2 ms·

My final thoughts are, what my original comment (2-3 comments up the chain) was. Your “solution” doesn’t solve anything, but merely delays the inevitable. The

by tomp 4y ago

My final thoughts are, what my original comment (2-3 comments up the chain) was. Your “solution” doesn’t solve anything, but merely delays the inevitable. There is only one solution to global warming, which is stopping fossil fuels. Deleting all cows is not a solution, therefore it is promoted simply as a distraction, and a way to let people hate each other, via “sin taxes” (very similar to “paper straws” drive a few years back, which also had a zero-to-negative effect on pollution and global warming)

rafaelero 4y ago
virgildotcodes 4y ago
I agree that we need to eliminate fossil fuels. I also didn't state that eliminating animal agriculture was the singular solution to climate change. All I was pointing out was that it doesn't seem correct to say that cattle do not contribute to climate change, as you seemed to be saying.
- tomp 4y ago
  No, it's correct to say that cattle don't contribute to climate change, but clearly I haven't managed to explain it properly. Let's try with an analogy. You have a lake, that has an inflow (river) and an outflow (river and/or solar evaporation). They are in equilibrium, and the lake has existed for thousands of years, never overflowing, never drying out. Then you build a factory/farm that takes some water out of the lake. If the amount of water is sufficiently small, the ecosystem can adapt (e.g. less outflow and/or evaporation). But if the amount of water you take out is over that "adaptable" threshold, then the lake WILL eventually dry out. Blaming the outflowing river is non-sensical; it didn't contribute anything to the drying of the lake, the entire fault lies with the factory. Note that the amount of water the factory takes is irrelevant (as long as it's over the "adaptable" threshold); the lake will dry regardless, the amount only influences when, not if. river->natural CO2 + methane cycle, lake->climate, factory->fossil fuels, less outflow->plants growing more because of extra CO2, lake drying->climate change (could work the other way as well, lake overflowing...)

by tomp 4y ago

rafaelero 4y ago

virgildotcodes 4y ago

I agree that we need to eliminate fossil fuels. I also didn't state that eliminating animal agriculture was the singular solution to climate change. All I was pointing out was that it doesn't seem correct to say that cattle do not contribute to climate change, as you seemed to be saying.

tomp 4y ago
No, it's correct to say that cattle don't contribute to climate change, but clearly I haven't managed to explain it properly. Let's try with an analogy. You have a lake, that has an inflow (river) and an outflow (river and/or solar evaporation). They are in equilibrium, and the lake has existed for thousands of years, never overflowing, never drying out. Then you build a factory/farm that takes some water out of the lake. If the amount of water is sufficiently small, the ecosystem can adapt (e.g. less outflow and/or evaporation). But if the amount of water you take out is over that "adaptable" threshold, then the lake WILL eventually dry out. Blaming the outflowing river is non-sensical; it didn't contribute anything to the drying of the lake, the entire fault lies with the factory. Note that the amount of water the factory takes is irrelevant (as long as it's over the "adaptable" threshold); the lake will dry regardless, the amount only influences when, not if. river->natural CO2 + methane cycle, lake->climate, factory->fossil fuels, less outflow->plants growing more because of extra CO2, lake drying->climate change (could work the other way as well, lake overflowing...)