Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions • Hacker News Board

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#31

Post by GhettoComputers » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:10 AM UTC

ginja wrote: post #27

I can’t read the full article because of the paywall but the main argument seems to be that cows emit a lot of CO2. Ruminants eat plants, which contain carbon captured from the atmosphere. They then release most of that carbon back to the atmosphere, from where it will be eventually absorbed by plants again. So it’s a cycle where no new carbon is really being introduced (unlike burning fossil fuels that would otherwi…

To be fair, it could be as easy as banning cows and using buffalo for better ruminant yields.

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#32

Post by colordrops » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:11 AM UTC

ginja wrote: post #27

I can’t read the full article because of the paywall but the main argument seems to be that cows emit a lot of CO2. Ruminants eat plants, which contain carbon captured from the atmosphere. They then release most of that carbon back to the atmosphere, from where it will be eventually absorbed by plants again. So it’s a cycle where no new carbon is really being introduced (unlike burning fossil fuels that would otherwi…

* a lot of energy is used to farm the cows, e.g. growing their food, fertilizers, butchering, shipping, etc

* Cow methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than co2, orders of magnitude worse

* Land that would capture a lot more CO2 and keep water in the environment is chopped down or otherwise destroyed to make pastures, the worst being rainforests.

* Orders of magnitude more water is used to raise cows vs the equivalent calories in plants.

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#33

Post by analognoise » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:12 AM UTC

timemachine wrote: post #8

I generally like the economist but this article is poor. The topic of deforestation is only whispered in at the end, almost a footnote. However, burning the Amazon for farmland to produce beef in Brazil should be part of the headline.

I thought the modern view was that the Amazon as the "lungs of the planet" was supposed to be totally bullshit and we could burn the whole thing down and be fine - but what we can't do is screw up the oceans, and it's already too late and we're all effectively doomed (walking ghost status) but we just don't realize it yet.

I'm paraphrasing here.

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#34

Post by colordrops » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:12 AM UTC

beckman466 wrote: post #2

this is a half-baked ‘solution‘ that just makes eating meat a luxury. a thing only for the rich. it’ll be like crimes that are punished by a fine - they just become the ‘fee’ that allows the propertied class to do whatever they want. beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage (Vice had a great video showing the Amazon deforestation due to beef production). edit: my point is that the prope…

If only allowing the rich to eat beef will help save the planet then I'm for it.

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#35

Post by wumpus » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:12 AM UTC

GhettoComputers wrote: post #28

wumpus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the main problem with cows was feed lots feeding 10 calories of grain to make 1 calorie of meat, not methane.

Lets not forget the transportation of fresh meat is not negligible, the cooling and the fuel costs will add greatly to carbon emissions. Preserved foods and not relying on luxuries such as refrigeration would go a long way to sustainability and heath.

Do you have a source that shows that it's not negligible? The carbon and water cost of 10 calories of grain is pretty large.

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#36

Post by kcplate » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:12 AM UTC

version_five wrote: post #15

throwawaysea wrote: post #4

I can’t view the whole article due to the paywall, but I have to ask - where does this line of thinking lead? Does every pleasurable activity we might voluntarily undertake get scrutinized, regulated, or banned? I certainly hope not, since such losses of freedom can make the tyranny of the majority very real. It’s important that any potential policies are applied in a fair manner. For example, priced externalities sh…

I think totalitarians just like more rules so they can be used as needed against people they don't like. It seems like advocates for these kind of things are generally in a position of privilege where they won't be personally affected. In practice, as another poster pointed out, it just becomes a war on the poor. If the price of steak doubles (and it has already doubled in the last few years) I'll pay it and grumble…

It’s been my observation that progressives seem to measure success of any position they hold more by its degree of good intention rather than it’s actual effects or results.

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#37

Post by tfehring » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:13 AM UTC

GhettoComputers wrote: post #21

tfehring wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing moralistic about a carbon tax - it's a Pigouvian tax, not a sin tax. The point of a Pigouvian tax isn't to say "I don't like that thing so let's tax it so other people do less of it," it's to say "Do what you want but don't make me or my children pay for the externalities it creates."

A decrease of carbon would many lower crop yields, could I sue for my lowered crop yields? The issue of a carbon tax is basically that politicians are only too happy to give more taxes, and would support carbon taxes regardless of it being good or bad.

Not sure about the potential for a private entity to sue another private entity for those damages - but sure, to the extent that beef production creates positive externalities, the value of those externalities should also be priced in. Though most of the warming potential from cattle farming comes from methane, not carbon dioxide, so I'd be surprised if it actually had a nonnegligible impact on crop yields, let alone an impact that came anywhere close to offsetting the negative externalities elsewhere.

Empirically, most politicians don't support carbon taxes. Market-consistent pricing of climate-related externalities is broadly opposed by politicians on both sides of the aisle in the US. For example, look at the massive subsidies to dairy farms in my home state of Wisconsin - they get over 40% of their revenue from direct subsidies in a typical year, and if you exclude those subsidies the industry hasn't made a profit for at least several decades, but no one dares to even suggest reducing or eliminating them, let alone going the other way and taxing the negative externalities they create.

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#38

Post by GhettoComputers » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:13 AM UTC

beckman466 wrote: post #2

this is a half-baked ‘solution‘ that just makes eating meat a luxury. a thing only for the rich. it’ll be like crimes that are punished by a fine - they just become the ‘fee’ that allows the propertied class to do whatever they want. beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage (Vice had a great video showing the Amazon deforestation due to beef production). edit: my point is that the prope…

>beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage

How is it more deadly than transportation in terms of emissions or deaths caused by it? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#39

Post by wumpus » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:14 AM UTC

GhettoComputers wrote: post #25

wumpus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> interested in virute signaling rather than practical applications. Love the insult, I'm sure it helps the conversation along to a good conclusion.

Ill omit that then, I am getting used to using HN. Objectively, we should look at the largest percentages that are causing carbon emissions if the goal was to lower it.

I'm pretty sure that insulting people for virtue signaling isn't an objective thing.

Re: Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

#40

Post by tw04 » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 4:14 AM UTC

wumpus wrote: post #29

seiferteric wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what fungible means... A Watt is a Watt, a soybean is not a steak...

I'm not sure why you think I said a soybean is a steak, but I meant that a soybean is a soybean, corn is corn, and pork bellies are pork bellies, when we're talking about things traded on the commodities markets.

I guess I doing get your point. Fungible means interchangeable. The average consumer doesn’t think twice about whether their electricity comes from coal or solar as long as the lights turn on when they flip the switch. If you try to give someone soy beans when they ordered a steak they’re going to care quite a lot. Food isn’t fungible for the average consumer. That has absolutely nothing to do with it being a commodity or not.