and organizations. Don't try to downplay it. [1] https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1558014404855209986 https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1558014404855209986 [2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects-soon/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-migh... [3] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-insects-the-role-they-deserve-in-our-food-systems/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-i...
    - bendbro 4y ago
      I would give everything to live under your rock
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    I'll bite - suppose that the only people supporting lower carbon output are jetsetting cosmopolitan filthy commy lib-ruhls. If one person convinces a thousand people or ten thousand people or a hundred thousand people to support systems that reduce those emissions and offsets their personal use by orders of magnitude would you still scoff? I don't expect a sincere response since this seems to me to be just parroting of cable news talking points which tends to be a predictor of discourse level but I'd love to be surprised.
    - newsclues 4y ago
      I’m a bike riding hippie that doesn’t own a car and I haven’t flown in close to a decade. Given that people like me exist that support reducing pollution from fossil fuels (climate change is a silly term), we don’t need to speculate that only the jet setting elites are interested in saving the planet. I do question the entire movement when the leaders are hypocrites and i sometimes think it’s a wasted effort for the average person.
      - kurupt213 4y ago
        It’s completely out of our control. It would be better to invest in tech to mitigate the impact
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        11235813213455 4y ago
        that's what Elon Musk would say, or most people who still live their overpolluting lifestyle and watch climate change like another of their daily entertainment Our individual lifestyle and footprint is like a vote, it looks inefficient but it works as a whole (I know about the huge inertia of global warming, but definitely still worth to do something)
  - kurupt213 4y ago
    Edible insects are a major source of gut parasites
  - seized 4y ago
    There is a huge amount of food options before you get to crickets. Plant based meat didn't come before tofu, chickpeas, lentils, beans, and so many other ingredients and options.
- bendbro 4y ago
  From my cold, greasy hands
- kurupt213 4y ago
  Or not. What if North America was still covered in bison…would you suggest slaughtering all the herds?
  - 11235813213455 4y ago
    it's not 0 or 1 it's cutting most animal farming and keeping/improving biodiversity
  - rtev 4y ago
    What if all humans were cows? Would I suggest slaughtering all the people-cows? Neither of those questions is based in reality, so the answers don’t really matter.
  - pietro72ohboy 4y ago
    That ecosystem is gone and gone with it are elements of that ecosystem that would’ve prevented our climate situation. The land and the grasslands those bison inhabited has been destroyed. The massive forests of that day are gone. You cannot cherrypick one element of the past and use it’s isolated existence as an argument against steps taken in our current situation
tomp 4y ago
Livestock emissions form a cycle. If you literally killed and deleted all cows from the planet, you’d get a slight delay in global warming, but wouldn’t solve it. The real and only issue are fossil fuels.
- etrautmann 4y ago
  your comment suggests a misunderstanding. Cows convert inert carbon from feed into methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas. Not all carbon is created equal from the perspective of climate. While you're correct that fossil fuel control is crucial, livestock emissions are also an important part, and it's a false dilemma to solely focus efforts on one issue.
  - tengbretson 4y ago
    You are not looking at the cycle in its entirety. Cows convert carbon from their biomass feed into methane as a part of digestion, but absent the cow, that same biomass would still at some point decompose on its own, releasing methane in the process.
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      Doesn't this presume that we would continue to grow the same amount of feed and then allow it to decompose? Whereas a reduction in meat consumption would mean a reduction in total global land use for agriculture, allowing that land to be rewilded. Trapping carbon over a longer term and potentially providing numerous environmental benefits.
      - kebman 4y ago
        It's grass. If you stop growing grass, something else will grow in its place.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
giantg2 4y ago
"Fortunately, satellite based CH4 detection is now becoming precise and reliable enough to be usable in the search for methane sources." I guess I should expect a visit from the EPA next time I have the guys over for chili.
- ortusdux 4y ago
  Seaweed is a great source of umami!
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I feel like the effect on me is the opposite of the cow studies. Wasabi nori snacks are awesome though.
- cptskippy 4y ago
  I think the OP conflated two unrelated facts. We know cattle and agriculture produce methane and have a reasonable idea of the amount, but that's only 1/3 of the problem. Satellites are being used to identify industrial scale leaks that were previously unknown or more likely unreported. SoCal gas had a storage facility that was leaking methane in quantities that accounted for 1/4 of the state of California's methane emissions. Similarly they've been able to identify the sources of rogue CFC emissions in China.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
abledon 4y ago
show that to the dutch farmers
- brnt 4y ago
  No amount of reason will help with the unreasonables.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I can imagine how that conversation would go. Nerd with satellite data: Hello Mr. Farmer, while scanning the region for increases in methane, I noticed a spike coming from your farm. Farmer: ok, go fuck yourself. Nerd: ....well ok.
- hamandcheese 4y ago
  In the US at least there are tons of farming subsidies (not sure about cattle specifically). So the way to do this is via policy, not nerd outreach. Plenty of levers to incentivize the right behavior.
- mellavora 4y ago
  Hello, Mr Russian, while scanning the globe for increases in methane, we noticed large regions of Siberia.... Russia: ok, go fuck yourself
cageface 4y ago
Harvesting and distributing seaweed at that scale poses plenty of its own huge logistical hurdles. I wouldn't count on it as a solution.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

rtev 4y ago

In the meantime, beef alternatives are quite convincing these days. It’s a fairly small step to take that can dramatically lower your individual footprint.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
The people preaching to us about reducing our footprints, are the same ones taking their private jets to Davos, and emitting a lifetime of CO2 in the process. Sorry, going to skip the highly processed chemicals plants that is fake meat, and will pass on the bug burgers too. No crickets for dinner here!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  I mean, the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians I know own zero private jets. That said, even if they did, and we all took the route of dismissing any change on the basis that the advocates of that change aren't perfect, as no advocates ever are, well then it seems that nothing would ever change.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    It's said because meat consumption is a blip compared to all the things people do, most of those vegans and vegetarians included. It's also difficult for anything lacto-ovo vegetarian to get all they need without relying on imports way away from their home country. You'd arguably do more staying flexitarian but getting your produce as local and seasonal as possible to cut out the emissions caused by transport. And maybe not taking that second transatlantic flight. Notice how neither of those are pushed half as hard as "go vegan and save the planet".
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      >It's said because meat consumption is a blip compared to all the things people do, most of those vegans and vegetarians included. I mean, animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% of GHG emissions, roughly more than all global transport according to the IPCC.[1] Few of us have the ability to unilaterally shut down a coal plant or an oil company, but a large number of us do have the ability to change our consumption habits to be less destructive. >It's also difficult for anything lacto-ovo vegetarian to get all they need without relying on imports way away from their home country. >You'd arguably do more staying flexitarian but getting your produce as local and seasonal as possible to cut out the emissions caused by transport. Just to address the notion about food transport GHG emissions, you'd actually have a bigger impact on your emissions by eating vegan once a week than if all your food was entirely locally grown for the entire week.[2] Food miles are a very small fraction of the emissions of food production, especially that of animal products. Finally, it doesn't have to be either or. People can ride their bicycles, eat local, take fewer flights, as well as reduce their meat consumption. [1]https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf [2]https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
      - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
        >[2] One source doesn't equate consensus. Given the myriads of criticisms among diets, food production and emissions, I'd ask you to remain skeptical of anything advocating for more open loops. Plenty of sources put transport far higher than agriculture, and many of the differences are based on methodology. No, this doesn't mean the critics are right. >Finally, it doesn't have to be either or. Not the point. One of these is pushed aggressively. The others aren't. That alone should warrant enough skepticism regarding the entire thing. Even if we don't agree on what is the worst, it's ridiculous to push one but not the other. That's how you create political friction. >Few of us have the ability to unilaterally shut down a coal plant or an oil company, but a large number of us do have the ability to change our consumption habits to be less destructive. You can't keep compensating for a few unwilling individuals taking advantage of the breathing room opened up. Playing a game prisoner's dilemma should be the first thing to get your head closer on the wanted list. How this is even negotiable in the face of a global threat is beyond me.
- kibwen 4y ago
  Who said anything about private jets? Who said anything about crickets? Since when are meat alternatives any more full of "highly processed chemicals" than ordinary meat products? Why does this read like a Facebook comment?
  - newsclues 4y ago
    There is a big push in the media and from food industry to normalize meat substitutes and bug protein.
    - seized 4y ago
      Meat substitutes sure. No one is trying to normalize crickets, don't be dramatic. And I say that as someone always searching for new vegetarian or vegan recipes and ideas.
      - byyll 4y ago
        No one except for the EU Commission[1], WEF[2][3] and other such small institutions and organizations. Don't try to downplay it. [1] https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1558014404855209986 https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1558014404855209986 [2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects-soon/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-migh... [3] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-insects-the-role-they-deserve-in-our-food-systems/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-i...
  - bendbro 4y ago
    I would give everything to live under your rock
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  I'll bite - suppose that the only people supporting lower carbon output are jetsetting cosmopolitan filthy commy lib-ruhls. If one person convinces a thousand people or ten thousand people or a hundred thousand people to support systems that reduce those emissions and offsets their personal use by orders of magnitude would you still scoff? I don't expect a sincere response since this seems to me to be just parroting of cable news talking points which tends to be a predictor of discourse level but I'd love to be surprised.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    I’m a bike riding hippie that doesn’t own a car and I haven’t flown in close to a decade. Given that people like me exist that support reducing pollution from fossil fuels (climate change is a silly term), we don’t need to speculate that only the jet setting elites are interested in saving the planet. I do question the entire movement when the leaders are hypocrites and i sometimes think it’s a wasted effort for the average person.
    - kurupt213 4y ago
      It’s completely out of our control. It would be better to invest in tech to mitigate the impact
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - 11235813213455 4y ago
        that's what Elon Musk would say, or most people who still live their overpolluting lifestyle and watch climate change like another of their daily entertainment Our individual lifestyle and footprint is like a vote, it looks inefficient but it works as a whole (I know about the huge inertia of global warming, but definitely still worth to do something)
- kurupt213 4y ago
  Edible insects are a major source of gut parasites
- seized 4y ago
  There is a huge amount of food options before you get to crickets. Plant based meat didn't come before tofu, chickpeas, lentils, beans, and so many other ingredients and options.
bendbro 4y ago
From my cold, greasy hands
kurupt213 4y ago
Or not. What if North America was still covered in bison…would you suggest slaughtering all the herds?
- 11235813213455 4y ago
  it's not 0 or 1 it's cutting most animal farming and keeping/improving biodiversity
- rtev 4y ago
  What if all humans were cows? Would I suggest slaughtering all the people-cows? Neither of those questions is based in reality, so the answers don’t really matter.
- pietro72ohboy 4y ago
  That ecosystem is gone and gone with it are elements of that ecosystem that would’ve prevented our climate situation. The land and the grasslands those bison inhabited has been destroyed. The massive forests of that day are gone. You cannot cherrypick one element of the past and use it’s isolated existence as an argument against steps taken in our current situation

tomp 4y ago

Livestock emissions form a cycle. If you literally killed and deleted all cows from the planet, you’d get a slight delay in global warming, but wouldn’t solve it. The real and only issue are fossil fuels.

etrautmann 4y ago
your comment suggests a misunderstanding. Cows convert inert carbon from feed into methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas. Not all carbon is created equal from the perspective of climate. While you're correct that fossil fuel control is crucial, livestock emissions are also an important part, and it's a false dilemma to solely focus efforts on one issue.
- tengbretson 4y ago
  You are not looking at the cycle in its entirety. Cows convert carbon from their biomass feed into methane as a part of digestion, but absent the cow, that same biomass would still at some point decompose on its own, releasing methane in the process.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    Doesn't this presume that we would continue to grow the same amount of feed and then allow it to decompose? Whereas a reduction in meat consumption would mean a reduction in total global land use for agriculture, allowing that land to be rewilded. Trapping carbon over a longer term and potentially providing numerous environmental benefits.
    - kebman 4y ago
      It's grass. If you stop growing grass, something else will grow in its place.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

giantg2 4y ago

"Fortunately, satellite based CH4 detection is now becoming precise and reliable enough to be usable in the search for methane sources." I guess I should expect a visit from the EPA next time I have the guys over for chili.

ortusdux 4y ago
Seaweed is a great source of umami!
- giantg2 4y ago
  I feel like the effect on me is the opposite of the cow studies. Wasabi nori snacks are awesome though.
cptskippy 4y ago
I think the OP conflated two unrelated facts. We know cattle and agriculture produce methane and have a reasonable idea of the amount, but that's only 1/3 of the problem. Satellites are being used to identify industrial scale leaks that were previously unknown or more likely unreported. SoCal gas had a storage facility that was leaking methane in quantities that accounted for 1/4 of the state of California's methane emissions. Similarly they've been able to identify the sources of rogue CFC emissions in China.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

abledon 4y ago

show that to the dutch farmers

brnt 4y ago
No amount of reason will help with the unreasonables.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I can imagine how that conversation would go. Nerd with satellite data: Hello Mr. Farmer, while scanning the region for increases in methane, I noticed a spike coming from your farm. Farmer: ok, go fuck yourself. Nerd: ....well ok.

hamandcheese 4y ago
In the US at least there are tons of farming subsidies (not sure about cattle specifically). So the way to do this is via policy, not nerd outreach. Plenty of levers to incentivize the right behavior.
mellavora 4y ago
Hello, Mr Russian, while scanning the globe for increases in methane, we noticed large regions of Siberia.... Russia: ok, go fuck yourself

cageface 4y ago

Harvesting and distributing seaweed at that scale poses plenty of its own huge logistical hurdles. I wouldn't count on it as a solution.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]