4 ms·

Is this really lower-impact in climate change than traditional mowing? I think it's far from obvious. With the goat solution, we must count the cost of the goa

Is this really lower-impact in climate change than traditional mowing? I think it's far from obvious. With the goat solution, we must count the cost of the goat transportation. And I suspect that the methane emitted by goats -- a worse greenhouse problem than CO2 -- may actually have a greater effect than the exhaust from a lawnmower.

rcoder 18y ago
I don't disagree that livestock are a serious greenhouse gas factor, but goats may have multiple uses as a stock animal, including mowing, meat, and dairy. If these animals are raised as, say, a dairy herd, and incidentally feed on grass at corporate offices rather than private ranch land, that would seem to me to be a net win in terms of carbon emissions.
- CWuestefeld 18y ago
  That's correct. If the goats are being raised anyway then there's no net addition from the creatures themselves. But as I said, I suspect that the truck(s) that move the goats around emit more CO2 than a lawnmower would. I'm guessing that per-mile emissions from a mower are much higher than a car, but that the truck is moving a much greater distance.
  - chancho 18y ago
    How do you propose to get the lawn mowers and crew to/from Google HQ?
    - Femur 18y ago
      A smaller herd of goats perpetually maintained on the grassy area in question would do the trick. Upkeep of this smaller herd may be an issue however. How much husbandry do goats need?
      - anigbrowl 18y ago
        Not much. As long as you have a fence to stop them running out into the road, goats will just wander around and munch grass all day. As will sheep. They need to be checked by a vet a couple of times a year. You guys are confusing the requirements for industrial farming (where you're committed to deliver a certain amount of milk or meat every x weeks) with the basics of animal husbandry. As long as you don't have so many goats that they eat the grass faster than it grows back, everything will be just fine. Keeping animals on a free range basis is extremely low-maintenance and low-impact. They just eat, poop, sit around and reproduce every so often.
        aaronblohowiak 18y ago
        "They just eat, poop, sit around and reproduce every so often." - where do I apply?
        HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago
        Yeah, but goats are escape artists I raise chickens and have looked into having goats for milk (not this year: don't have the time) and fencing is a major issue. One of my neighbors has goats and they are always getting out.
    - delano 18y ago
      A couple people in a truck with a couple lawn mowers would produce fewer emissions than a goat transport. In any case, I believe the point he's trying to make is that it's not an obvious net win in terms of carbon emissions.
      - graemep 18y ago
        Then again, if you eventually sell the goats a for food into the local market you are likely to reduce emissions on food transport. Of course, I have no idea what the demand for goat is in that area (surely there are some Indian restaurants that can do a "mutton" curry), or whether the US has the same idiotic regulations that the EU does that forces the shipment of animals for slaughter.....
  - Femur 18y ago
    This may be inaccurate. Due to the simpler engine design of a mower combined with the pollution curbing technology in use in cars and trucks (such as catalytic converters), mowers can be much worse. Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=98532&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=98532&page=1
  - anigbrowl 18y ago
    It's not a multi-day journey for the truck, whereas the lawnmower is likely to be running all day for several days. The distance is irrelevant, since a lawnmower can't travel at the same speed as a truck. Additionally, lawnmowers generally use 2 stroke engines which are inefficient and extremely noisy.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > Additionally, lawnmowers generally use 2 stroke engines which are inefficient and extremely noisy. I can't find any 2 stroke mowers at Home Depot, Lowe's, OSH, or Sears. (The vast majority use Briggs and Stratton engines. B&S makes a few 2 stroke engines, but AFAIK, they're only used in snow blowers.) Where are you finding "generally"? The trucks driven by lawn service folks generally get around 10-20 mpg. They don't spend hours on most job sites - most jobs are much less than an hour of mowing, with an hour or so doing other stuff. Then it's back in the truck for 15-30 minutes. The mowers less than half a gallon during that time and the trucks use about a gallon between jobs.
- paul9290 18y ago
  Methane argument I wonder what company or organization is raking in the dough with that one? Who is living off the hog by preaching animals and people farts are killing the environment? Being green is great and it's big business. I agree with most of it, but the fart argument is ridiculous.. though not to the people making a living from it!
chaosmachine 18y ago
Indeed, unless the goats are walking to Google, I imagine more fuel would be used. Maybe the goat transport vehicles are electric?
- proee 18y ago
  FYI, electric does not mean green. Most electricity is generated from dirty coal so there's no net benefit from using electric cars until we can generate cleaner power production.
  - anigbrowl 18y ago
    You get greater economies of scale at a central power plant than with numerous distributed motors, plus you only need to install one set of scrubbers. Joule for joule, it's cleaner to run an electric motor on AC than to run your own generator.
    - proee 18y ago
      The point I'm trying to make is that converting cars over to electric right now is not a green solution. I believe there is less pollution by running an efficient combustion engine than running an electric card that's powered off a coal plant. There's a lot of efficiency lossed from starting with the coal, to converting to electricity, to charging the batteries. With a gas powered car, the bulk of the efficiency is in the last stage. Wish I had some more numbers to back this claim but I've read it before...
      - rms 18y ago
        >I believe there is less pollution by running an efficient combustion engine than running an electric card that's powered off a coal plant. I'm pretty sure the numbers go the other way. Current voting on comments would put the burden of proof on you to change the minds of the rest. Here is one I googled up very quickly from an industry source. http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf I didn't read it, so I am by no means trying to hold it up as definitive and without any fallacy.
seanc 18y ago
The carbon emitted by the lawnmower came out of the ground, where it had been for millions of years. Net effect, more carbon in the atmosphere. The carbon in the goat methane comes from the grass, which took that carbon out of the air a few months back. Net effect, nil. I hate it when people get anxious about cow farts contributing to global warming. But the thoughts about the transportation of the goats are worth exploring. However, if you want to go that route you also have to add the net carbon emissions for construction, maintenance, and transportation of the lawnmower, which are non-trivial. I strongly suspect the goats are a net win.
- Alex3917 18y ago
  "The carbon in the goat methane comes from the grass, which took that carbon out of the air a few months back. Net effect, nil." Can you explain this? The grass absorbs CO2, and the goats turn the grass into methane. Except that methane is a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. So how could the effect be nil?
  - seanc 18y ago
    Well okay, not nil. But the methane eventually oxidizes back to CO2, half life 7 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane. Contrast with fossil fuels, which take a looooong time to get (permanently) back into the ground.
    - gregwebs 18y ago
      From looking at the wikipedia page, methane is converted to water and ethane with broken down ozone. Ethane is a much milder greenhouse gas. Not sure what ethane half life is. If I understand this correctly, the net result will be putting carbon and hydrogen into the atmosphere (via ethane) and taking oxygen out of the atmosphere in the form of water and maybe reducing atmospheric ozone. With a side effect of 7 years of methane. Regardless, this is not a closed carbon loop, and it results in global warming.
      - 18y ago
Keyframe 18y ago
Goats are already alive, they would fart either way,
- icey 18y ago
  That's just like saying the gas has already been processed and would be used anyway.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  Higher demand for goats leads to more goat breeding.
lutorm 18y ago
If you want to go down that route, you must include the CO2 emitted by the manufacture of the lawn mowers and their transport from China (we can assume) to Mountain View. Regardless of whether trucking a load of goats around uses more gas than running the lawn mowers (a hypothesis I seriously suspect is incorrect), goats manufacture themselves whereas making steel and aluminum uses a lot of energy. And if you want to argue that demand for goats breeds more goats which increases their methane emission, shouldn't you also include the fact that demand for more lawnmowers makes the lawnmower factory hire more people, which then have a salary to do things like buy cars that they wouldn't if they were unemployed? It's effects like that that people appeal to when they say corn ethanol leads to a net increase in CO2 compared to running gasoline directly. Somehow assuming a baseline that implies that people would be homeless bums living at 3rd world level unless they are employed by the ethanol industry seems like a dubious calculation to me.

rcoder 18y ago

I don't disagree that livestock are a serious greenhouse gas factor, but goats may have multiple uses as a stock animal, including mowing, meat, and dairy. If these animals are raised as, say, a dairy herd, and incidentally feed on grass at corporate offices rather than private ranch land, that would seem to me to be a net win in terms of carbon emissions.

CWuestefeld 18y ago
That's correct. If the goats are being raised anyway then there's no net addition from the creatures themselves. But as I said, I suspect that the truck(s) that move the goats around emit more CO2 than a lawnmower would. I'm guessing that per-mile emissions from a mower are much higher than a car, but that the truck is moving a much greater distance.
- chancho 18y ago
  How do you propose to get the lawn mowers and crew to/from Google HQ?
  - Femur 18y ago
    A smaller herd of goats perpetually maintained on the grassy area in question would do the trick. Upkeep of this smaller herd may be an issue however. How much husbandry do goats need?
    - anigbrowl 18y ago
      Not much. As long as you have a fence to stop them running out into the road, goats will just wander around and munch grass all day. As will sheep. They need to be checked by a vet a couple of times a year. You guys are confusing the requirements for industrial farming (where you're committed to deliver a certain amount of milk or meat every x weeks) with the basics of animal husbandry. As long as you don't have so many goats that they eat the grass faster than it grows back, everything will be just fine. Keeping animals on a free range basis is extremely low-maintenance and low-impact. They just eat, poop, sit around and reproduce every so often.
      - aaronblohowiak 18y ago
        "They just eat, poop, sit around and reproduce every so often." - where do I apply?
      - HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago
        Yeah, but goats are escape artists I raise chickens and have looked into having goats for milk (not this year: don't have the time) and fencing is a major issue. One of my neighbors has goats and they are always getting out.
  - delano 18y ago
    A couple people in a truck with a couple lawn mowers would produce fewer emissions than a goat transport. In any case, I believe the point he's trying to make is that it's not an obvious net win in terms of carbon emissions.
    - graemep 18y ago
      Then again, if you eventually sell the goats a for food into the local market you are likely to reduce emissions on food transport. Of course, I have no idea what the demand for goat is in that area (surely there are some Indian restaurants that can do a "mutton" curry), or whether the US has the same idiotic regulations that the EU does that forces the shipment of animals for slaughter.....
- Femur 18y ago
  This may be inaccurate. Due to the simpler engine design of a mower combined with the pollution curbing technology in use in cars and trucks (such as catalytic converters), mowers can be much worse. Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=98532&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=98532&page=1
- anigbrowl 18y ago
  It's not a multi-day journey for the truck, whereas the lawnmower is likely to be running all day for several days. The distance is irrelevant, since a lawnmower can't travel at the same speed as a truck. Additionally, lawnmowers generally use 2 stroke engines which are inefficient and extremely noisy.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > Additionally, lawnmowers generally use 2 stroke engines which are inefficient and extremely noisy. I can't find any 2 stroke mowers at Home Depot, Lowe's, OSH, or Sears. (The vast majority use Briggs and Stratton engines. B&S makes a few 2 stroke engines, but AFAIK, they're only used in snow blowers.) Where are you finding "generally"? The trucks driven by lawn service folks generally get around 10-20 mpg. They don't spend hours on most job sites - most jobs are much less than an hour of mowing, with an hour or so doing other stuff. Then it's back in the truck for 15-30 minutes. The mowers less than half a gallon during that time and the trucks use about a gallon between jobs.
paul9290 18y ago
Methane argument I wonder what company or organization is raking in the dough with that one? Who is living off the hog by preaching animals and people farts are killing the environment? Being green is great and it's big business. I agree with most of it, but the fart argument is ridiculous.. though not to the people making a living from it!

chaosmachine 18y ago

Indeed, unless the goats are walking to Google, I imagine more fuel would be used. Maybe the goat transport vehicles are electric?

proee 18y ago
FYI, electric does not mean green. Most electricity is generated from dirty coal so there's no net benefit from using electric cars until we can generate cleaner power production.
- anigbrowl 18y ago
  You get greater economies of scale at a central power plant than with numerous distributed motors, plus you only need to install one set of scrubbers. Joule for joule, it's cleaner to run an electric motor on AC than to run your own generator.
  - proee 18y ago
    The point I'm trying to make is that converting cars over to electric right now is not a green solution. I believe there is less pollution by running an efficient combustion engine than running an electric card that's powered off a coal plant. There's a lot of efficiency lossed from starting with the coal, to converting to electricity, to charging the batteries. With a gas powered car, the bulk of the efficiency is in the last stage. Wish I had some more numbers to back this claim but I've read it before...
    - rms 18y ago
      >I believe there is less pollution by running an efficient combustion engine than running an electric card that's powered off a coal plant. I'm pretty sure the numbers go the other way. Current voting on comments would put the burden of proof on you to change the minds of the rest. Here is one I googled up very quickly from an industry source. http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf I didn't read it, so I am by no means trying to hold it up as definitive and without any fallacy.

seanc 18y ago

The carbon emitted by the lawnmower came out of the ground, where it had been for millions of years. Net effect, more carbon in the atmosphere. The carbon in the goat methane comes from the grass, which took that carbon out of the air a few months back. Net effect, nil. I hate it when people get anxious about cow farts contributing to global warming. But the thoughts about the transportation of the goats are worth exploring. However, if you want to go that route you also have to add the net carbon emissions for construction, maintenance, and transportation of the lawnmower, which are non-trivial. I strongly suspect the goats are a net win.

Alex3917 18y ago
"The carbon in the goat methane comes from the grass, which took that carbon out of the air a few months back. Net effect, nil." Can you explain this? The grass absorbs CO2, and the goats turn the grass into methane. Except that methane is a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. So how could the effect be nil?
- seanc 18y ago
  Well okay, not nil. But the methane eventually oxidizes back to CO2, half life 7 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane. Contrast with fossil fuels, which take a looooong time to get (permanently) back into the ground.
  - gregwebs 18y ago
    From looking at the wikipedia page, methane is converted to water and ethane with broken down ozone. Ethane is a much milder greenhouse gas. Not sure what ethane half life is. If I understand this correctly, the net result will be putting carbon and hydrogen into the atmosphere (via ethane) and taking oxygen out of the atmosphere in the form of water and maybe reducing atmospheric ozone. With a side effect of 7 years of methane. Regardless, this is not a closed carbon loop, and it results in global warming.
    - 18y ago

Keyframe 18y ago

Goats are already alive, they would fart either way,

icey 18y ago
That's just like saying the gas has already been processed and would be used anyway.
jacoblyles 18y ago
Higher demand for goats leads to more goat breeding.

lutorm 18y ago

If you want to go down that route, you must include the CO2 emitted by the manufacture of the lawn mowers and their transport from China (we can assume) to Mountain View. Regardless of whether trucking a load of goats around uses more gas than running the lawn mowers (a hypothesis I seriously suspect is incorrect), goats manufacture themselves whereas making steel and aluminum uses a lot of energy. And if you want to argue that demand for goats breeds more goats which increases their methane emission, shouldn't you also include the fact that demand for more lawnmowers makes the lawnmower factory hire more people, which then have a salary to do things like buy cars that they wouldn't if they were unemployed? It's effects like that that people appeal to when they say corn ethanol leads to a net increase in CO2 compared to running gasoline directly. Somehow assuming a baseline that implies that people would be homeless bums living at 3rd world level unless they are employed by the ethanol industry seems like a dubious calculation to me.