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

311–320 of 344 posts

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

#311

Post by GhettoComputers »

tfehring wrote: post #306
GhettoComputers wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of normal person wants to pay more for gas, especially when most of the population isn't in the upper income bracket in the US and mismanagement of tax funds is so common? I can't imagine why a teenage mother or person struggling with minimum wage desiring these extra costs or more taxes. The usage of the taxes is big issue, it is likely to just be pocketed by the politicians or as subsidies for large corpo…

It's not about wanting to pay more, it's about wanting to stop causing damage that future generations will have to pay for. Young people in the western world today are quick to (accurately) accuse older generations of severely messing up the environment (as well as housing markets, government budgets, etc.) to enrich themselves at the expense of future generations. Given that, I don't think it's that crazy to expect…

>It's not about wanting to pay more, it's about wanting to stop causing damage that future generations will have to pay for.

Is that what the common price sensitive citizen cares about?

>Given that, I don't think it's that crazy to expect those same young people to pay for the negative externalities their own activities create instead of just paying it forward.

You don't think young people are capable of being hypocrites? Statistics such as low savings is proof that long term planning isn't deeply embedded.

Survey data is notoriously unreliable, on a if the rich subsidizes itself it would be circular wealth, but coming from them means that they are adversely affected. Policies and their actual effect are also not the same, would they not care when government trust is low and its possible to use the money to subsidize large companies that use a green label to play metric? I know the idea of carbon neutral is simply ofsetting carbon negatives to other companies, transportation is a huge contributor and globalized companies play with numbers to call themselves carbon neutral. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-s...

BTW thanks for showing me that substack, I subscribed, hope is sorely needed today.

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

#312

Post by mattnewton »

paganel wrote: post #170
mattnewton wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone had a private jet with jet fuel subsidized by the government it would also be bad for humanity. It’s currently tolerated as a luxury only for the rich. As an argument for subsidizing something, that doesn’t resonate with me by itself. We subsidize the meat industry directly, and indirectly by not pricing in negative externalities like it’s carbon expenditure.

Equating eating meat to owning a private jet won't get the point pretty well to the masses.

That’s true but I don’t know of any pitch that would convince “the masses”. It’s easier to argue why someone should not do more of something they aren’t already doing, rather than stop doing something they like and have been doing for generations.

But maybe we can still make a dent by increasing the price to include negative externalities like carbon emissions, or at least ending subsidies for meat so substitutes might be able to compete better.

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

#314

Post by blacksmith_tb »

mdrachuk wrote: post #115
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…

Do I need to pay carbon tax on my dog?

I would be fine with paying a carbon tax on my cat, the meat he eats (all chicken, at least, and not that much) has some footprint (pawprint?) after all. I do pay for some extra offsets via Wren, so maybe he's covered.

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

#315

Post by baggy_trough »

klyrs wrote: post #96
baggy_trough wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hysterical nonsense.

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

You honestly believe that we will return to a medieval era if the gulf stream is disrupted?

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

#316

Post by slowmovintarget »

Don't we just need to supplement cattle feed with seaweed? No more methane.

I'm really getting suspicious of this drum-beat of "we have to stop eating beef." It's come from a number of places, like Bill Gates touting mass-produced synthetic meat from his industrial farming affiliations. He has substantial financial stake in controlling what people eat.

And there it is at the conclusion of the article:

> Fortunately, lab-grown meats are moving from Petri dishes to high-end restaurants (see Technology Quarterly).

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

#317

Post by beerandt »

zinekeller wrote: post #291
p49k wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

- Moreover, German vehicles (meaning vehicles registered in Germany, not vehicles from German brands/factories) must pass strict tests every two years (for vehicles less than 10 years) or yearly (10 years or more). Some US states have a looser policy on this.

The inspections might differ, but most states that require vehicle inspections do so yearly.

And most include an emissions test, which reduces the need for complex mechanical inspections, and largely negates differences in inspection "quality".

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

#318

Post by beerandt »

bzzzt wrote: post #281
bserge wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most US states require more than 20 hours in the classroom (usually a week or two), plus 8+ hours of actual driving with a driver's education teacher, plus some number of years with a learner's permit, where driving is only allowed during the day with a licensed driver 21 or older supervising in the vehicle. Then written and driving tests by the DMV must be passed to get licensed.

In practice, the classroom study usually isn't all that rigorous, and the testing is likely too easy.

But the requirements on paper aren't typically any easier in the US.

What's most needed is probably refresher quizzes for license renewals to remind drivers of commonly forgotten or new driving laws. Like who has right of way at a 4 way stop, or how to zipper merge.

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

#319

Post by beerandt »

adrianN wrote: post #271
axiolite wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A mid-sized conventional gasoline car is more fuel efficient at 55MPH than at 45MPH. Pumping losses work that way. With improved aerodynamics, you could get that even higher. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10312

At which speed a car is most efficient can essentially be chosen by the engineer designing it as far as I know.

For an engine rpm yes, for a moving body, not so much. Energy in a vacuum is proportional to velocity squared, and energy required with wind drag is iirc 4th power of velocity.

So even with an engine designed to be most efficient when the car drives 65 mph, the efficiency of the system will quickly be controlled by drag forces as speed increases.

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

#320

Post by beerandt »

wumpus wrote: post #220
axiolite wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is “pumping loss “? Unlike older scientific topics that have esoteric terminology, usually from the Latin, this one is pretty straight forward... It is the energy lost due to pumping. Basically, the overhead of keeping an engine running no matter how much distance of roadway you cover, but more on point, the extra losses due to running an engine outside of its peak power/performance range: https://www.cyclewor…

Weird, does this apply to EV's, too?

No- electric motors generally perform better at lower speeds, gas at higher speeds. Especially so in direct comparison.

Which is why hybrids often switch from electric to gas past some determined speed.

Post reply on HN