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

281–290 of 344 posts

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

#281

Post by bzzzt »

bserge wrote: post #203
kart23 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did speed limits really make things better though? germany has the autobahn and sections with no speed limit, yet their roadways are much safer than the US.

Do those deaths only count Autobahn/highway deaths? If not, then Germany has the upper hand with a miraculous ancient technology called sidewalks. They also have bike lanes - no, not for motorcycles, but bicycles!

In addition to that you actually have to demonstrate some driving competence (with a minimum of 20 hours of theory study) to get a driver's license.

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

#282

Post by GhettoComputers »

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.

Depends on the kind of nuclear doesn’t it? Thorium isn’t popular because it’s not useful for uranium enrichment. Efficient solar would be ideal, but the mining and harmful externalities would be best done away from the earth.

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

#283

Post by GhettoComputers »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #164
fighterpilot wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> mass migration In case you’re wondering why he claims global warming will lead to mass migration, it is because the millions of miles of coastlines will change.

Florida has already so unsustainable that only the US government will insure the structures and buildings. The Netherlands and Venice are also another artificial human livable area. Frozen regions of the world will become habitable so livable landmass will actually increase in northern tundras.

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

#284

Post by GhettoComputers »

legulere wrote: post #129
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 heard the argument, that one reason of the Syrian war is how agriculture becomes less and less possible there. So we already see direct effects on society from climate change.

Many other countries don't produce their own food and don't have that issue, it is a small reason that I have never heard of as a factor, do you have information on its impact on the current situation?

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

#285

Post by crucialfelix »

kilotaras wrote: post #257
crucialfelix wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH 50% of emissions are due to the richest 1%. [1] They are price insensitive for the most part. Their yachts and personal airplanes don't make a dent in their billions of assets. I still support carbon taxes as a source of investment for sustainable transition. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...

> To make it into the richest 1 percent globally, all you need is an income of around $34,000 [0] That group is still pretty price sensitive. Maybe not enough to drop beef completely, but enough to at least partially move to pork or chicken. [0] https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/27/were-all-the-1-percent/

Yes, good point. And we aren't going to finger-point our way out of this.

Oxfam press release:

> In 2015, around half the emissions of the richest 10 percent - people with net income over $38,000 - are linked to citizens in the US and the EU and around a fifth with citizens of China and India. Over a third of the emissions of the richest one percent – people with net income over $109,000 - are linked to citizens in the US, with the next biggest contributions from citizens of the Middle East and China. Net incomes are based on income thresholds for 2015 and represented in $ 2011 PPP (purchasing power parity).

From the paper they are linking to:

> The richest 10% of the world’s population (c.630 million people) were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions – depleting the global carbon budget by nearly a third (31%) in those 25 years alone (see Figure 1); > The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone were responsible for 15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget – twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population (see Figure 1);

https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...

Additional data point: I don't have a yacht.

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

#286

Post by GhettoComputers »

axiolite wrote: post #229
wumpus wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He is extremely rude to me, to appease him I edited my comment and he just angrily attacks every point I make without reading any information. Because he just attacks me so I don't see any reasonable communication with a purely ad hominem poster. Internet bullies will only be affected by lack of attention to their trolling.

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

#287

Post by jpalomaki »

kart23 wrote: post #184
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…

did speed limits really make things better though? germany has the autobahn and sections with no speed limit, yet their roadways are much safer than the US.

"Taking a closer look at Germany, federal and state statistics reported by Der Spiegel show that there 0.95 fatal accidents per billion kilometres driven on German autobahn sections with speed limits. When it comes the parts without a speed limit, however, there are 1.67 fatal accidents - 75 percent more than on stretches with a speed limit."

https://www.statista.com/chart/25098/fatality-rate-and-speed... https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehr... ( In German, should be the original source)

Would be interesting to know about accidents in general. It's quite obvious that higher speeds increase the likelihood of fatal accidents.

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

#288

Post by p49k »

kart23 wrote: post #184
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…

did speed limits really make things better though? germany has the autobahn and sections with no speed limit, yet their roadways are much safer than the US.

The flaw in logic here is to assume that Germany and the US are otherwise identical in policy. But of course that's not remotely true. Germany roads are safer because

- Drivers are required to obtain an extensive education at a licensed driving school and pass a rigorous test before being allowed to drive.

- Driving rules such as "no passing on the right" are strictly enforced in Germany, creating a more predictable (and thus safer) driving environment. There is absolutely no way something like the following could be achieved in the US due to Americans' stubbornness and lack of driving discipline:

https://jalopnik.com/how-germans-make-way-for-emergency-vehi...

- German roads are designed to naturally encourage people to make good decisions by the use of roundabouts, narrower lanes (which naturally make people slow down and be more careful) and many similar "vision zero" initiatives.

- German roads are consistently maintained.

- When you're not on the autobahn, speed limits are generally lower than in the US and are more strictly enforced.

Not to say that Germany is perfect, but they are doing much more than the US to ensure road safety and are doing so more consistently.

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

#289

Post by GhettoComputers »

adrianN wrote: post #148
GhettoComputers wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much resistance and effort for 100% of beef, which is a part of 10% are you willing to expend to push for elimination versus transportation at 29% and electicity usage at 25%? To put it into perspective, how would you focus energy on lowering output out of 100% of your personal energy? https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/

I'd implement a high price on carbon(-equivalents) and let the market figure out where it is cheapest to reduce emissions first. I'd probably also get rid of many subsidies.

The question was about your personal energy expended on changing public opinion and making a greener environment, not if you are in power and have dictatorship powers, unless you have a path to that point. What do you think is the most efficient usage of your time to lower emissions?

The Dominican Republic had a very green dictatorship who was sadly assassinated but his trees have protected the country on there and island where Haiti was decimated.

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

#290

Post by GhettoComputers »

axiolite wrote: post #177

Coal is a fossil fuel. Returning ancient carbon to the atmosphere. Cattle is a bio-fuel. The methane/carbon they release was captured by the grains and grasses shortly before the cattle consumed it, and will continue growing after they've consumed it. Cattle should be the trendy and expensive thing among the outspoken, virtue-signaling greens. It's plant-based. Contains all-natural ingredients. Isn't made in a lab/on…

Buffalo is ignored even though it’s such an obvious harm reduction option.
Post reply on HN