Live data from Hacker News

Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

climatenexus.org

101–110 of 230 posts

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4) Reduce demand. I'm Argentinean, if I stopped eating meat my passport would probably be revoked. I grew up thinking that it was perfectly normal to eat meat 7 days a week. Even with this background, I started reducing the amount of meat some time back. I'm not vegetarian by any means, but I reduced my meat consumption about 80% without even trying. I'm sure there are lots of people that could too. > Less humans due…

I also grew up eating crazy amounts of meat here in Canada. I'm steadily moving towards a vegetarian (though with some fish and other sea life I harvest) diet despite still absolutely loving meat. I just can't justify it anymore. To me (and I know others don't need to feel the same way) it's practically immoral to eat in a way that wouldn't be sustainable if everyone else did. It's incredible to be born in a place an…

How do you justify having kids (also unsustainable if everyone did it.)?

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing something, I mean really doing something, requires changing our culture. I'm not sure it's so dire as that. Taking the US as an example (numbers from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... ), the largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation at 29%. A real push to switch to electric cars could have a significant impact without significantly changing the way people live their live…

A real push to switch to electric cars already pushes certain types of people to drive bigger trucks and pollute more brazenly, e.g. "Rolling Coal" which I've witnessed first hand in my very liberal college town. Culture is very complicated and you will always get push back. Furthermore, switching out the 200+ million cars in USA to electric vehicles is not going to help emissions because of the carbon footprint of n…

I didn't mean to imply that it would be cheap or easily or that we shouldn't push for cultural changes. I only meant to point out that there is a lot of low hanging fruit that does not require significant cultural changes.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#103
Methane dissapears in 8 years.

Who gives a fuck.

You spend a 100 billion $ stopping a years supply, all that work is for nothing in 8 years time.

The world has gone mad.

How about we do something crazy like continue on improving energy creation and use and stop the FUD for the unclean masses to pretend hell still exists and god is angry.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#104
post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

It’s a nice thought, but even if we accept that the global population doing this would stem the tide of climate change (which I am doubtful it would), one quickly realizes that there is no way that the entire global population is going to stop eating animals, and we are back to feeling hopeless. I’m increasingly convinced that carbon sequestration on industrial scales is the only serious way to solve this problem.

Just outlaw animal husbandry and meat sales or apply high enough taxes to meat, and meat consumption will become small enough to be irrelevant.

People can be vegan just fine, it's only a matter of habits.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#105

The scale of human activity has become so large that what may seem like fairly trivial variations can be quite impactful thanks to the multiplication factor. Until we substantially reel in the global population size the situation will continue to be rather precarious.

What does " substantially reel in the global population size" mean. People that raise this point almost 100% exclusively mean that about "people that are not me"

Make having children no longer be a right and instead be subject to conditions (like only one child per woman, or a large tax, or traded permits, or requirement to put millions of dollars in escrow for the child, etc.).

Abort all children unless the condition is met, and if they are birthed in violation of that, take them away from the mother and imprison her.

[here "woman" is intended as "person with an uterus"]

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#106
post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

It would help if you read the article which explicitly states that more than 40% of the emissions come from fuel production. Agricultural emissions can be managed by changing the diet of the animals.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#107
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does " substantially reel in the global population size" mean. People that raise this point almost 100% exclusively mean that about "people that are not me"

Make having children no longer be a right and instead be subject to conditions (like only one child per woman, or a large tax, or traded permits, or requirement to put millions of dollars in escrow for the child, etc.). Abort all children unless the condition is met, and if they are birthed in violation of that, take them away from the mother and imprison her. [here "woman" is intended as "person with an uterus"]

Or you could just tie a rope round thy neck and hang yourself to make space for another 1000 children...

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#108
post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

This is terrible advice, because it makes people think they did "enough" themselves to combat climate change when dropping animal product methane to 0 would not even be close to enough. Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions. These need to be dealt with, swiftly. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

It’s great advice because it’s a tangible change individuals can make immediately. There is very little we can individually do about the 100 companies, or do at all in the short term. This problem will need to be tackled on multiple fronts simultaneously. Advising people not to do something that could make a real difference doesn’t seem particularly helpful.

I’m fed up reading comments along the lines of ‘we shouldn’t try to solve this problem, because we should be solving this other problem instead’. In every case I’ve seen this argument, there’s absolutely no constraint at all preventing us from doing both.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#109
post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

This is terrible advice, because it makes people think they did "enough" themselves to combat climate change when dropping animal product methane to 0 would not even be close to enough. Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions. These need to be dealt with, swiftly. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

All companies exist to serve customer demand, or to serve companies that serve customer demand. Sure, they should be regulated (... thus increasing the price of consumer goods?) On an individual level, traveling less, buying less stuff, or buying less damaging stuff is the best that most people can do.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#110
post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

Meatless Mondays won't cut it. But even if we were to offset our worst carbon excesses—such as intercontinental air-travel and meat—ethical consumerism won't solve the climate crisis. Most other people simply won't offset their emissions. We need coordinated policy approaches to climate change.

And policy needs to be global in scope. Because even if advanced economies were to reduce their emissions to zero, this would be insufficient to prevent warming with substantial risks. Note that emerging economies are producing an increasingly large share of total global emissions, while the share from advanced economies is dwindling, now accounting for only 35% of global emissions. This trend continued past 2015 and is forecast to continue in the coming years.

By 2040, emerging economies will produce 75% of all emissions, while only 25% will come from advanced economies.

But policy-makers are still stuck in a mid-2000s mindset. Back then, their emissions were still the highest in the world and they had to focus their policies on reducing their own emissions. This no longer makes sense.

Advanced economies have a special obligation to do more to lower emissions in all countries. Why is it our responsibility? Because our per capita emissions are still the highest and we have emitted the most carbon since the industrial revolution.

Only if the policies of advanced economies lead to reduced emissions in all countries, can we prevent dangerous climate change. The most effective policies to prevent climate change are those that stimulate clean energy innovation. In other words, those that stimulate progress or breakthroughs in clean energy technologies (or any low-carbon technology that lowers emissions as well as demonstration projects, i.e. RD&D). Providing the global public good of cheaper clean energy technology helps all countries reduce their emissions.

If you want to do something check out my crowdfunding campaign for effective climate policy here: https://www.lets-fund.org/clean-energy

Post reply on HN