4 ms·

On the second point, some earlier research[1] suggested that using it as feedstock for cattle may in turn reduce the amount of methane they produce. We apparent

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• ttul 4y ago
  “Enteric methane emissions — emissions produced in the rumen of livestock — are responsible for as much as 14.5 per cent of the annual greenhouse gases produced by human activity.” Eating seaweed reduces cow methane by 86%. Thus, if every livestock animal on the planet ate seaweed in its diet, we might cut effective GHG output by 10% or so. That’s a huge dent in the problem. I am not accounting for the CO2 emissions involved in seaweed harvesting.
  • gumby 4y ago
    I think that’s an error — all of agriculture, IIRC, produced about 15% of GHGs. This is not to downplay the impact of bovine burping. Also note that, as far as methane goes (that’s what the cows burp), anthropogenic emissions are about 40% of the total.
    • schiffern 4y ago
      Yes it's an error. The ABC article is misquoting the FAO, which says that all emissions associated with livestock make up 14.5% of human GHG emissions.[0] This includes not only enteric methane (39% of that), but also emissions and deforestation to grow feed (45%), manure storage (10%), and meat processing and transport (6%). Reducing global emissions by ~6% is still a huge dent, of course. [0] https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/