36 ms·

Maybe we were talking past each other. > ...and if the amount of cattle is kept constant... My point (unclear) is that this is not a constant, but a variable

Maybe we were talking past each other. > ...and if the amount of cattle is kept constant... My point (unclear) is that this is not a constant, but a variable (in the sense that it is a societal choice). Animal agriculture shifts more of the distribution of atmospheric carbon at any time toward methane, which accelerates warming. > ...this whole closed loop has already settled into a steady state: At any point in time, the amounts of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere due to cattle are constant. The premise that the amount of animal agriculture is constant is incorrect. It has been increasing year over year for some time as the human population increases. The theoretical concentration of methane has been increasing over that same time. It's also worth noting that industrial animal agriculture is not a closed loop because it currently relies on mined hydrocarbons for feedstock fertilizer and transport.

codethief 3y ago
Thanks for your comment! > The premise that the amount of animal agriculture is constant is incorrect. That certainly is true – I just had a look at the exact numbers: Cattle has seen a 15.6% increase between 2000 and 2020[0]. However, even if you double the numbers in my calculation in my other comment[1], you will see that agricultural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are still basically nothing compared to those caused by fossil emissions. > because it currently relies on mined hydrocarbons for feedstock fertilizer and transport. Many types of food require fertilizer for production and logistics. I'm not trying to say that animal agriculture might not be comparatively bad here but we certainly won't get rid of fertilizer- and logistics-related emissions over night by overcoming animal agriculture. In fact, it could be that we'd just replace one emission source with another. So, before prescribing vegan diets for everyone, I'd really like to see some numbers that suggest that such a move would actually change anything. [0]: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Countries-Regions/International-Statistics/Data-Topic/AgricultureForestryFisheries/livestock_meat.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Countries-Regions/Internat... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675049

codethief 3y ago

Thanks for your comment! > The premise that the amount of animal agriculture is constant is incorrect. That certainly is true – I just had a look at the exact numbers: Cattle has seen a 15.6% increase between 2000 and 2020[0]. However, even if you double the numbers in my calculation in my other comment[1], you will see that agricultural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are still basically nothing compared to those caused by fossil emissions. > because it currently relies on mined hydrocarbons for feedstock fertilizer and transport. Many types of food require fertilizer for production and logistics. I'm not trying to say that animal agriculture might not be comparatively bad here but we certainly won't get rid of fertilizer- and logistics-related emissions over night by overcoming animal agriculture. In fact, it could be that we'd just replace one emission source with another. So, before prescribing vegan diets for everyone, I'd really like to see some numbers that suggest that such a move would actually change anything. [0]: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Countries-Regions/International-Statistics/Data-Topic/AgricultureForestryFisheries/livestock_meat.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Countries-Regions/Internat... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675049