5 ms·

Yes of course, it's pricing in a negative externality that was previously not accounted for.

by K0nserv 2y ago

nightski 2y ago
Very few negative externalities are actually accounted for. This is political grandstanding at best.
- hansworst 2y ago
  So we should just give up on trying to accurately price externalities until we’ve found a way to include all of them? (Hint: we never will, so that would mean never taking action)
  - frumper 2y ago
    Shouldn't the farmer's get a credit for growing grasses that pull it out of the atmosphere?
    - piva00 2y ago
      If that grass is eventually turned into cattle, no, because it hasn't been stored after it's been consumed by the cows.
      - synecdoche 2y ago
        Then they should have neither credit nor penalty.
  - nightski 2y ago
    No, but maybe don't start with one of the smaller sources of overall greenhouse gasses (it's like <3% in the U.S. for example, not sure about Denmark), especially when it affects nutrition and well being of your people.
    - ygjb 2y ago
      Sure, but you are only looking at one potential impact of this. I can think of at least 3 benefits that are seem pretty clear without doing a deeper analysis. 1. Adding an appropriate carbon tax for gassy cows offsets reduces or eliminates the externalization of the environmental impact of the cows, and provides justification for spending on the increased cost of feeds that drive down the amount of methane produced. 2. Driving a justification for increased spent on those feeds, especially novel feeds, drives investment in new aquaculture techniques that will create additional jobs and ensures that capital that might be otherwise be held as profits actually circulates through the economy (a key component that is actually required for capitalism to work). 3. The increased costs of beef and pork will drive lower consumption of animal based proteins. That lower consumption should be a factor in driving better health outcomes, longer term (note I said lower, not elimination of consumption). This is a net benefit for any nation that provides health care services to it's citizens (heart disease and cardiovascular illness are among leading causes of death in Denmark, like most developed nations).
      - nightski 2y ago
        I find whenever you try to play god when it comes to the economy things never work out how you plan.
    - xethos 2y ago
      > it's like <3% in the U.S. for example, not sure about Denmark Sure, but TFA and this discussion is about Denmark, where "...agriculture is the country’s biggest source of emissions". Further on in TFA, "The global food system is a huge contributor to the climate crisis, producing around a third of greenhouse gas emissions", of which, "Denmark is a major dairy and pork exporter". Even per the EPA agriculture is ~10% for the US [0]. And you say "That's all agriculture", I say "Why do you think the US grows so much shite-tasting feed corn? Some for ethanol, lots for pigs, cows, and chicken". [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
HorizonXP 2y ago
Could you explain which externality this is? I know they produce a lot of methane which is more of a GHG than CO2, but as far as I know, that methane is a part of the carbon cycle so it should be a net neutral contribution.
- chaos_emergent 2y ago
  specifically, it's 20x a GHG compared to C02, and I don't really know what you mean by it being part of carbon cycle.
  - HorizonXP 2y ago
    Maybe I’m using the wrong term but my understanding is that the carbon comes from the feed, which itself pulls it from the atmosphere. Thus, it came from the air, and goes back into the air. The fossil fuels did the same but on a grander scale and longer timeline where the carbon becomes sequestered. Carbon taxes on that make sense. I’m not seeing the benefit to taxing the cattle.
    - Miraltar 2y ago
      From what I understand carbon comes from the soil as well as from the air, and it's supposed to be "stored" back into the soil by various means but our agriculture and more generally human activities tend to accelerate release of carbon from the soil and refrein the storing process. And that provokes a climate disimbalance. There was a good video on the relation between carbon cycle and massive extinctions throuhout history (1h long) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > I don't really know what you mean by it being part of carbon cycle Plants breath in co2 from the atmosphere and bind the carbon in their structure. Cows eat the plants and turn some percentage of the bound carbon into cow meat, the rest they poop or fart or breath out. Eventually all that carbon ends up back in the atmosphere where plants again can bind it. This is the carbon cycle. Thus the point is that cows existing do not increase the carbon in circulation. (As opposed to digging up coal or drilling for oil/gas which liberates carbon which used to be in circulation but become bound in fossils.)
chrisco255 2y ago
Cow farts don't cause climate change. Meanwhile ruminants are essential to ecosystems, have existed in the hundreds of millions for tens of millions of years and provide tons of positive externalities that aren't subsidized. Nevermind that they contribute to food security and health. Ruminants are also better for the land than millions of acres of GMO monocrops drenched in Roundup. The carbon cult has lost the plot.
- adrianN 2y ago
  Cow farts do in fact make climate change worse.
  - chrisco255 2y ago
    Please show in the geological record anywhere in the last 50 million years where ruminants caused climate change.
    - ygjb 2y ago
      Who said they cause climate change? Is the impact of domesticated cattle a measurable impact on global methane production? Yes. This has been measured, observed, and accepted science since at least 1995[1]. Does methane have an observable, measurable effect on climate? Yes[2], and agriculture is a major driver for anthropogenic climate change[3]. If you want to argue it doesn't or isn't, bring data, because there are too many articles, research papers, and studies arguing that it does that have for your unbacked opinion to be accepted. Does this mean that cow farts (or burps) are the cause or driver of climate change? No. Is it something that we can meaningfully reduce the impact of? Well, probably, based on some of the resources linked to in other comments. Does it mean that solving this for cattle is going to solve climate change? No, but incremental progress helps (insert 1.01% effort per day over a year = 37.8 meme). You know what doesn't help? Clearly ignorant reductive comments that conflate a contributing factor with the entire problem while ignoring the preponderance of evidence contrary to your claims. [1] https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/73/8/2483/4632901?login=false https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/73/8/2483/4632... [2] http://repository.geologyscience.ru/bitstream/handle/123456789/30629/Wueb_02.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y http://repository.geologyscience.ru/bitstream/handle/1234567... [3] https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022/methane-and-climate-change https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022/meth... [4] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emissions-are-driving-climate-change-heres-how-reduce-them https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emission... [5] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121 https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121

Yes of course, it's pricing in a negative externality that was previously not accounted for.

nightski 2y ago

Very few negative externalities are actually accounted for. This is political grandstanding at best.

hansworst 2y ago
So we should just give up on trying to accurately price externalities until we’ve found a way to include all of them? (Hint: we never will, so that would mean never taking action)
- frumper 2y ago
  Shouldn't the farmer's get a credit for growing grasses that pull it out of the atmosphere?
  - piva00 2y ago
    If that grass is eventually turned into cattle, no, because it hasn't been stored after it's been consumed by the cows.
    - synecdoche 2y ago
      Then they should have neither credit nor penalty.
- nightski 2y ago
  No, but maybe don't start with one of the smaller sources of overall greenhouse gasses (it's like <3% in the U.S. for example, not sure about Denmark), especially when it affects nutrition and well being of your people.
  - ygjb 2y ago
    Sure, but you are only looking at one potential impact of this. I can think of at least 3 benefits that are seem pretty clear without doing a deeper analysis. 1. Adding an appropriate carbon tax for gassy cows offsets reduces or eliminates the externalization of the environmental impact of the cows, and provides justification for spending on the increased cost of feeds that drive down the amount of methane produced. 2. Driving a justification for increased spent on those feeds, especially novel feeds, drives investment in new aquaculture techniques that will create additional jobs and ensures that capital that might be otherwise be held as profits actually circulates through the economy (a key component that is actually required for capitalism to work). 3. The increased costs of beef and pork will drive lower consumption of animal based proteins. That lower consumption should be a factor in driving better health outcomes, longer term (note I said lower, not elimination of consumption). This is a net benefit for any nation that provides health care services to it's citizens (heart disease and cardiovascular illness are among leading causes of death in Denmark, like most developed nations).
    - nightski 2y ago
      I find whenever you try to play god when it comes to the economy things never work out how you plan.
  - xethos 2y ago
    > it's like <3% in the U.S. for example, not sure about Denmark Sure, but TFA and this discussion is about Denmark, where "...agriculture is the country’s biggest source of emissions". Further on in TFA, "The global food system is a huge contributor to the climate crisis, producing around a third of greenhouse gas emissions", of which, "Denmark is a major dairy and pork exporter". Even per the EPA agriculture is ~10% for the US [0]. And you say "That's all agriculture", I say "Why do you think the US grows so much shite-tasting feed corn? Some for ethanol, lots for pigs, cows, and chicken". [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

HorizonXP 2y ago

Could you explain which externality this is? I know they produce a lot of methane which is more of a GHG than CO2, but as far as I know, that methane is a part of the carbon cycle so it should be a net neutral contribution.

chaos_emergent 2y ago
specifically, it's 20x a GHG compared to C02, and I don't really know what you mean by it being part of carbon cycle.
- HorizonXP 2y ago
  Maybe I’m using the wrong term but my understanding is that the carbon comes from the feed, which itself pulls it from the atmosphere. Thus, it came from the air, and goes back into the air. The fossil fuels did the same but on a grander scale and longer timeline where the carbon becomes sequestered. Carbon taxes on that make sense. I’m not seeing the benefit to taxing the cattle.
  - Miraltar 2y ago
    From what I understand carbon comes from the soil as well as from the air, and it's supposed to be "stored" back into the soil by various means but our agriculture and more generally human activities tend to accelerate release of carbon from the soil and refrein the storing process. And that provokes a climate disimbalance. There was a good video on the relation between carbon cycle and massive extinctions throuhout history (1h long) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4
- krisoft 2y ago
  > I don't really know what you mean by it being part of carbon cycle Plants breath in co2 from the atmosphere and bind the carbon in their structure. Cows eat the plants and turn some percentage of the bound carbon into cow meat, the rest they poop or fart or breath out. Eventually all that carbon ends up back in the atmosphere where plants again can bind it. This is the carbon cycle. Thus the point is that cows existing do not increase the carbon in circulation. (As opposed to digging up coal or drilling for oil/gas which liberates carbon which used to be in circulation but become bound in fossils.)

chrisco255 2y ago

Cow farts don't cause climate change. Meanwhile ruminants are essential to ecosystems, have existed in the hundreds of millions for tens of millions of years and provide tons of positive externalities that aren't subsidized. Nevermind that they contribute to food security and health. Ruminants are also better for the land than millions of acres of GMO monocrops drenched in Roundup. The carbon cult has lost the plot.

adrianN 2y ago
Cow farts do in fact make climate change worse.
- chrisco255 2y ago
  Please show in the geological record anywhere in the last 50 million years where ruminants caused climate change.
  - ygjb 2y ago
    Who said they cause climate change? Is the impact of domesticated cattle a measurable impact on global methane production? Yes. This has been measured, observed, and accepted science since at least 1995[1]. Does methane have an observable, measurable effect on climate? Yes[2], and agriculture is a major driver for anthropogenic climate change[3]. If you want to argue it doesn't or isn't, bring data, because there are too many articles, research papers, and studies arguing that it does that have for your unbacked opinion to be accepted. Does this mean that cow farts (or burps) are the cause or driver of climate change? No. Is it something that we can meaningfully reduce the impact of? Well, probably, based on some of the resources linked to in other comments. Does it mean that solving this for cattle is going to solve climate change? No, but incremental progress helps (insert 1.01% effort per day over a year = 37.8 meme). You know what doesn't help? Clearly ignorant reductive comments that conflate a contributing factor with the entire problem while ignoring the preponderance of evidence contrary to your claims. [1] https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/73/8/2483/4632901?login=false https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/73/8/2483/4632... [2] http://repository.geologyscience.ru/bitstream/handle/123456789/30629/Wueb_02.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y http://repository.geologyscience.ru/bitstream/handle/1234567... [3] https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022/methane-and-climate-change https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022/meth... [4] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emissions-are-driving-climate-change-heres-how-reduce-them https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emission... [5] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121 https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121