4 ms·

> It's kind of really, really important how high that "steady level" is and how fast we'd reach it though, no? (Update: In hindsight I'm not sure you were talk

> It's kind of really, really important how high that "steady level" is and how fast we'd reach it though, no? (Update: In hindsight I'm not sure you were talking about methane emissions in general or about methane from meat production. Here, I'm focussing on the latter. Meanwhile, fossil methane is of course a huge problem.) As for the second part of your question: When it comes to meat production, we have already reached the steady state. As for the first part: Yes. But it is not that high. Let's say the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to cattle (and rice and other types of agriculture) account for a fraction X of the world's yearly emissions. (In Germany, for instance, X = 0.06, i.e. 6%.) Let's assume for simplicity the remaining emissions are exclusively due to fossil fuels and all emissions are the same every year. Let Y be the fraction of agricultural emissions relative to fossil emissions, i.e. Y = X/(1-X). (= 6.4% for Germany) Then, after N years, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to agriculture, relative to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels (burned during that timeframe) will be Y/N. This is because agricultural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will stay constant – because we're in a steady state – but greenhouse gases due to fossil fuels will keep on accumulating. Putting e.g. N=20 yields Y/N = 0.3% (for Germany). N=100 yields 0.06%. In short, the amount is negligible. Fossil fuels are a real problem when it comes to climate change, agriculture is not.

smolder 4y ago
Fossil fuels are used to make fertilizer on a massive scale as well as power a lot of equipment used, so agriculture is currently a piece of the fossil fuel problem.
klipt 4y ago
> When it comes to meat production, we have already reached the steady state. Well yes but also no, we've reached a steady state. If we reduce meat production we would reach a new, lower steady state which would buy some more time.
- codethief 4y ago
  > we would reach a new, lower steady state That's right but your claim that this > would buy some more time completely ignores my (admittedly back-of-the-envelope) calculation. Please do point out if there's an error somewhere but until then I will stand by my point: Emissions from meat production – even with meat consumption as high as it is these days – are negligible in the grand scheme of things. We better focus our efforts elsewhere. Besides, what kind of food would we replace the meat with? That food would also need to be grown, harvested, transported, and so on. In the end, we might not gain much in terms of greenhouse gases.
  - timeon 4y ago
    > That food would also need to be grown Animals for meet are killed before reaching adult age but it still takes longer time then one season of plant growth. They need to eat those in meantime.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    With the exception of agriculturally marginal land, using land to produce food by way of animals is typically vastly more wasteful than using it to produce human-edible food directly, certainly on a per-calorie basis. There's no shortage of studies demonstrating the potential for genuine reductions in emissions (both CO2 and CH4), and reductions in the need for land-clearing, indeed freeing up land that can reforested etc. if we didn't insist on such (land-) inefficient methods of food production. Even if the emissions-savings benefits were negligible, it's hard to thing of too other many lifestyle changes we could make that have such potential ecological benefits than moderating meat consumption. If done sensibly and thoughtfully it's almost certainly going to benefit your personal health too (and, I'd argue, your tastebuds!). But obviously there's a cultural shift involved that won't happen overnight - restaurants/food retailers in particular often seem afraid to offer any more than one or two token meat-free dishes, despite the fact that if I were to list the 10 most amazing meals I've had in recent years, maybe 1 (2 at most) would contain any meat.

smolder 4y ago

Fossil fuels are used to make fertilizer on a massive scale as well as power a lot of equipment used, so agriculture is currently a piece of the fossil fuel problem.

klipt 4y ago

> When it comes to meat production, we have already reached the steady state. Well yes but also no, we've reached a steady state. If we reduce meat production we would reach a new, lower steady state which would buy some more time.

codethief 4y ago
> we would reach a new, lower steady state That's right but your claim that this > would buy some more time completely ignores my (admittedly back-of-the-envelope) calculation. Please do point out if there's an error somewhere but until then I will stand by my point: Emissions from meat production – even with meat consumption as high as it is these days – are negligible in the grand scheme of things. We better focus our efforts elsewhere. Besides, what kind of food would we replace the meat with? That food would also need to be grown, harvested, transported, and so on. In the end, we might not gain much in terms of greenhouse gases.
- timeon 4y ago
  > That food would also need to be grown Animals for meet are killed before reaching adult age but it still takes longer time then one season of plant growth. They need to eat those in meantime.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  With the exception of agriculturally marginal land, using land to produce food by way of animals is typically vastly more wasteful than using it to produce human-edible food directly, certainly on a per-calorie basis. There's no shortage of studies demonstrating the potential for genuine reductions in emissions (both CO2 and CH4), and reductions in the need for land-clearing, indeed freeing up land that can reforested etc. if we didn't insist on such (land-) inefficient methods of food production. Even if the emissions-savings benefits were negligible, it's hard to thing of too other many lifestyle changes we could make that have such potential ecological benefits than moderating meat consumption. If done sensibly and thoughtfully it's almost certainly going to benefit your personal health too (and, I'd argue, your tastebuds!). But obviously there's a cultural shift involved that won't happen overnight - restaurants/food retailers in particular often seem afraid to offer any more than one or two token meat-free dishes, despite the fact that if I were to list the 10 most amazing meals I've had in recent years, maybe 1 (2 at most) would contain any meat.