Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

climatenexus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 230 posts

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#131

Post by pdr94 »

spraak wrote: 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…

To get a better sense what you can do to actually make a difference, I highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/dp/0954452933/tag=davidmackayca-20 (also available online for free).

If you take one transatlantic flight, you'd produce more CO2 than by driving for a year.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#132

Post by your-nanny »

tomp wrote: post #101
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)?

justify your own existence!

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#133

Post by keymone »

jeremyjh wrote: post #116
keymone wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advice may not be as great. Amount of land and water needed to grow crops that sufficiently replace nutrition provided by meat may be worse for climate change than just eating meat. Obviously that only applies to grass-fed cattle. I don’t have a source right now, but the choice is not as obvious as many think.

Isn’t most cattle fed grain?

Yes it is, which is the main issue because apart from impact on land, corn-fed cows do excrete(?) more methane than grass-fed.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#134

Post by mynameishere »

newnewpdro wrote: post #4

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.

Hilarious how the one guy who understands math is way at the bottom.

Yes, population is the core problem, and there's no avoiding that fact. There's no easy solution to it--increased education and wealth slowly reduce the birth rate, but that takes generations and is far from certain. Absolutely critical--and very easy--would be dropping immigration from countries with net-positive birth rates to zero. Good luck finding support for that among people concerned with climate change.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#135

Post by louthy »

vbuwivbiu wrote: post #46
spraak wrote: 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…

I'm reading a lot of smoker's-logic in the replies to this: people who love eating meat clutching at straws trying to rationalize it. Nobody's forcing you to do anything! You can happily ignore this and continue living your life as you wish.

Or, it’s logic. Instead of blanket dismissal of everyone that doesn’t agree with you, why don’t you engage individually and help them understand your point of view. You may even find that you need to update your thinking rather than just claiming an entire group of people are deluded.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#136

Post by SamPatt »

"Starting in 1990s, the growth in global methane levels began to slow down, and global methane became relatively stable over the period of 2000-2006. A resurgence of global methane was not anticipated and came as a surprise."

If it's been rising for centuries and is continuing to rise now, shouldn't the six year period of stability be the anomaly, not the fact that it's continuing to increase?

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#137

Post by your-nanny »

twic wrote: post #98
tcbawo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western capitalism seems to be the one thing that has successfully incentivized people to have less kids, later in life. It's not always glamorous, but it's probably better than most alternatives.

What we really need is cap-and-trade for offspring. Everyone gets one each (so two to a couple), and if you need more, you can buy permits from someone who doesn't, at market price. That adds an economic incentive to have fewer children!

what a disgusting and disturbing idea.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#138

Post by your-nanny »

devit wrote: post #105
throwaway2048 wrote: post #6

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"]

you forgot your sarcasm tags.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#139

Post by dooglius »

mises wrote: post #11
newnewpdro wrote: post #4

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.

> reel in the global population size What does this mean? Forced sterilization? One-child policies? I don't ask this to be confrontational, but because it's a difficult question and I honestly want to hear opinions. Access to contraception doesn't make a difference when the culture still says you have 8 kids. This is borne out by what has happened: continued growth of the third-world population. T

No, it means drastically reduce the population size; the implementation of this is orthogonal to the point.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#140

Post by perfunctory »

keymone wrote: post #113
simonh wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’…

The advice may not be as great. Amount of land and water needed to grow crops that sufficiently replace nutrition provided by meat may be worse for climate change than just eating meat. Obviously that only applies to grass-fed cattle. I don’t have a source right now, but the choice is not as obvious as many think.

> Obviously that only applies to grass-fed cattle.

There is simply not enough land to replace all meat supply with grass-fed cattle meat. So if we all want to eat meat from grass-fed cattle only, that would mean exactly radical reduction in meat consumption.

Post reply on HN