4 ms·

The methane emissions from farming do not matter in the slightest anyway. They can only release what they already absorbed from their feed. We should stop addin

The methane emissions from farming do not matter in the slightest anyway. They can only release what they already absorbed from their feed. We should stop adding more ghg to the atmosphere that hasn't been there for millions of years, allowing the carbon cycle to continue with that ghg currently in atmosphere does no harm. The people crying about this are simply serving an agenda of people who want to force the average citizen to eat bugs to make literal pennies more in profit for them and their family. It's absurd. We won't do anything about climate change by stopping agriculture, it will simply ruin food supply.

peterpost2 3y ago
But if the cows were not there, what they eat would not be cultivated in dire circumstances. Instead that place would sequester carbon. And even if it would not be allowed to sequester it would largely be emitted as co2 and not methane which is a lot less potent greenhouse gas.
- Shekelphile 3y ago
  None of that matters. Plants only sequester carbon that was already in the atmosphere and it goes right back into it when they die. Methane breaks down to CO2 in a number of months/years and has no effect on geologic timescales. The only solution to climate change is to stop introducing carbon that was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago. Championing causes like 'you need to eat the bugs' is not a productive use of time and does nothing to change the status quo in the end.
  - peterpost2 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. Also, please avoid internet tropes like "citation needed". They have a degrading effect on discussion quality and aren't the curious conversation that we're hoping for. All this is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you wouldn't mind reviewing them and sticking to them, we'd appreciate it.

peterpost2 3y ago

But if the cows were not there, what they eat would not be cultivated in dire circumstances. Instead that place would sequester carbon. And even if it would not be allowed to sequester it would largely be emitted as co2 and not methane which is a lot less potent greenhouse gas.

Shekelphile 3y ago
None of that matters. Plants only sequester carbon that was already in the atmosphere and it goes right back into it when they die. Methane breaks down to CO2 in a number of months/years and has no effect on geologic timescales. The only solution to climate change is to stop introducing carbon that was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago. Championing causes like 'you need to eat the bugs' is not a productive use of time and does nothing to change the status quo in the end.
- peterpost2 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. Also, please avoid internet tropes like "citation needed". They have a degrading effect on discussion quality and aren't the curious conversation that we're hoping for. All this is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you wouldn't mind reviewing them and sticking to them, we'd appreciate it.