3 ms·

Keep in mind massive bison herds roamed North America for millenia, so large animals emitting methane isn't really an issue. Over decades, they're mostly in st

Keep in mind massive bison herds roamed North America for millenia, so large animals emitting methane isn't really an issue. Over decades, they're mostly in steady state - plants take up CO2, bison eat plants, emit CO2 and CH4, and the lifetime of the CH4 is ~10 years in the atmosphere (oxidized to CO2). The difference today is the large amount of fossil fuel energy used to produce fertilizers and fuel tractors and so on. This can all be transitioned to renewable energy. I think the vast majority of people who are saying 'stop eating meat to save the climate' are vegans concerned about the atrocious treatment of animals on factory farms, and they're trying to come up with additional reasons to restrict factory farming (which is a good idea, it is a filthy practice that relies heavily on antibiotic and hormone use, and the end product is disgustingly unhealthy as well as unethical IMO). The only realistic way to stabilize the climate is to eliminate fossil fuels from the energy mix, but even if that's accomplished in the next few decades, planetary warming is going to continue for some 100 years due to forcing-reponse lag time and side effects like permafrost melting and outgassing.

silverquiet 3y ago
I'd be willing to bet that the total biomass of ruminants is much higher today than it was millennia ago due to domestication/humans. Ad a lot of that fossil fuel use and fertilizer is going to those domestic ruminants; you've gotta grow the food to feed your food, so it's a lossy process vs just eating the plants directly. It's not always that simple though; cattle can graze on marginal land and their manure/byproducts can be fed into other agricultural processes. It's not something I really know a lot about other than to know that it's all quite complicated. That said, I suspect if the world gave up beef, it would indeed make a significant dent in global warming. I'm far from a vegan and can recognize the above. When it comes to cruelty, that's a different axis. I believe beef is actually lower on that one since the cows spend a lot of their lives wandering in fields and getting to do more or less what they want. The finishing process where they are put into feedlots seems pretty bad but is rather short, and the slaughter is about as humane as can be; they are rendered unconscious instantly with a blow to the head and then insanguinated. Chickens are sort of the opposite; they are marginal in the scheme of global warming but live lives of immense cruelty. It seems hard to win.
- photochemsyn 3y ago
  Estimates hover around there being ~2x as many cows in North America today than there were bison in 1500, but there were also large deer and antelope populations at the time. The carbon went from atmospheric CO2 -> grassland biomass -> animal biomass + CH4 + CO2, and the CH4 was oxidized back to CO2, so this was largely a steady state situation, and it certainly can be a model for sustainable meat production. Estimates of the human population are more contentious (genocide denial is an issue) but 50 million for North America might be the upper bound. If everyone stopped eating meat, while fossil fuel production and consumption remain unchanged, there would be little or no noticeable effect on our current climate trajectory. If everyone kept eating meat, while eliminating fossil fuel use, then atmospheric CO2 and CH4 would stabilize in ~100 years. Practically, if meat was raised humanely without fossil fuels, it would be a good deal more expensive, so people would eat less of it, perhaps leading to a 50% cut in meat production.

silverquiet 3y ago

I'd be willing to bet that the total biomass of ruminants is much higher today than it was millennia ago due to domestication/humans. Ad a lot of that fossil fuel use and fertilizer is going to those domestic ruminants; you've gotta grow the food to feed your food, so it's a lossy process vs just eating the plants directly. It's not always that simple though; cattle can graze on marginal land and their manure/byproducts can be fed into other agricultural processes. It's not something I really know a lot about other than to know that it's all quite complicated. That said, I suspect if the world gave up beef, it would indeed make a significant dent in global warming. I'm far from a vegan and can recognize the above. When it comes to cruelty, that's a different axis. I believe beef is actually lower on that one since the cows spend a lot of their lives wandering in fields and getting to do more or less what they want. The finishing process where they are put into feedlots seems pretty bad but is rather short, and the slaughter is about as humane as can be; they are rendered unconscious instantly with a blow to the head and then insanguinated. Chickens are sort of the opposite; they are marginal in the scheme of global warming but live lives of immense cruelty. It seems hard to win.

photochemsyn 3y ago
Estimates hover around there being ~2x as many cows in North America today than there were bison in 1500, but there were also large deer and antelope populations at the time. The carbon went from atmospheric CO2 -> grassland biomass -> animal biomass + CH4 + CO2, and the CH4 was oxidized back to CO2, so this was largely a steady state situation, and it certainly can be a model for sustainable meat production. Estimates of the human population are more contentious (genocide denial is an issue) but 50 million for North America might be the upper bound. If everyone stopped eating meat, while fossil fuel production and consumption remain unchanged, there would be little or no noticeable effect on our current climate trajectory. If everyone kept eating meat, while eliminating fossil fuel use, then atmospheric CO2 and CH4 would stabilize in ~100 years. Practically, if meat was raised humanely without fossil fuels, it would be a good deal more expensive, so people would eat less of it, perhaps leading to a 50% cut in meat production.