171–180 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As other posters have said, it seems like it can be tricky to incentivise cattle owners to add algae to their feed, check this has actually been added, in proportions that have the desired effect, and so on. But how about if governments provide subsidised feed centrally, instead, with the algae added?
Or just legislate that feed manufacturers must add the algae?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because right now the West coast from San Francisco North to at least Fort Bragg, has been suffering a kelp die off of great proportions. No one is quite sure whats going on, but apparently due to climate change, or at least warmer ocean water from further South that we've had for the last 5 or more years, has caused the kelp to die off at a rapid rate, to the point o…
"catastrophe as the Australian coral die off," I went deep sea fishing in Florida a few months back. It took forever to get to a place where there were actual fish. I asked the captain why, basically, he knows where there are large shipping container wrecks and that is where all the sea life is. Thing is, building coral and sea life is super simple [same with killing it]. You literally can just lay down wire grids an…
No. First you need an unpolluted area of ocean with the right conditions. And even then, thinking like yours can create more problems than it solves. Just look how the Osborne artificial reef actually led to an environmental disaster and massive cleanup effort.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/22/florida-retr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"catastrophe as the Australian coral die off," I went deep sea fishing in Florida a few months back. It took forever to get to a place where there were actual fish. I asked the captain why, basically, he knows where there are large shipping container wrecks and that is where all the sea life is. Thing is, building coral and sea life is super simple [same with killing it]. You literally can just lay down wire grids an…
"Thing is, building coral and sea life is super simple [same with killing it]." That is just simply not true. While it might be helpful to lay down structures for sea life, ocean acidification [1], algal blooms [2], and climate change are all contributing to mass death of sea life, and fast enough where we will see many species go extinct in our lifetime (bluefin tuna will be there soon [3]). Even related to your own…
I stopped eating meat for climate reasons; methane production from cattle being a major factor. Glad to see that there might be a solution to that problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"catastrophe as the Australian coral die off," I went deep sea fishing in Florida a few months back. It took forever to get to a place where there were actual fish. I asked the captain why, basically, he knows where there are large shipping container wrecks and that is where all the sea life is. Thing is, building coral and sea life is super simple [same with killing it]. You literally can just lay down wire grids an…
> building coral and sea life is super simple No. First you need an unpolluted area of ocean with the right conditions. And even then, thinking like yours can create more problems than it solves. Just look how the Osborne artificial reef actually led to an environmental disaster and massive cleanup effort. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/22/florida-retr...
> The tires, which were dumped before recycling was possible, will be trucked across the state to Florida’s west coast and burned for energy at a Wheelebrator Technologies renewable waste plant near Tampa, owned by private equity firm Energy Capital Partners.
We could recycle the tires, but fuck it, let’s burn them instead so this is an unmitigated disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe grass fed cattle produce more methane actually.
Source?
[1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c726/1bccd1f76d5060913b56cc...
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because right now the West coast from San Francisco North to at least Fort Bragg, has been suffering a kelp die off of great proportions. No one is quite sure whats going on, but apparently due to climate change, or at least warmer ocean water from further South that we've had for the last 5 or more years, has caused the kelp to die off at a rapid rate, to the point o…
It's horrifying that this is happening and I haven't heard about it and all we are talking about is if and how some dude paid a stripper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> building coral and sea life is super simple No. First you need an unpolluted area of ocean with the right conditions. And even then, thinking like yours can create more problems than it solves. Just look how the Osborne artificial reef actually led to an environmental disaster and massive cleanup effort. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/22/florida-retr...
That story just keeps on giving. > The tires, which were dumped before recycling was possible, will be trucked across the state to Florida’s west coast and burned for energy at a Wheelebrator Technologies renewable waste plant near Tampa, owned by private equity firm Energy Capital Partners. We could recycle the tires, but fuck it, let’s burn them instead so this is an unmitigated disaster.
Also, "recycling " tires isn't necessarily green because it takes enormous amounts of energy to shred them. While burning them releases energy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My understanding is that around half of the world's greenhouse gas comes from livestock That's not right. The highest number I've been able to find for the whole of agriculture is 24% of world greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... About 25% of that is methane from livestock ( http://old.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/greenhouse-gas-emissi... ) So livestock is about 6…
One also has to consider that the methane decays over a matter of decades. Other than CO2, which stays in the atmosphere until it is taken out. So, even if methane takes a big share in current greenhouse emissions, its share in the accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be lower. The climate change it causes is temporary. (Disregarding runaway effects.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
When you see the gas flares in hydrocarbon production fields it may look like a waste (it is), but it has to be done because the alternative of releasing methane into the atmosphere is worse.
The EPA is being systematically dismantled and the official line of the government (or at least, those in charge of the government) is that climate change is not man made. If it is just a natural process, how could our food systems have any impact on it?
I can't imagine how this wouldn't add at least some costs to feed prices, and my guess is farmers are operating on razor thin margins already. Without some government regulations that put a price on greenhouse gasses why would anyone implement this except on boutique scales?