5 ms·

I’m not very savvy with client science, but does this make any sense? The methane produced by cow farts comes mostly from consumed grass and maybe grain. Grain

I’m not very savvy with client science, but does this make any sense? The methane produced by cow farts comes mostly from consumed grass and maybe grain. Grain would have some petrol inputs, but does a grass-fed cow? It sounds like it’s neutral.

HorizonXP 2y ago
And the fossil fuel should already be taxed to accounts for its externality so I agree. I’m missing something here.
cyanydeez 2y ago
Meyhane has more global warming potential. https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/greenhouse-gas-data-unfccc/global-warming-potentials https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenh... If you are.asking.about econmics, who knows, but the pollution from cows is methane, so unless someone tells me theres some weird physics, what matters is the ability to insulate and the lifetimd of that insulation.
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  If we could get away.from climaye denial, we would have.more interesting/productive discussions. The problem with climate denialism is "honest" attempts at evaluating claims tries to "both sides" the logic and the available data, but there isn't another side to climate change. And trying to incorporate denialism makes your rational decisions wrong. Climate change is a singularity that has been passed. We're not going back to the way the climate was 100 years ago. So, the real question is, how does 100$ per cow remediate the damage of trillions of dollars over the next century. I've got no idea, but it's definitely not nothing.
scoofy 2y ago
>It sounds like it’s neutral. Literally everything is neutral in the very long run. The point is that it's a massive input to the current system which is too high right now. The biomass of livestock is 14x larger than all other mammal, combined, apart from humans[1]. This number is growing. So, yes, it is a massive input to the system even if it's neutral in the long run. 1: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

HorizonXP 2y ago

And the fossil fuel should already be taxed to accounts for its externality so I agree. I’m missing something here.

cyanydeez 2y ago

Meyhane has more global warming potential. https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/greenhouse-gas-data-unfccc/global-warming-potentials https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenh... If you are.asking.about econmics, who knows, but the pollution from cows is methane, so unless someone tells me theres some weird physics, what matters is the ability to insulate and the lifetimd of that insulation.

cyanydeez 2y ago
If we could get away.from climaye denial, we would have.more interesting/productive discussions. The problem with climate denialism is "honest" attempts at evaluating claims tries to "both sides" the logic and the available data, but there isn't another side to climate change. And trying to incorporate denialism makes your rational decisions wrong. Climate change is a singularity that has been passed. We're not going back to the way the climate was 100 years ago. So, the real question is, how does 100$ per cow remediate the damage of trillions of dollars over the next century. I've got no idea, but it's definitely not nothing.

scoofy 2y ago

>It sounds like it’s neutral. Literally everything is neutral in the very long run. The point is that it's a massive input to the current system which is too high right now. The biomass of livestock is 14x larger than all other mammal, combined, apart from humans[1]. This number is growing. So, yes, it is a massive input to the system even if it's neutral in the long run. 1: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115