3 ms·
Not to mention that beef/dairy production is a primary source of methane which is 80x more potent than Co2, but constantly under reported due to its shorter hal
by 8by3 2mo ago
Not to mention that beef/dairy production is a primary source of methane which is 80x more potent than Co2, but constantly under reported due to its shorter half life. Yes in the long run that matters, but its all the more reason that we should reduce animal agriculture right away as the payback is much faster than limiting Co2.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- enquirewithin 2mo ago[flagged]
- krige 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions fossil fuels contribute 33% farm animals contribute 30% Not astronomically; marginally. Anyone who's been around herbivore farm animals will tell you they fart. A lot. Then again, farm plants are a further 18%.
- tempfile 2mo ago> farm plants are a further 18% Apparently mainly rice growing. I knew paddy fields were bad, but I didn't know they were that bad. Per calorie I am sure it is more like a tenth that of ruminants, perhaps less, but still worth replacing with other carbohydrates.
- Llamamoe 2mo agoAll the more so since rice is relatively poor in nutrients.
- orwin 2mo agoRice is better than wheat or corn, just because of the fiber content and relatively low glycemic index. Complete rice also carry lisine (although less than beans) which is a really hard amino acid to get on a vegetarian diet.
- BobaFloutist 2mo agoI don't have any numbers handy, but my impression is that the vast majority of rice people eat is white rice.
- Llamamoe 2mo agoBread, pasta, potatoes, white rice, whatever are almost all starch. When cooked their glycemic index is all similarly high. And rice is unusually poor in vitamins and minerals. Even brown rice is nowhere near as good a fiber source as vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, seeds. If you want an actually excellent staple crop, buckwheat is about the only truly outstanding one.
- enquirewithin 2mo agoIsn’t it the case that much of the land used to grow rice is good for little else?
- tempfile 2mo agoIt is possible that that land shouldn't be used for anything. If we ate less animal products, there would be more than enough land to grow everything we need.
- dev_l1x_be 2mo agoWith corn based feeding.
- Llamamoe 2mo ago> Then again, farm plants are a further 18%. Yeah, but they also provide 80% of the world's calories to animals' 20%
- modo_mario 2mo agoThose fossil fuels emit what otherwise wouldn't be available in the carbon cycle. A cow that's fed on gras and farts emits nothing that that gras didn't pick up and contributes virtually nothing to climate change in the long term.
- lotsofpulp 2mo agoI imagine the fertilizers used for the grass to support the quantity and quality of the cows’ output require quite a bit of fossil fuels. Otherwise, I wonder if non fertilizer supported grass could support sufficient cows to satiate demand (which has not even peaked yet).
- modo_mario 2mo agoOh true and we consequently need to eat less cow meat, more different meat and/or have less people. but focusing on that is shifting blame in an innefectual way of course. Pointing at cow farts puts the pressure on the individual and seeks to dampen effects in the short term. Pump up less or no fossil fuels with actual long term thinking and those fertilisers will automatically become more expensive. At that point tho our oversized animal herd becomes harder to support and beef becomes automatically a lot more expensive whilst at the same time the manure becomes more important.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- ZeroGravitas 2mo agoAlways worth noting that the fertilizers don't require fossil fuels, just currently use them as they are cheaper if you ignore the externalities and alternatives haven't got the scale yet. Pro-fossil fuel types will regularly claim fossil fuels are a hard requirement for fertilizer.
- lotsofpulp 2mo agoI have often read the Haber-Bosch process credited with making the population explosion and drastic decreases in hunger possible, making it one of the most impactful discoveries in human history.
- enquirewithin 2mo agoI didn’t say animal agriculture, I said “cow farts”. The animal agriculture figure listed on that Wikipedia page includes all ruminant livestock (mainly cattle, sheep, and goats). Also, from that Wikipedia article: There is accumulating research and data showing that oil and gas industry methane emissions – or from fossil fuel extraction, distribution and use – are much larger than thought.[35][36][37][38][39] Still, my “astronomically dwarfs” looks to be overstating it by a wide margin.
- shiandow 2mo agoYou would be wrong, they are about equal in size, both accounting for about a third of the anthropogenic emissions.
- mklarmann 2mo ago[flagged]
- throwawayffffas 2mo agoI would argue animal emissions do not matter at all, methane survives about a decade in the atmosphere. Eventually breaking down to co2, co2 that was already in the atmosphere to begin with. Fossil fuel emissions are the ones that matter.
- aqme28 2mo agoNot following your logic. A decade is a long time for such a powerful greenhouse gas.
- firebot 2mo agoLook up the methane cycle. Methane is a flow gas. CO2 is a millennial gas that can stick around for millennia.
- aqme28 2mo agoYeah, exactly. I didn’t say anything to dispute that so I’m not sure what your point is. The time it spends as methane before turning back into CO2 is really bad
- throwawayffffas 2mo agoThere were cows a decade ago as well. The herd size dictates a level in the atmosphere it does not constantly increase the amount of methane in the atmosphere, there is an equilibrium. Increasing herd sizes increases that equilibrium level and that is partially responsible for the overall increase. But there are mitigations that can be applied there are feed additives that reduce the cow related methane emissions to 1%. Overall point is cow farts can be a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things, all we have to do is modify their diet slightly. Should we do it yes. Is it a huge issue no. Industrial methane leaks are a bigger problem, that methane when it breaks down will turn into co2 that was not there to begin with contributing to global warming permanently.
- pcrh 2mo agoIt isn't the "cow farts" that produce most methane, but rather the anaerobic processing of cow dung emanating from feed lots, dairy operations, etc. Grass-fed beef cattle whose dung is "recycled" in a more natural way in the fields produce the same emissions as would wild ruminants such as antelope, bison, etc. The biodiversity problem in the above refers mostly to new land clearances intended for farming, including for feedstock. This is minor in N. America and Europe, mostly as the clearances were done decades or over a century ago.
- enquirewithin 2mo agoThis Wikipedia article linked to elsewhere in this discussion gives the impression that the agricultural methane emissions are primarily a result of enteric fermentation by ruminant livestock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions
- pcrh 2mo agoThat's the source of emission by the cow or steer. Industrial processing of the dung produces vastly more. Table 3 in this source [0] shows enteric vs manure methane emissions are 158 vs 137 kg CH4/yr for dairy cows, who are mostly fed in feedlots, and 58 vs 2.4 for meat and other cattle, in the US and Canada. So the CH4 emissions range 65-fold from 2.4 to 158 depending on how the cattle are farmed. [0] Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/pmid/28959823/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/pmid/28959823/
- enquirewithin 2mo agoI see, thanks.
- firebot 2mo agoIt's mainly burps. They chew their cud. Cows produce around 50 kg CH4 per head per year. There's around 1.5 billion cattle. That's around 75 teragrams (million metric tons). Humans release about 410 teragrams altogether. About 40 percent is agricultural. And another 40 percent is from fossils, namely natural gas. The top 100 natural gas leaks release over 20 teragrams of methane a year. That's just the leaks. That's 400,000,000 cattle worth of methane just pissed into the wind.
- guerby 2mo agoDo you have a reference for the leaks? I read leaks were underestimated but I didn't find recent studies about it. Thanks!
- firebot 2mo agoThe figure comes from methane satellites and other methods (planes, drones, etc.) Pulse.ghgsat.com as I recall. It's down these days(discontinued). It used to be free. They used to do reports on what they found. I think their stuff is all commercialized now. :\ Pulse was pretty cool. They had a global map where you could see various emissions going back years and years and years and you could watch it unfold over time. The closest thing I've found to that is ESA Copernicus browser looking at the sentinel(s) data: https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/ https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/ Or tabulate it yourself: https://climatetrace.org/compare https://climatetrace.org/compare Change the gas to CH4. Now add up the top 20 where it indicates it's from the oil or gas industry? I got to 20 megatons(Tg) adding just the first 13!
- modo_mario 2mo ago>Yes in the long run that matters, but its all the more reason that we should reduce animal agriculture right away as the payback is much faster than limiting Co2. The long run is the thing that really matters. A faster payback only serves to cover the impact of those that want to keep pumping up oil and gas in the meantime(also to make synthetic fertiliser) for a few decades. It shifts focus from that on cow farts. As if the rotting plant matter and wild animal life that could replace it didn't emit any methane.
- 8by3 2mo agoWe don't have time anymore for A or B, we need to do both things now. End the fossil fuel industry and change our diets. If we don't radically decrease emissions by ~2030 we are ensuring +2C by ~2050. And +2C is going to be fugly. We've already passed +1.5C, 2030 is in four years, less even. https://tuhat.net/@sbr/p/change-for-the-climate https://tuhat.net/@sbr/p/change-for-the-climate
- DarkNova6 2mo agoI never understood this argument. With Oil & Gas you release green house gases that have been sealed away back into the air. For methane produced by farming all components remain in a cycle. Everything released by animals eventually finds its way back to plants, which get eaten, which become exhaust of animals, etc. This sounds to me more like a spin by big oil to finger point at another industry.
- nDRDY 2mo agoThis is literally backwards - plants absorb CO2, not methane! The obsession with CO2, specifically emitted by fossil fuel use, for me indicates geopolitical motivations (for both standpoints).
- Flashtoo 2mo agoThe methane will eventually break down and be part of new plants, but in the meantime it will heat the planet much more than if it hadn't been there. Think of it this way: industrial scale cattle farming essentially makes and feeds biochemical reactors that turn hydrocarbons into a gaseous form that maximizes their global heating effect. Consider the counterfactual where we don't stuff billions of fart machines full of corn.
- orwin 2mo ago> The methane will eventually break down and be part of new plants To be exact, excess methane go in the high troposphere, where it is broken down in CO2+H2O (the half life is very short, I don't remember which is which but it's either 5 or 20 years). So in any case, it accelerate climate change.
- pizzaiolo 2mo agoIt's not exactly a closed loop, though. A lot of crops are grown using fossil fuel-derived fertilizer.
- AngryData 2mo agoHowever cows also are primarily fed alfalfa which produces its own fertilizer.
- dnautics 2mo agomethane has less ir absorption than co2 and (as you said) a shorter half life.