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

Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

thecattlesite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 322 posts

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#201

Post by jamil7 »

wartijn_ wrote: post #182
jamil7 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. My own experience confirms this. 72% of all deforestation in Queensland and 94% in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas is a direct result of land clearing for beef production. Edit: One source was missing. https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/Beef-Deforest... https://www.…

Can you point out from where in that report you've got those numbers? I couldn't find them.

Sorry I typed that out and left to run some chores. I had a second report open from the same organisation and I quoted 73% not 72%, fixed in the parent comment.

Both reports: https://www.wilderness.org.au/images/resources/Beef-Deforest...

https://www.wilderness.org.au//images/resources/The_Drivers_...

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#202

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

lxmorj wrote: post #184
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the demand will always be there. Humans like to eat meat. I doubt very many will give up the privilege, esp. when others are not. I guess that's why we're all doomed to a broken planet. As long as we keep using "well, no one else is going to change" as an excuse we'll inherit the world we deserve.

Any plan that relies on self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups is doomed to failure. We need to quietly change the math behind the scenes by internalizing externalities legally - long enough for green tech to get enough investment dollars to be cheaper than dirty tech even if those rules change later. This is mostly already happened with solar / wind power, though we need some imp…

> Any plan that relies on self-imposed austerity measures of billions of people from disparate groups is doomed to failure

True, but if people who otherwise realize the necessity of the change are unwilling to subject themselves to any inconvenience, what hope do we have of ever making the kinds of organized societal changes that are necessary? If you are unwilling to make a tiny change like reducing your meat consumption, you're probably the kind of person who would never vote for a government that forces you to.

The argument is simply way to excuse your own behavior.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#203

Post by MiroF »

jazzabeanie wrote: post #91
seanwilson wrote: post #11

How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Animal farming creates vast damage because of how inefficient it is and seaweed won't address how much feed cows need or that the world is eating more and more meat as countries get richer: > The energ…

In Australia a significant amount (can't remember the specifics) of cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production. My own experience confirms this. I've seen many cattle farms around Queensland - some with low stocking density and no deforestation, others very poorly managed with no trees at all or full of invasive species. It's not as simple as eating meat = bad, but that's the message most people…

> cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production

This doesn't really matter - it's about the fact that the cattle are eating crops that could have more efficiently been directly turned into food. Unless you're claiming most Australian cattle aren't given feed? (Hint: pretty much all cattle are given feed, even the "free-range" ones)

> If they respond by stopping eating meat, then great - not the best choice, but a step in the right direction. If they respond by stopping to care where their food comes from then not so great.

In terms of the environmental impact, "caring where your food comes from" is truly, qualitatively nothing compared to stopping eating meat. Why are you trying to push this message?

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#204

Post by bamboozled »

This is a small and positive win it seems, why do many disgruntled ?

People get very passionate about our food source being the cause for climate change but really, what about the real ultimate more severe causes?

Fracking, mining, burning coal and oil ? Nuclear and renewables makes these things obsolete, but we still need food.

Edit: Want to add I’m fully onboard with the east less meat crowd and minimising deforestation, but I can’t help feel we should focus on the bigger, more high value targets first? Worrying about food production feels more like a distraction ?

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#206

Post by MiroF »

bad_user wrote: post #200
seanwilson wrote: post #11

How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Animal farming creates vast damage because of how inefficient it is and seaweed won't address how much feed cows need or that the world is eating more and more meat as countries get richer: > The energ…

Re "Amazon deforestation" — those lands haven't been deforested because of the western country's consumption of meat, they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you hav…

> they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not buying the result of their agriculture anyway.

Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative. I am certain there are people starving in Brazil, but this is much more of a distribution problem than a "didn't cut down enough trees in the Amazon" problem.

> solar panels are super inefficient

No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive and nuclear is looking less and less good by comparison every day. I say that as a big believer in nuclear power.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#207

Post by jamil7 »

bamboozled wrote: post #204

This is a small and positive win it seems, why do many disgruntled ? People get very passionate about our food source being the cause for climate change but really, what about the real ultimate more severe causes? Fracking, mining, burning coal and oil ? Nuclear and renewables makes these things obsolete, but we still need food. Edit: Want to add I’m fully onboard with the east less meat crowd and minimising deforest…

My guess is our food choices are something we can more immediately control.

> but I can’t help feel we should focus on the bigger, more high value targets first?

I don't buy this line of thinking as it makes the assumption that a society can't tackle or talk about multiple issues at once.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#208

Post by giantg2 »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #168
giantg2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As societies become developed the resource consumption will increase. That metric of richest 10% includes the global population making over $35k - generally people living a modern lifestyle. Other countries are moving toward this modern lifestyle too. Look at India's and China's development over the past few decades - electronics, vehicles, air conditioning, etc. I don't see people willingly giving up those things. T…

>As societies become developed the resource consumption will increase. That was true for a long time, but not anymore, because resource consumption turned into over-consumption. We've been hitting limits pretty hard for quite some time (cf https://ipbes.net/global-assessment ) Development can't be becoming more unsustainable in an increasingly unsustainable world (like drug use does not extend beyond overdose). Eithe…

Or they will take the resources from others via conflict. This has been the historical trend.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#209

Post by shafyy »

bamboozled wrote: post #204

This is a small and positive win it seems, why do many disgruntled ? People get very passionate about our food source being the cause for climate change but really, what about the real ultimate more severe causes? Fracking, mining, burning coal and oil ? Nuclear and renewables makes these things obsolete, but we still need food. Edit: Want to add I’m fully onboard with the east less meat crowd and minimising deforest…

It is the highest value target.

Livestock agriculture is the leading driver of climate change AND biodiversity loss. It emits more GHG than all forms of transportation combined. Additionally, if we would let nature reclaim the land that's currently used for livestock agriculture, it has the potential to capture >100% of the CO2 emissions until 2050.

Some recommended reading:

https://blog.yeticheese.com/eating-local-has-tiny-environmen...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987

Edit: This seaweed won't even start solving this problem.

Re: Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

#210

Post by bad_user »

MiroF wrote: post #206
bad_user wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re "Amazon deforestation" — those lands haven't been deforested because of the western country's consumption of meat, they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you hav…

> they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not b…

> Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative

Yes, but it doesn't export that food to western countries. In the US for example, less than 10% of beef is imported, and most of that is from Mexico and Canada.

Believe it or not, western countries grow their own meat, and in the west the CO2 and methane emissions for growing meat has been pretty steady, and is a moderate slice of the carbon emissions' pie.

> No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive

Renewables are only cost effective because that cost is subsidized. It's a sham IMO.

Post reply on HN