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

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 344 posts

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

#91

Post by kybernetyk »

elil17 wrote: post #85

> The simplest way to cut beef output is for people to eat other animals instead, or become vegetarians. That’s like, in 1900, saying “the simplest way to prevent road deaths is for everyone to drive slower.” That’s not simple at all - that’s an intractable group behavior problem. What you really need is for the government to come along and put up speed limits. Most people will push those rules, a few will flout them…

Yes, we absolutely need the government to tell people what they’re allowed to eat.

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

#92

Post by voldacar »

mrjangles wrote: post #84
adrianN wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than being headed into a new medieval era because climate change caused civilization to collapse.

Climate change already caused civilization to collapse 20 years ago according to this article published in 1990: https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 >" UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would…

I sometimes wonder where we would be without the UN. Such luminaries.

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

#93

Post by fighterpilot »

quotemstr wrote: post #71
adrianN wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than being headed into a new medieval era because climate change caused civilization to collapse.

There is no universe where climate change causes the literal collapse of civilization. Exaggerating the risks of something just destroys the credibility of the people doing the exaggerating: consider DARE and drugs.

If it indirectly triggers nuclear war, it's plausible. Even just India vs Pakistan will lead to about a billion starvation deaths due to crop failures around the world as an externality. We were close to nuclear war in the 20th century despite no exogenous disturbances. What do you think will happen when there's mass migration and other stresses on the global order?

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

#94

Post by adrianN »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #30
jeffbee wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most straightforwardly fair way to do it is a carbon budget. If each person has some carbon budget and you want to spend yours on beef and I want to spend mine on motorcycle racing fuel, who is to argue we made the wrong choice? It goes back to one of my pet peeves that it is increasingly hard to find the kind of light bulbs I prefer, despite the fact that the electric supply to my home is powered by 100% renewab…

Do you just see it as carbon? What of the refinement of lithium ion batteries, the production of solar arrays and the toxic waste that accumulates from the production of these devices? Ideally it would be a thermal budget rather than carbon.

Ideally it would be an accurate reflection of all externalities in the final price, but how about we do not try to prevent tackling one of the externalities with whataboutism on other externalities.

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

#95

Post by Doji »

wumpus wrote: post #24
fidgetspinner wrote: post #18

Hm, this seems to be missing the point that plant monocrops destroy the soil and are not nearly as efficient a source of food for the human body as fresh animal meat. Regenerative agriculture, which ideally requires both animal and plant cultivation, would be a better path forward if it could scale. If I remember correctly the papers that originally thought cattle were a big contributor to global warming turned out t…

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

Cow feed is generally not human edible: https://www.milkmeansmore.org/what-do-cows-eat/

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

#96

Post by klyrs »

baggy_trough wrote: post #70
adrianN wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than being headed into a new medieval era because climate change caused civilization to collapse.

Hysterical nonsense.

How many of your assumptions about food logistics do you expect to survive the collapse of the gulf stream?

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

#98

Post by kybernetyk »

adrianN wrote: post #64
voldacar wrote: post #48

It feels like we are headed into a new medieval era of sumptuary laws and moral decrees promulgated by a decentralized international clerical-academic class. I don't think I like it very much

Better than being headed into a new medieval era because climate change caused civilization to collapse.

Sorry, can’t hear you over the sounds of the ice age they prophesied in the 1970s.

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

#99

Post by kybernetyk »

voldacar wrote: post #73
adrianN wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than being headed into a new medieval era because climate change caused civilization to collapse.

I will not eat the bugs.

You will eat the bugs and you will love it.

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

#100

Post by GhettoComputers »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #75
GhettoComputers wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lower it compared to when? CO2 levels are much higher now than they were even 100 years ago. If we somehow managed to move CO2 levels back to 1950 levels is that really a problem? Another problem. Say a given crop might do better with increased CO2 given all other factors remain unchanged. But that boost of CO2 from 300 ppm to 420 ppm also came with changes to the environment, so all other factors are not unchanged.…

If the carbon is much higher today, then could the conclusion be that they are not the factor, or that they are beneficial? Heres some stats, many factors make up the efficiency, but as plants are carbon sinks, it would be a bold claim to make that it has not helped crop yields. https://www.farmprogress.com/equipment/eight-major-factors-h...

Localized effects are easier to calculate, but there are many factor. For example soybeans grow better under less sunlight, so the effect of a darker sky is higher yields. You are correct that is isn't a single effect its very dynamic and has many effects.

Post reply on HN