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

221–230 of 344 posts

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

#221

Post by sofixa »

adrianN wrote: post #182
wumpus wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternately, you could consider all of the people who don't think nuclear is the solution to climate change. Are they irrational?

Probably they are. Although I'm not convinced that nuclear is the cheapest solution to climate change.

To me it seems it's the only realistic solution ( more realistic than the grid scale storage required to make renewables only work for most countries). What does cost have to do with it? We either want to fix the problem before it renders a big chunk of the planet inhospitable and who knows what else ( e.g. the heat dome in the Pacific Northwest this summer ), or not. Money shouldn't be part of the conversation, like it wasn't in Chernobyl ( though to be fair, it did nearly bankrupt the Soviet Union and being about its downfall).

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

#222

Post by wumpus »

timeon wrote: post #190

One should not be surprised by all those defensive comments on the website where most people are from country where beef is dominating.

I wouldn't assume that -- one of my roommates in grad school was a nurse from China who was older because her education had been interrupted by the Cultural Revolution, and she was the biggest beef fan I've ever met.

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

#223

Post by adrianN »

sofixa wrote: post #221
adrianN wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably they are. Although I'm not convinced that nuclear is the cheapest solution to climate change.

To me it seems it's the only realistic solution ( more realistic than the grid scale storage required to make renewables only work for most countries). What does cost have to do with it? We either want to fix the problem before it renders a big chunk of the planet inhospitable and who knows what else ( e.g. the heat dome in the Pacific Northwest this summer ), or not. Money shouldn't be part of the conversation, like…

If you're right that it's the only solution then of course cost is not that important. Many people don't think that it's the only solution, so cost is important.

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

#224

Post by Jensson »

adrianN wrote: post #182
wumpus wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternately, you could consider all of the people who don't think nuclear is the solution to climate change. Are they irrational?

Probably they are. Although I'm not convinced that nuclear is the cheapest solution to climate change.

If we continued to build nuclear rather than retire them then we wouldn't have any issues today except cars and air. What do you mean "not most cost efficient", there are no other options we know of today. They are all based on future tech we don't have, like being able to store wind or solar etc.

Do you really want to bet the future of earth on the chance that we find a solution to those problems before climate change really becomes a huge disaster? I wouldn't, I would build what we know works. And since many are saying that we are already heading for a disaster, we can say that your bet didn't pay off, the chase for viable solar and wind failed and nuclear was the only viable option.

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

#225

Post by wumpus »

emkoemko wrote: post #112
ayngg wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguments that meat take an excessive amount of resources are disingenuous because those resources cannot simply be translated to other uses, examples being that the water use example many tout uses rainwater would fall anyways, that livestock will eventually urinate meaning it isn't actually lost, and land used for livestock is mostly non arable land and therefore cant be used for producing crops anyways. Also there…

"land used for livestock is mostly non arable land and therefore cant be used for producing crops anyways." so what is it that they grow then cut and roll into those large objects? here they even grow corn for feed.

You're talking about alfalfa, but, 1/2 of the meat in a cow comes from corn at the feedlot.

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

#226

Post by wumpus »

anothernewdude wrote: post #130

I can't see how lab grown meats would enable the use of the land that animals use. Animals take up land that is unusable for crops and make it productive. What land would the labs use?

1/2 of calories in US beef comes from corn at feedlots.

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

#228

Post by gremloni »

tuatoru wrote: post #134
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

Moralizing can work, though. Recall slavery, child labor, feminism, equal rights, welfare (,healthcare outside the USA). Plant based meat substitutes will improve (via the production learning curve and competition) if there is enough demand. (According to this article that attracted much comment[1] a few days ago, though, artificial meat is a non-starter.) 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28621288

Modern feminism is a cancer and a societal regression.

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

#229

Post by axiolite »

wumpus wrote: post #211
axiolite wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an identification of a sub-group, not an insult. But as far as I can recall, it has always been fair game to criticize public figures for their espoused opinions and public actions. Being offended by everything, and making it everyone else's fault, is the part that is new these days.

It wasn't an insult? Funny, I thought it was the same as calling someone a hypocrite. Indeed, it's fair game to insult other people. Sadly, it's prohibited by the rules of this forum. Disagree with them? Great. Accuse them of being hypocrites? Less great.

> Funny, I thought it was the same as calling someone a hypocrite.

And just where did you look-up that definition? May I point you to a few:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/virtue-signaling

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/virtu...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-talk/202008/mo...

> Accuse them of being hypocrites? Less great

This seems to be a you problem, not a me problem.

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

#230

Post by mns »

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…

Don't worry, it's already happening now by the looks of it, and by the downvotes. In a couple of years you will be called anti-science if you don't want to eat the Impossible Burger, which is probably more processed than the IKEA table that you are eating it on. We will keep on promoting these wars of we, the good guys, agains they, the bad guys, while the rich and privileged will keep all their rights, safe in their ivory towers, private islands and New Zealand.
Post reply on HN