5 ms·
Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions
- jen729w 1y agohttps://archive.is/5NlTf https://archive.is/5NlTf
- dijit 1y agoexcept for the fact that cows exist within the carbon cycle. And the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases is that we feed them oil that we dig from the ground. Cows are extremely convenient scapegoat but truthfully they exist in a closed system that we keep feeding carbon into. Methane itself is very very harmful but lives almost no time and atmosphere experts all agree on this.
- adrianN 1y agoIt is my understanding that land use (eg cutting down rain forest, draining wetlands) for pasture and soy are a big contributor to the carbon footprint of meat.
- dijit 1y agoCould be true, in the countries I am most faniliar with (UK, Sweden) there’s no rainforest and a good chunk of the land used for rearing cattle couldn’t be used for farming Soy.
- adrianN 1y agoWhere does the feed come from? What other uses could the land have? Here in Germany drained wetlands are a huge contributor to GHG emissions.
- dijit 1y agoLargely grass (and oil based feed, as mentioned)
- swores 1y agoThere is rainforest in the UK... it's just temperate rainforest, not tropical. (And it is as under threat as tropical - https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/habitats/temperate-rainforest/ https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/ha... )
- cnity 1y agoThe cattle doesn't have to _be_ on the same wasted land that is used to feed it. Soy is imported from other countries to feed cattle in the UK (around 2M tons of soy per year[0]). It is a common and convenient misconception that raising cattle is not bad for the environment because it is raised on non-arable land -- the cattle still gets fed imported soy. 0: https://www.efeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UK-RT-on-Sustainable-Soya-baseline-report-Oct-2018.pdf https://www.efeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UK-RT-on-Su...
- dijit 1y agoBut now we're returning to the assumption that everything thats fit for cows is fit for human edible crops. Cows aren't often eating the "human grade" crops, to my understanding. I'm not making an argument that we shouldn't scale back cattle-rearing, if anything my personal preference would be to eliminate all oil-based feed and see how sustainable we can make things; I just think we've got a real convenient scapegoat here when the largest polluter is definitely car dependence as it's adding carbon to the carbon cycle.
- peterashford 1y agoCows arent a scapegoat, they're just a significant part of the puzzle. It's nuts to think only co2 or only methane is the issue. They're both issues
- dijit 1y agoBut they exist in a closed system. They don't emit CO2 or Methane in any way that can run out of control unless we pour carbon into the system externally (by digging up oil and feeding it to them for example, or transporting them using cars that run on fossil fuels, or heating them with fossil fuels). They are a scapegoat, because they can't by themselves emit anything that can't be captured and returned and reused by cattle for essentially perpetuity, yet we as humans are doing things that are not sustainable and contribute to tipping the scales. Thanks for flagging me btw.
- postingawayonhn 1y agoWhere land is converted there can be an increase. But for an existing farm with stable herd numbers the emission produced around (Methane > Carbon Dioxide > Grass > Methane > etc.).
- adrianN 1y agoWhen you drain wetlands they emit GHGs essentially forever.
- federiconafria 1y agoWhat's "funny" is that rain forest land being destroyed for pastures has terrible yield. We would be better off paying the people using them to keep the forest intact.
- postepowanieadm 1y agoThere's industrial beef and there's grass fed beef. Grass feed one preserves pastures which are amazing and rich ecosystems, much more valuable than soya monocultures.
- soco 1y agoNow what is the proportion of grass fed beef from the total beef? Does it move the needle? Here, for the USA it's just about 1% (one percent, yes) according to https://extension.sdstate.edu/grass-fed-beef-market-share-grass-fed-beef https://extension.sdstate.edu/grass-fed-beef-market-share-gr...
- thrance 1y agoThe beef with beef is that meat production, and espcially from cows, is extremely energy inefficient. You need 15-20kgs of plants for 1kg of beef, when we could just eat the plants directly and avoid everything needed to seed, grow, reap and haul all that feeding mass, which massively contributes to global warming and consumes ludicrous amounts of water.
- dijit 1y agoEverything you mentioned exists in a cycle, its not “lost” energy, its just converted and returned. Just like water, the consumption of water doesn’t mean it is eliminated from the water cycle.
- peterashford 1y agoSaying "its all part of a cycle" misses the point. Yes, energy and water aren’t destroyed but using 15-20x more plant matter, energy, and water for 1kg of beef compared to plant based food is still incredibly wasteful. Nature’s cycles have limits, and industrial meat production pushes them far beyond whats sustainable.
- dijit 1y agoInefficiency doesn't particularly matter if it's a closed system, it only effects how much we can get out of a thing. If we need 100% efficiency yields because humans are so numerous that there can no longer by any inefficiency in the conversion of sun rays into energy fit for human consumption: then you have a point. But we're not there, so the inefficiency of food production is not particularly relevant. Where you and I will agree is that the scale of meat production is unsustainable, as evidenced by the fact that we are feeding cows fucking oil from the ground. If we could sustain a population of cattle and enough energy for human population then I don't see a problem, but that is obviously significantly lower than the scale we currently see cattle-rearing.
- peterashford 1y ago
- peterashford 1y agoMethane also traps at least 100 times as much heat as CO2. It causes significant near-term warming, and cutting methane gives fast climate benefits. Cutting down on methane emmisions can have considerable more effect on global warming over the next 20 years, compared to CO2 (which we also have to reduce), Atmosphere experts all agree on this. And "[cows] exist in a closed system" assumes we’re not expanding herds, clearing forests, or using fossil inputs.
- dijit 1y ago> Methane itself is very very harmful but lives almost no time and atmosphere https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-methane-is-short-lived-in-the-atmosphere-but-leaves-long-term-damage-145040 https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-methane-is-sho... Long term damage is reasoned by looking at consequences of the short term effects (such as the death of plants and livestock due to extremes).
- ChrisNorstrom 1y ago[flagged]
- adrianN 1y agoEat chicken instead of beef if you like meat.
- danielbln 1y agoAnd the notion that you need animal protein from muscle tissue or face stunted growth is also laughable.
- zeristor 1y agoor pork
- Cthulhu_ 1y agoOr just start with eating less meat, learn to cook and identify which vegetables you need for a balanced diet. The recommendations / sciences - which predate concerns about greenhouse emissions etc - for how much meat you need per day is about 65 grams, or about 1/2 quarter pounder in American measurements. In macronutrient language, you only need about 46-56 grams of protein a day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake#Macronutrients https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake#Macro...). I won't deny that good beef contains heaps of both essential macro- and micronutrients in a convenient and tasty package, but people really don't need as much per day as they are eating.
- phtrivier 1y ago1) Do you have numbers to help use compare ? I have no idea how much methane was unleashed during this single event. So it's pretty hard to compare with to the impact of cattles. (I have a suspicion it's a drop in an ocean.) 2) You are right, they are hypocrites. At least you can vote some of the politicians out - unfortunately, their electorate The bad news is that physics does not care about their hypocrisy. The good news is that neither do we have to - we can make a lot of choices ourselves. Including what we eat, how we heat, and who we vote for. 3) Why do you think "everyone" is flocking to bitcoin ? [1] the usage is still confidential enough. The GHG impact is therefore hard to evaluate ; sure it might use a lot of electricity (about as much as a small country [2]), but it depends on how valuable you value the thing. I don't think bitcoin is more usefull than a big "gambling ponzi scheme", but I understand people have other opinions. Do you use bitcoin daily ? More than you national currency ? More than other digital services. 4) Do you believe those things to be exclusive ? In turns of carbon, we need to "turn off lights" (I suppose you mean "reduce our own consumptions") _and_ demand that AI be at least powered by carbon heavy sources (or - unpopular opinion on HN - consider not using them too heavily ?) But we also need to lobby for building carbon-light electricity sources. AND we need to reduce the impact of agriculture. The fact that some people are oblivious to the impact of activity A does not remove the impact of activity B. [1] https://theconversation.com/almost-no-one-uses-bitcoin-as-currency-new-data-proves-its-actually-more-like-gambling-207909 https://theconversation.com/almost-no-one-uses-bitcoin-as-cu... [2] https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/ghg/comparisons https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/ghg/comparisons
- close04 1y ago> Treating beef like coal You'll just ruin it, nobody likes burnt beef. Coal and renewables output the exact same thing (electricity), beef and alternatives don't. Unless they make money from coal, people don't want coal, they want electricity and they won't even know the source. But in this case people want beef. Almost every beef replacement failed so far. So it's not as straight forward as "treating it the same" because at least one generation of people will always know what they lose. The hill is steeper for this battle.
- 0xEF 1y ago> You'll just ruin it, nobody likes burnt beef Tell that to my FiL. I dread his family gatherings since I know hockey puck burgers are going to be the only viable food on the menu because he's very proud of that expensive grill he has no talent with.
- adrianN 1y agoUnfortunately solar panels and batteries don’t taste the same.
- wcoenen 1y agoSolar Foods is already producing protein from solar energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Foods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Foods
- adrianN 1y agoPlants have been producing protein from solar power since forever, but I bet it’s easier to tell the difference between steak and bacteria powder than to tell the difference between coal power and solar power.
- wcoenen 1y ago> Plants have been producing protein from solar power since forever Yes, but interestingly enough solar panels + hydrolysis + solein production is more efficient. It takes roughly ten times more land area to produce the same amount of food with plants. And efficiency of solar panels is still improving. Producing food with solar panels also would not be affected by increasingly unpredictable weather patterns, soil degradation, pests and weeds. It would not require fertilizer, pesticides or herbicides. Water usage would be much reduced. Obviously this technology is still in the demonstration phase and there is still a long way to go. But it looks like this could be the start of a revolution in food production of a magnitude similar to the Haber process.
- globular-toast 1y agoNo, they taste 100x better and they're called plants. Eating animals that graze all day on the scant plant life was a necessity in many parts of the world. But in places where plants grow in abundance like India and Central America they eat them either exclusively or predominantly and their food is delicious as a result. These days the rest of the world has much better access to fresh vegetables too. I can even grow many desi vegetables in a greenhouse at home. So ditch the tasteless chunks of animal protein and eat more plants.
- peter_vukovic 1y agoFrom a systems perspective, civilization is the greatest pollutant. Whether it's Mesopotamia, Rome, industrial Britain, or the modern global economy, each civilization is a complex machine that extracts resources, generates waste and disrupts ecosystems. There’s no version of it that’s truly sustainable long-term, just degrees of delay or harm reduction. There is absolutely nothing special about beef. We could replace beef with palm oil, lithium, air travel, or even data centers. The same system logic applies: convert energy and resources into power, growth, and order, while displacing entropy elsewhere. A clean planet is a planet without civilization. This is a factual observation, not nihilism.
- 4gotunameagain 1y agoSo you are saying that we should adhere to a binary logic, where we either accept the destruction of the Earth as a fact, or we form a doomsday cult ? I don't understand. It is quite clear that we are what is polluting the planet, sure. There are multiple ways to reduce our impact and try to reach some sort of balance. Of course everything is imbalanced right now, we are only a couple of generations after the industrial revolution after all.
- peter_vukovic 1y agoAccept the destruction of civilization as a fact. The Earth will be just fine.
- 4gotunameagain 1y agoThis is a factual observation, not nihilism.
- peter_vukovic 1y agoOf course it is. Every civilization so far has ended due to internal collapse. I'd love to hear arguments and evidence about why you believe our society is on a different path.
- HourOrTwo 1y ago[dead]
- zeristor 1y agoWhat I don't understand is why pork isn't more popular?
- 4gotunameagain 1y agoLegacy reasons (i.e. religion), health reasons (beef is supposed to be quite healthier), maybe personal preference as well ?
- ihaveajob 1y agoAgreed. As a Spaniard, I'm surely biased, but I prefer pork to beef any day of the week.
- peterashford 1y agoYeah from a protein prduction efficiency point of view, Pork, sheep and goats are way better than Cows. Chicken and fish are even more efficient. And plants win, hands down. We can all make choices that improve our impact on the planet.
- aziaziazi 1y agoPigs sentience is considered very close to dogs and as dogs have a very intimate place in some culture some people make a connection and don't feel eating them.
- Jealous8 1y ago[dead]
- albertgoeswoof 1y agoOn an individual level you have two choices: - eat meat, and accept the impact to the environment, health risks, and mass unethical treatment of livestock - stop eating meat, and accept that some of the foods you grew up eating, you can't eat any more
- federiconafria 1y agoI think there is a third option, factor in the externalities and treat it as a luxury. The cost we are paying for it is not currently reflected on the final price.
- brador 1y agoFourth: Find or create alternatives that taste just as good without the high environmental impact.
- sotix 1y agoMy grandparents and great grandparents in Greece used meat as a garnish a few times per week for dinner. The most meat they would have was at the end of the Lenten fast on Easter where they would have a big piece of lamb. Otherwise, it was the occasional smaller pieces of ground meat on top of vegetable-heavy dishes.
- Raed667 1y agoHonestly, I don't even miss it anymore.
- peterashford 1y agoor three, just eat less meat
- prox 1y agoA UN study showed that if everyone on earth would be going from 7 days a week meat to 6 would do wonders for the climate. Just one day less.
- danielbln 1y agoAll "haha, but it's tasty!!!!" jokes aside, and even ethics and morality aside (which is tough, because we cause a LOT of suffering here), growing meat is just incredibly inefficient. We have to sustain so much additional biological machinery just to chop off some muscle tissue at the end, even if we assume everything of the cow will be used eventually, it's just incredibly wasteful.
- close04 1y agoThe problem is that we don't factor in the externalities adequately in the price of most products. Building and operating an amusement park is also incredibly inefficient just to get a giggle. If every product would be priced in a way that includes all externalities you'd see a shrink in the industries with the highest (negative) impact. I'm setting aside the Pandora's box discussion about allowing only the rich the luxury of destroying the environment.
- mindok 1y agoCow poo and periodic trampling are an incredibly important part of topsoil development in a number of ecosystems - eg prairies.
- danielbln 1y agoSure, but most beef farming is mass scale factory farming. Framing it as "it's good for prairies" is a little disingenuous.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoA lot disingenuous. A CAFO lot.[0] That's how most cows are raised. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_op...
- closewith 1y agoBy this approach, life is inherently wasteful. Resource use is not only necessary, but a human right. Deciding for others what is and isn't worth the use is immoral.
- igleria 1y agoPricing people out of things means only rich people can afford those things. The same rich people that on an individual level generate a lot more emissions than the average person. Tough sell.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- GeoAtreides 1y agoHaha, flagged, of course it's flagged Hey HN moderators and users, why shouldn't this discussion be allowed? what possible reason there is to ban it from the site? i promise, we're all adults here, we can handle a controversial topic, no need to coddle us
- kawfey 1y agoMy wife and I area treating beef (and pork, lamb, and other mammalian meats) like peanuts, because she got the alpha-gal allergy from a lonestar tick bite. PSA: check for ticks ps: the loss of beef/pork/lamb in our diets hasn't really been a loss.
- TrnsltLife 1y agoJust feed the cows seaweed. I thought they already figured out that vastly reduced methane emissions.