4 ms·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions fossil fuels contribute 33% farm animals contribute 30% Not as
by krige 2mo ago
https://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.