7 ms·

Global risk of heat stress to cattle from climate change

25 points by myshpa 3y ago

adamrezich 3y ago
this seems like a self-correcting problem, doesn't it? according to science, cow farts cause climate change, climate change causes temperatures to rise, high temperatures kill cows, dead cows can't fart (well, after their last big one, anyway).
- pnemonic 3y ago
  'Dead Cows Can't Fart' is actually a pretty good band name.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I loved their debut album, Explosive Bovine Buildup
- zitterbewegung 3y ago
  Well at the cost of increasing milk prices.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Skyper332 3y ago
    Luckily milk isn't a requirement for adults. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/milk-healthy-diet/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/milk-heal...
    - myshpa 3y ago
      Not your mother, not your milk.
- chrisfosterelli 3y ago
  Cattle are ruminants which means they play an important part in grasslands cycle because they can eat things that most other animals cannot. Grasslands are significant carbon sinks and endangered in some areas. Grasslands need grazers like cattle, which are the keystone species that replaced bison, and losing them can release more carbon, cause flooding, and remove the natural habitat for other animals.
  - drewg123 3y ago
    The problem is that cows contribute to deforestation in places where we can least afford it (eg, the Amazon rain forest), and those areas are far better carbon sinks than grasslands. I'm all for bringing the bison back; but we certainly do not need cattle.
    - chrisfosterelli 3y ago
      I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Cows have a place in the natural grasslands cycle and if climate change makes those grasslands uninhabitable to them then that is bad. Natural forests should remain natural forests and converting them to grasslands to satisfy our unsustainable meat habit is also bad. Both of these can be true.
      - myshpa 3y ago
        > Natural forests should remain natural forests and converting them to grasslands to satisfy our unsustainable meat habit is also bad. True > Cows have a place in the natural grasslands cycle Not really true. Cows graze on different plants than bison and have different grazing habits. It's not the same, and we can't really replace bizon with cattle, no matter how much would cattle farmers want us to believe that. https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate-disaster-and-youre-paying-for-it/ https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate... https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... > if climate change makes those grasslands uninhabitable to them then that is bad We can safeguard these grasslands by reforesting vast areas of livable land. If you truly support preserving these native grasslands, you'd likely advocate halting crop production, reintroducing bison, and protecting them through pasture reforestation for climate change mitigation. Agreed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085002/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/08... Climate impact of beef: an analysis considering multiple time scales and production methods without use of global warming potentials https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century
cerradokids 3y ago
I can't recommend enough Alex Epstein's site[0] on true, powerful, and succinct talking points on today's most important energy, environmental, and climate issues. [0]: https://energytalkingpoints.com/ https://energytalkingpoints.com/
- myshpa 3y ago
  > https://energytalkingpoints.com/ https://energytalkingpoints.com/ What a load of pseudo-scientific bullshit. Maybe stay away from political for-profit think tanks if you're interested in truth.
  - adamrezich 3y ago
    interesting. this seems to imply that you want people to draw their own conclusions on scientific subjects—instead of deferring to any authority—as it is impossible for one to know whether said authority is in any way motivated by profit incentives. (unless, of course, said authority is a religious text, such that deferring to said authority is a conscious act of faith.)
    - solardev 3y ago
      If only we could make politicians and scientists wear logo-ed suits and lab costs like Nascar drivers.
drewg123 3y ago
Animal agriculture, especially cattle, is one of the least efficient ways to produce food in terms of energy and land use. Its responsible for almost 10% of greenhouse gases.[1] One of the best things you can do for the planet it to stop eating meat and dairy. [1]: https://youtu.be/-k-V3ESHcfA?t=591 https://youtu.be/-k-V3ESHcfA?t=591
- solardev 3y ago
  As a vegan of more than a decade, I say this maybe with a bit of resignation, but also with an eye towards practicality...? This is probably not an effective way to combat climate change. Even if we got the entire world to go strictly vegan, overnight, it would be nowhere near enough of a cut in emissions to make a meaningful difference. And doing so would eradicate most of the world's culinary and lifestyle cultures, which are large parts of who they are. It's a good way to make lots of enemies while accomplishing little aside from a sense of vague self satisfaction. Environmentally, losing ruminant food supplies that can convert inedible grasses into human sustenance would also be a shame (in a land use sense, vegetarianism would be better than veganism). We don't have the teeth or stomaches to eat most native grasses, unless we either GMO the shit out of them (or us) or else eat their seeds as grains. I think maybe it would be better for people to spend their time, money, and energy on more effective changes (say, political or science or engineering) instead... bang for buck, overthrowing personal diets is so a huge ask for such a small return. Just IMO.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    You're wrong (and I seriously doubt you're a vegan). Such a change is absolutely needed, and it's one of the best things we could do. We have to stop fossil fuels, absolutely, that's a prerogative. But animal agriculture is 60% of emissions from food sector (26% of total emissions). https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector And that's just the emissions. When we switch to renewables, we have to store/sequester the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Animal agriculture takes so much lands, and carbon potential of reforestation/rewilding of grazing lands is so big, that we could store whole 1.5 Celcius carbon budget in forests there and stop the warming, reverse it, enable biodiversity to rebound and repair the water cycle (stop droughts). https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land-Use-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... How much land are we talking about. https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation https://phys.org/news/2022-08-global-forest-area-capita-decreased.html https://phys.org/news/2022-08-global-forest-area-capita-decr... New study finds global forest area per capita has decreased by over 60% https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/weve-lost-35-percent-of-forests-in-the-past-300-years https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/weve-lost-35-pe... We’ve Lost 35 Percent of Forests in the Past 300 Years https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century > Environmentally, losing ruminant food supplies that can convert inedible grasses into human sustenance would also be a shame (in a land use sense, vegetarianism would be better than veganism). We don't have the teeth or stomaches to eat most native grasses, unless we either GMO the shit out of them (or us) or else eat their seeds as grains. We should reforest/rewild those pastures. We don't need those lands if we're not consuming meat/dairy. > I think maybe it would be better for people to spend their time, money, and energy on more effective changes (say, political or science or engineering) instead... bang for buck, overthrowing personal diets is so a huge ask for such a small return. Just IMO. Perhaps taking some time to further educate yourself about the problem would be beneficial. While I understand it's a complex issue, disregarding solutions about which one has minimal knowledge can be counterproductive. IMHO.

25 points by myshpa 3y ago

this seems like a self-correcting problem, doesn't it? according to science, cow farts cause climate change, climate change causes temperatures to rise, high temperatures kill cows, dead cows can't fart (well, after their last big one, anyway).

pnemonic 3y ago
'Dead Cows Can't Fart' is actually a pretty good band name.
- solardev 3y ago
  I loved their debut album, Explosive Bovine Buildup
zitterbewegung 3y ago
Well at the cost of increasing milk prices.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Skyper332 3y ago
  Luckily milk isn't a requirement for adults. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/milk-healthy-diet/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/milk-heal...
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Not your mother, not your milk.
chrisfosterelli 3y ago
Cattle are ruminants which means they play an important part in grasslands cycle because they can eat things that most other animals cannot. Grasslands are significant carbon sinks and endangered in some areas. Grasslands need grazers like cattle, which are the keystone species that replaced bison, and losing them can release more carbon, cause flooding, and remove the natural habitat for other animals.
- drewg123 3y ago
  The problem is that cows contribute to deforestation in places where we can least afford it (eg, the Amazon rain forest), and those areas are far better carbon sinks than grasslands. I'm all for bringing the bison back; but we certainly do not need cattle.
  - chrisfosterelli 3y ago
    I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Cows have a place in the natural grasslands cycle and if climate change makes those grasslands uninhabitable to them then that is bad. Natural forests should remain natural forests and converting them to grasslands to satisfy our unsustainable meat habit is also bad. Both of these can be true.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      > Natural forests should remain natural forests and converting them to grasslands to satisfy our unsustainable meat habit is also bad. True > Cows have a place in the natural grasslands cycle Not really true. Cows graze on different plants than bison and have different grazing habits. It's not the same, and we can't really replace bizon with cattle, no matter how much would cattle farmers want us to believe that. https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate-disaster-and-youre-paying-for-it/ https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate... https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... > if climate change makes those grasslands uninhabitable to them then that is bad We can safeguard these grasslands by reforesting vast areas of livable land. If you truly support preserving these native grasslands, you'd likely advocate halting crop production, reintroducing bison, and protecting them through pasture reforestation for climate change mitigation. Agreed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085002/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/08... Climate impact of beef: an analysis considering multiple time scales and production methods without use of global warming potentials https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century

cerradokids 3y ago

I can't recommend enough Alex Epstein's site[0] on true, powerful, and succinct talking points on today's most important energy, environmental, and climate issues. [0]: https://energytalkingpoints.com/ https://energytalkingpoints.com/

myshpa 3y ago
> https://energytalkingpoints.com/ https://energytalkingpoints.com/ What a load of pseudo-scientific bullshit. Maybe stay away from political for-profit think tanks if you're interested in truth.
- adamrezich 3y ago
  interesting. this seems to imply that you want people to draw their own conclusions on scientific subjects—instead of deferring to any authority—as it is impossible for one to know whether said authority is in any way motivated by profit incentives. (unless, of course, said authority is a religious text, such that deferring to said authority is a conscious act of faith.)
  - solardev 3y ago
    If only we could make politicians and scientists wear logo-ed suits and lab costs like Nascar drivers.

drewg123 3y ago

Animal agriculture, especially cattle, is one of the least efficient ways to produce food in terms of energy and land use. Its responsible for almost 10% of greenhouse gases.[1] One of the best things you can do for the planet it to stop eating meat and dairy. [1]: https://youtu.be/-k-V3ESHcfA?t=591 https://youtu.be/-k-V3ESHcfA?t=591

solardev 3y ago
As a vegan of more than a decade, I say this maybe with a bit of resignation, but also with an eye towards practicality...? This is probably not an effective way to combat climate change. Even if we got the entire world to go strictly vegan, overnight, it would be nowhere near enough of a cut in emissions to make a meaningful difference. And doing so would eradicate most of the world's culinary and lifestyle cultures, which are large parts of who they are. It's a good way to make lots of enemies while accomplishing little aside from a sense of vague self satisfaction. Environmentally, losing ruminant food supplies that can convert inedible grasses into human sustenance would also be a shame (in a land use sense, vegetarianism would be better than veganism). We don't have the teeth or stomaches to eat most native grasses, unless we either GMO the shit out of them (or us) or else eat their seeds as grains. I think maybe it would be better for people to spend their time, money, and energy on more effective changes (say, political or science or engineering) instead... bang for buck, overthrowing personal diets is so a huge ask for such a small return. Just IMO.
- myshpa 3y ago
  You're wrong (and I seriously doubt you're a vegan). Such a change is absolutely needed, and it's one of the best things we could do. We have to stop fossil fuels, absolutely, that's a prerogative. But animal agriculture is 60% of emissions from food sector (26% of total emissions). https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector And that's just the emissions. When we switch to renewables, we have to store/sequester the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Animal agriculture takes so much lands, and carbon potential of reforestation/rewilding of grazing lands is so big, that we could store whole 1.5 Celcius carbon budget in forests there and stop the warming, reverse it, enable biodiversity to rebound and repair the water cycle (stop droughts). https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land-Use-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... How much land are we talking about. https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation https://phys.org/news/2022-08-global-forest-area-capita-decreased.html https://phys.org/news/2022-08-global-forest-area-capita-decr... New study finds global forest area per capita has decreased by over 60% https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/weve-lost-35-percent-of-forests-in-the-past-300-years https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/weve-lost-35-pe... We’ve Lost 35 Percent of Forests in the Past 300 Years https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century > Environmentally, losing ruminant food supplies that can convert inedible grasses into human sustenance would also be a shame (in a land use sense, vegetarianism would be better than veganism). We don't have the teeth or stomaches to eat most native grasses, unless we either GMO the shit out of them (or us) or else eat their seeds as grains. We should reforest/rewild those pastures. We don't need those lands if we're not consuming meat/dairy. > I think maybe it would be better for people to spend their time, money, and energy on more effective changes (say, political or science or engineering) instead... bang for buck, overthrowing personal diets is so a huge ask for such a small return. Just IMO. Perhaps taking some time to further educate yourself about the problem would be beneficial. While I understand it's a complex issue, disregarding solutions about which one has minimal knowledge can be counterproductive. IMHO.