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

261–270 of 344 posts

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

#261

Post by johnydays »

herbst wrote: post #248
randomperson_24 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to feed the cows, which requires food. And by normal concensus only 10% of energy is transferred to the next species. And producing food for cows causes more damage than making same food for humans. (Deforestation, Soy plants, etc emitting more carbon)

This is only true for mass grown meat. A typical Swiss cow spends their summer in die Alps and their winters eating grass from the very same fields. Most popular meat labels here would not even allow buying external food, if not absolutely necessary.

--- original: Vast majority of the swiss beef supply is conventionally fed, with imported grain/soya crops.

I was wrong, correction below

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

#262

Post by johnydays »

Doji wrote: post #159
cjblomqvist wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always thought along the same lines. But whatabout methane being 10 times the pollutant?

It's a concern, but fortunately if cattle population stays constant, their portion of the atmospheric resident methane will also remain constant, because methane degradation will keep pace with emissions. Compare this to cars. Even if the number of cars remains constant, their contribution to the C02 pool grows every day. So we should avoid increasing cattle population 100x, but we wouldn't want to do that anyway bec…

Projections point to greatly increasing cattle population, unless:

1. Current consumer habits change.

2. Rapidly developing countries decide not to increase the animal proportion in their diet, which has happened in every single culture so far.

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

#263

Post by johnydays »

egeozcan wrote: post #173
Doji wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a concern, but fortunately if cattle population stays constant, their portion of the atmospheric resident methane will also remain constant, because methane degradation will keep pace with emissions. Compare this to cars. Even if the number of cars remains constant, their contribution to the C02 pool grows every day. So we should avoid increasing cattle population 100x, but we wouldn't want to do that anyway bec…

I think there lies the problem: > fortunately if cattle population stays constant, their portion of the atmospheric resident methane will also remain constant I have the impression (as a person uneducated in this topic) that current levels are already too high, and the world population is only going up. Is there a way to produce more food with lower emissions or should the main target be a steady population? Or both?…

World population is largely a strayman, it's mostly about rising standards of living. Animal consumption per capita increases drastically as poverty dissipates, and sharply declines as people get educated about health and the environment. It's a race between those two pressures that determines the cattle population. Projections are that it will increase very, very drastically as middle eastern and african countries soon escape the poverty line

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

#264

Post by herbst »

johnydays wrote: post #261
herbst wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only true for mass grown meat. A typical Swiss cow spends their summer in die Alps and their winters eating grass from the very same fields. Most popular meat labels here would not even allow buying external food, if not absolutely necessary.

--- original: Vast majority of the swiss beef supply is conventionally fed, with imported grain/soya crops. I was wrong, correction below

Actually 90% of the food is produced IN the country. Instead of soya they use mostly local corn for mass production.

https://schweizerfleisch.ch/herkunft/facts-figures-schweizer...

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

#265

Post by justshowpost »

Daily reminder what obsessions with radical green agenda is linked to mental disorders and birth defects.

> ... an interview with Greta Thunberg and her family, where Greta reveals that the climate activists are > mostly autistic kids suffering from depression, and her father, Svante, reveals that Greta’s mother was > a pro-refugees activist who invited migrants to live with them in their home. > > Both Greta and her only sibling have developmental problems, so there’s a possibility they may have been > abused by some of those “refugees” Svante and his wife housed.

(to complete the picture: Svante himself works for non-transparent supranational "cabron tax" authority)

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

#266

Post by tomp »

gregable wrote: post #205
tomp wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would reducing food waste reduce emissions? After all food is just condensed CO2, eating it releases that CO2 back into the atmosphere the same as rotting. It’s a closed cycle.

True for the C from food, but the production process is energy intensive. Fertilizer production, tractors, etc all burn oil C which would otherwise have been left in the ground.

Ah yeah, typical motte and bailey argument. First “meat is bad”, then you dismantle that, then “cattle feed is the problem”, then you dismantle that, then “food waste is the problem”, then you dismantle that, ultimately it always comes down to energy.

So, how about we solve energy instead (build nuclear powerplants)? Yet they still blame meat!

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

#267

Post by iggldiggl »

gregable wrote: post #205
tomp wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would reducing food waste reduce emissions? After all food is just condensed CO2, eating it releases that CO2 back into the atmosphere the same as rotting. It’s a closed cycle.

True for the C from food, but the production process is energy intensive. Fertilizer production, tractors, etc all burn oil C which would otherwise have been left in the ground.

> If you want to look at reducing emissions from food, it is much easier to look at food waste, where ~40% of food in the US is wasted, and of that roughly 80% is produce like fruits, vegetables, tubers etc, meaning that even if there was a transformation to a purely vegan population, food waste would probably increase.

Overproduction isn't ideal from that point of view, but on the other hand it is at least to some extent also a necessary hedge against bad harvests – if you don't overproduce compared to your average requirements, then any even just mildly bad harvest would immediately cause food shortages, and that's something you really really wouldn't want to happen.

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

#268

Post by Jensson »

Jensson wrote: post #232
tuatoru wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When measured over 100 years , methane has about 21 times the global warming potential of CO2. When measured over 10 years , it's more like 81 times. So the "28 times" already allows for the fact that it's mostly only there for 10 years. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-c...

But it means that the meat we eat today just warms the earth for 10 years in the future. Global warming isn't a catastrophe in 10 years, so eating meat today is a non issue. When global warming becomes an issue we can kill all the cows and stop eating meat and that way quickly cool the earth.

Why was this downvoted? The 28 times figure only applies if you average for when the activity continues for 100 years. Meaning if we stop and most of the warming is in the first 10 years, we'd see a huge global cooling from stopping such a massive effect. This would serve as a great way to quickly reverse global climate change once it gets critical, and once it get critical people can no longer say that it isn't a problem so you'd have the whole world on your side, so not sure why we would waste that opportunity by using it now rather than when the whole world understands the problem?

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

#269

Post by jerome-jh »

Coal is thriving in China, India, Germany. So treating beef like coal would change ... nothing. Climate change is a global problem and assuming coal is treated globally as it is in the US is short-sighted. Most of the time coal power plants in the US are not even dismantled due on climate concerns. Only talks, no action: the swedish girl is right.

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

#270

Post by gregmolnar »

Ekaros wrote: post #167
gregmolnar wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The taste of a dish is mainly coming from the spices.

But they have little nutrional importance. As such producing them cause substantial extra CO2 load relatively. I think ban of them in such scenario is absolutely justified. As we clearly then want to do everything to combat climate change.

You clearly know shit about nutrition :) Spices are rich in vitamins, antioxidants, minerals. They don't produce extra CO2, to the contrary, they remove CO2. Enjoy your beef.
Post reply on HN