> but the arguments for why it doesn’t matter don’t stick I'm not so sure. GP's argument was that when people say rice/cattle release so-and-so much methane in

> but the arguments for why it doesn’t matter don’t stick I'm not so sure. GP's argument was that when people say rice/cattle release so-and-so much methane into the atmosphere per year, the fact that it's a cycle and the amount of methane & CO2 in the atmosphere due to rice/cattle remains constant is usually ignored. Meanwhile, burning fossil fuel, increasing air traffic (-> water in the atmosphere), etc. actually increase the total amount of green house gases in the atmosphere, year by year. Sure, we could think about reducing the constant amount of methane in the atmosphere due to cattle/rice by reducing cattle/rice but, in light of emissions due to fossil fuel accumulating year by year, this doesn't seem to be the most pressing issue by a large margin.