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

141–150 of 230 posts

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#141

Post by your-nanny »

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

Some numbers and sources would be nice.

I suspect that the availability of contraception is being over estimated.

Even in Poland I had Catholic hardliner pharmacists refuse to sell me morning after pills, and in some cases, regular birth control pills.

In any case, availability of contraceptives just gives people choices, and what people choose depends on lots of things, economic and otherwise.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#142

Post by louthy »

fungi wrote: post #35
mattigames wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way methane from live-stock is gonna disappear is by either: 1) Lab-created meat 2) Seaweed and other techniques of reducing methane released by cows [0] 3) Less humans due birth control or fortuitous events (e.g. a plague) [0] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612452/how-seaweed-could-...

If you are going to eat red meat go Kangaroo, it's healthy and sustainable. There are a million articles on the internet arguing either way. I would start with this one for an interesting angle: https://theconversation.com/from-pests-to-profits-making-kan...

I live in th UK, I’d suggest transporting it from Australia to the other side of the world would have some ethical implications

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#144

Post by jaxr »

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.

The efficiency of converting plant based protein into animal protein to feed that to humans is very low [1]. A huge portion of the crops are actually used to feed cattle. If humans stopped eating meat tomorrow, we would have plenty of food (we'd better start eating a lot more soy, though)

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/1...

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#145

Post by effie »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #33
estebank wrote: post #30

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…

> it's practically immoral to eat in a way that wouldn't be sustainable if everyone else did.

Why would that be immoral if you have negligible negative impact? It would only be a problem if everybody else will begin doing it. Which does not happen. Having children, hunting in the woods, owning a big house. Eating meat. Not being a universal example for every person is not immoral. People have different needs, and one person has more impact on the environment than other (but usually still negligible). If you want to limit yourself in this particular way, fine, but this isn't particularly moral thing to do. It is more of a feel-good thing to do.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#146

Post by keymone »

perfunctory wrote: post #140
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.

> 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.

There is not enough land to produce equal amount of meat at the same price point. There is plenty land to produce enough more expensive meat. Which also reduces meat consumption. It’s a win all around.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#147

Post by keymone »

jaxr wrote: post #144
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.

The efficiency of converting plant based protein into animal protein to feed that to humans is very low [1]. A huge portion of the crops are actually used to feed cattle. If humans stopped eating meat tomorrow, we would have plenty of food (we'd better start eating a lot more soy, though) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/1...

Cattle doesn’t convert plant based protein into animal protein. Also cattle eats crop that humans can’t eat and which grows in significantly more tough conditions than those required for crops used as feed.

Eating lots of soy is not healthy.

It’s a very weird and unconvincing argument on your part, to suggest humans should just start eating crops fed to cattle and that would somehow work in terms of sufficiently healthy and available nutrition as well as being net positive on climate change.

Cattle eats grass which grows everywhere in the world and cattle produces vastly healthier and nutritious profile of fat, protein, vitamins and other essential nutrients than what you could achieve by growing human edible crops for similar price. Sure you can achieve good nutrition with other expensive vegetables but that’s not what will happen if humans stop eating cattle. Let’s be realistic.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#149

Post by halfjoking »

Not sure how this is "unexpected."

For 20 years there have been articles/studies saying that the "calthrate gun" containing all the methane stored in Siberia and the arctic is the best reason we need to keep CO2 levels below 400 ppm.

Now CO2 is at 415 ppm and we're starting to see the accelerated release of methane and it's "unexpected." Why not interview one of the people who said this is exactly what was going to happen 10 years ago, and ask them what happens next?

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#150

Post by ab8 »

ced wrote: post #109
sascha_sl wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

belch
Post reply on HN