2 ms·
Our cows don't use much electricity. And I don't think the claims was about being energy negative, just carbon negative. That's an important difference. I'll al
by jaredhallen 3y ago
Our cows don't use much electricity. And I don't think the claims was about being energy negative, just carbon negative. That's an important difference. I'll also call BS, but for a different reason. The growing animal takes carbon from the soil by eating grass. If one continually harvests animals off the land, that's carbon being continually removed and taken elsewhere. What happens to that carbon downstream is complicated, but one can be sure it's not being sequestered in the ground where the cattle originated.
- jaredhallen 3y agoReplying to my own comment, because I can't seem to edit it from this mobile app. Thinking about this a little more, I had it a somewhat wrong above. Most of the carbon that makes up the animal comes from the air in the form of photosynthesis. So if it's re-released back into the atmosphere, that's not a net gain. So I suppose to be completely neutral there would need to be an equal amount of carbon being sequestered in the soil to offset the factors already mentioned, like transport and processing. That does actually seem conceptually possible.