Live data from Hacker News

Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

journals.plos.org

281–290 of 302 posts

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#281
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to chime in here - ice ages cause extinctions, not warm ages. We are in the knifes edge of too cold. A little extra green house gas to buffer out the ice age is a good thing.

The problem is the millions to billions of people who are living in areas that will become virtually uninhabitable due to temperature changes and sea level rise. The first way climate change will seriously negatively impact humanity is through geopolitical conflict and a massive refugee crisis.

Yet that hasn’t happened despite all the warnings in the media for 3 decades of my life and no significant rise in sea level in my lifetime.

The alarmism is more likely propaganda than legitimate scientific inquiry.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#282
post #125

A common misconception which I frequently see when this topic arises is the failure to distinguish carbon cycles and one-way carbon emission. You exhale carbon dioxide. However, this carbon dioxide comes from the carbon in the food you eat, and the food you eat obtained it from the atmosphere. Thus, it's a cycle. As a system (ignoring food transportation, deforestation, etc.) it's effectively carbon neutral. By contr…

The carbon cycle is rather irrelevant. The trophic pyramid is what's to argue about. All the energy food provides comes from the sun hitting the land. We need to start there. Meat still only conserves 10% of the energy the plants provided to the animal. Therefore meat consumption is insanely wasteful use of land and resources. We could grow soy for human consumption on a fraction of the land for meat production and reforest the remaining space for carbon capture.

Natural ecosystems tend to not exploit resources to the point of collapse. Large herds of bisons may have roamed the lands, but their existence wasn't borrowed from erroded soils, drained sources, globalized deforestation and synthetic fertilization from mined minerals. They were bound to what their local ecosystem could provide.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#283
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The start of the carbon cycle is one which I have found to be very unpopular to discuss, and it has a direct connection to methane in the atmosphere. Artificial fertilizers is produce through a process which takes in natural gas as its primary ingredient. The process is also a major source for methane leaks, with a large variance in claimed contribution for the global methane pollution. For a large portion of the glo…

It will be fairly straightforward to decarbonize fertilizer production, using electrolyzed hydrogen rather than natural gas. As the industry matures, it's likely to be even cheaper than naturals gas derived ammonia. Here's a pilot project in Spain, for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-28/spain-cou... However, misapplication of fertilizer, and the resulting destruction of aquatic ecosystems, wi…

You are right, in the longer term, but hydrogen from electrolysis comes at a levelised cost approximately four times grey hydrogen. Of course that is comparing apples and oranges a bit (the grey hydrogen externalises some of its costs) but I think it is still over double as expensive as blue hydrogen. I would be delighted if electrolysis becomes two to four times cheaper than it is today but for a relatively mature chemical process I'm just not sure I see it happening in the next couple of decades.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#284
post #200
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you are trying to say, but we don't have a carbon budget , nor a methane budget. Maybe attitudes need to shift gradually to make other people feel more comfortable, but the fact is that we need to make radical changes to all areas of human existence in order to deal properly with the magnitude of the crisis. It seems like...smart...to be rational, and weigh costs and impact and supposedly choose the smarte…

Natural CO2 sinks that absorb carbon from volcanos exist. As such we can have some net human CO2 production without making things worse than they are today. An 80% reduction in CO2 isn’t quite enough, but it would avert most issues for a long time. More importantly doing something is much more productive than saying we need to change everything on day one which just promotes paralysis. The obvious step one is to get…

Gas stations are closing because ICE engines are getting more efficient and now have a lot more range. I think this is going to make them more appealing in the short term.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be fairly straightforward to decarbonize fertilizer production, using electrolyzed hydrogen rather than natural gas. As the industry matures, it's likely to be even cheaper than naturals gas derived ammonia. Here's a pilot project in Spain, for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-28/spain-cou... However, misapplication of fertilizer, and the resulting destruction of aquatic ecosystems, wi…

You are right, in the longer term, but hydrogen from electrolysis comes at a levelised cost approximately four times grey hydrogen. Of course that is comparing apples and oranges a bit (the grey hydrogen externalises some of its costs) but I think it is still over double as expensive as blue hydrogen. I would be delighted if electrolysis becomes two to four times cheaper than it is today but for a relatively mature c…

Or else make the natural gas based fertilizer 4x more expensive through taxes...

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How’s their carbon footprint?

More importantly: what is their CO2 efficiency? How much GDP and science do they output per unit of CO2? India is close to Italy in Scientific output [1]: 1040 units vs 1104 respectively. India's CO2e output is 2.62 billion tonnes, vs Italy 337 million tonnes. India's GDP is $2.869trillion vs $2.004 trillion. India's population is 1,336million vs Italy 60 million. So, India consumes 7.7x the Earth's CO2 budget, but g…

What an ignorant comment. It just shows a failure of supposedly "superior" Western education, your citizens are deliberately kept uninformed in a desperate attempt to hold on to the power that was unfairly acquired by exploiting much of the world. Your arrogance just cannot bear equality, can you? The days of Western dominance are numbered, you cannot stop it. World power has been gradually shifting eastwards, rightfully. This is the Asian century.

Literally the only thing that matters is CO2 per capita. India's is way low. The low scientic output is a consequence of low per-capita income, it has been increasing and will keep increasing, will definitely cross Italy's (having lived in South Europe I know how the culture here is). It's only a matter of time. India's population has always been historically very high due to fertile lands. It would have been much lower, but 200 years of British colonialism deliberately kept Indians in poverty, keeping birth rates high. And suggesting population reduction - how exactly will you do that? Genocide? War? Try it and see how that goes.

You should focus on reducing your arrogance, racism, denial of facts, and over-consumption. You are not better than others. Learn some morals. The real solution to climate change is science & technology. Our current consumption level is just not inline with the current renewable tech.

You just want to forcefully keep the rest of the world poor so you can enjoy driving your SUVs and eating steaks, while somehow blaming the rest of the world based on some made-up metrics. Guess what that's not gonna happen. Try it if you can.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#287
post #125

A common misconception which I frequently see when this topic arises is the failure to distinguish carbon cycles and one-way carbon emission. You exhale carbon dioxide. However, this carbon dioxide comes from the carbon in the food you eat, and the food you eat obtained it from the atmosphere. Thus, it's a cycle. As a system (ignoring food transportation, deforestation, etc.) it's effectively carbon neutral. By contr…

> distract from the root cause It's all hands on deck dude. Do you think we have the luxury to focus on just the worst offender? People (society) can work on more than one problem at-a-time, it's not a "distraction" it's doing anything and everything we can to prevent extinction of our species. Meat consumption and the environmental damage caused by it's infrastructure AND fossil fuel usage need to be addressed, not…

One alternative would be accepting that the climate has always changed, regularly dramatically so, and focus on adapting to survive the inevitable.

It sucks, but it is what it is, and it's not going anywhere.

The environmental movement was fully compromised a long time ago, it has absolutely nothing to do with the environment anymore, it's all about profit and shame.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly: what is their CO2 efficiency? How much GDP and science do they output per unit of CO2? India is close to Italy in Scientific output [1]: 1040 units vs 1104 respectively. India's CO2e output is 2.62 billion tonnes, vs Italy 337 million tonnes. India's GDP is $2.869trillion vs $2.004 trillion. India's population is 1,336million vs Italy 60 million. So, India consumes 7.7x the Earth's CO2 budget, but g…

It is such an unpopular opinion but this is the answer. Humans are selfish. The earth can't sustain 8B+ people. Maybe 2B max with some technological advances for cleaner cars and other renewables.

It is rightfully unpopular, because it's not based on facts. The earth could easily sustain 8B+ people if certain countries do not over-consume as they are currently. But you are right, people are selfish, especially these over-consumers.

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#289
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the millions to billions of people who are living in areas that will become virtually uninhabitable due to temperature changes and sea level rise. The first way climate change will seriously negatively impact humanity is through geopolitical conflict and a massive refugee crisis.

Yet that hasn’t happened despite all the warnings in the media for 3 decades of my life and no significant rise in sea level in my lifetime. The alarmism is more likely propaganda than legitimate scientific inquiry.

What sea level rise would be significant to you?

Its happening and accelerating: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

If you need something visual look at the Miami type floods.

Also consider this is an issue that needs to be planned across hundreds of years. It might be slow but we dont move a city like NY in a decade.

Look at this: https://sealevelrise.org/states/new-york/#:~:text=The%20sea%....

Genuinely, do you feel these links are alarmism and propaganda?

Re: Red seaweed supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80% in beef steers

#290
post #93

Not eating cows or drinking cow milk reduces your carbon emissions from cows 100%. You actually don't need technology or a start up to solve this issue!

What do you substitute this? What do you spend your saved money on?

There was a study (Swedish researches I think) that looked at what purchasing effect have form vegetarians as they typically spend less on food than meat eaters. It found while they do have lower green house gas footprint from food, the additional purchasing power brought this back around 2% overall.

So if you look at this holistically, stopping one thing doesn't end its effect unless there is zero flow on from other behaviours as a result.

Post reply on HN