5 ms·
except 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 grou
by dijit 1y ago
except 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).