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

Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

climatenexus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 230 posts

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#211

Post by steve_adams_86 »

keymone wrote: post #189
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating lots of soy is not a requirement of a diet without red meat. Cattle can eat grass, but most of them in North America eat very little grass. They eat a lot of grain that is intensively farmed. That feed farming has a significant impact on the environment through regular agriculture practices. By growing food for humans instead, the impact would be reduced simply because not as much crop is needed. Red meat does…

> Cattle can eat grass, but most of them in North America eat very little grass. They eat a lot of grain that is intensively farmed. That feed farming has a significant impact on the environment through regular agriculture practices. You obviously missed my explicit position against corn-fed cattle and went on to attack some straw man. Please re-think and re-state your argument such that I don’t get an urge to dismis…

I've read all of your comments now and I did miss your position on this. Sorry about that.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#212

Post by inflatableDodo »

intuitionist wrote: post #185
inflatableDodo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this viewpoint originates from a stunning lack of imagination.

It reminds me of Mark Fisher’s concept of “capitalist realism” — it’s easier to imagine the end of the world (voluntary reduction of the birth rate to zero, clathrate gun feedback loop) than the end of capitalism.

I sometimes ask people to consider a thought experiment about planning for 50 to 100 billion people, after stepping them through the idea that while the expansion rate is starting to slow, it really isn't something we should rely on. I find most people just shut down, several stating that it isn't something we should ever think about. I find it strangely poetic that many people are perfectly willing to think about billions of people dying, but not about billions of people being born.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#213

Post by 52-6F-62 »

village-idiot wrote: post #210
52-6F-62 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I haven’t looked that deeply into the problem, but I’ll have to read about that. I imagine some locales might be worse for that problem than others, yeah? Do you have any info you can share?

https://aem.asm.org/content/72/2/1346

Well that’s great, thanks!

So it (at a high level, barely read place) sounds like standard fertilizer proves to have negative effects at scale when used where there might be the need for methane breakdown.

Do I have that about right? I’ll have to read that at length later, but it seems so simple that I feel I have it wrong. Because otherwise it seems like an easy fix—even if it means production has to decrease and price has to go up for cattle meats.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#214

Post by village-idiot »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #213
village-idiot wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://aem.asm.org/content/72/2/1346

Well that’s great, thanks! So it (at a high level, barely read place) sounds like standard fertilizer proves to have negative effects at scale when used where there might be the need for methane breakdown. Do I have that about right? I’ll have to read that at length later, but it seems so simple that I feel I have it wrong. Because otherwise it seems like an easy fix—even if it means production has to decrease and pr…

That's pretty much my read as well.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#215

Post by manfredo »

rapind wrote: post #166
ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions Most of these 100 companies are oil companies, and the emissions from oil they sold on to consumers is unfairly attributed to them. Exxon don't burn oil for fun, they sell it to people to power their cars. This statistic is incredibly misleading.

Pollution is an externality of the oil industry. Might be better if today's consumer paid for that at the pump rather than future generations dealing with it in the environment. The artificially low price of oil due to postponing / offloading these external costs significantly slows free market innovation of alternatives and efficiencies. So... what's the best way to pay for these negative externals so we don't simpl…

> Pollution is an externality of the oil industry

Is it? When I pour motor oil in my motorcycle, drain it 500 miles later, and have it recycled does it put CO2 in the atmosphere? Nope, at least not beyond the refining process.

Burning oil is what puts CO2 in the atmosphere, and it's consumers that do that. Not oil companies. Sure, one could say that oil companies are the ones providing the fuel that consumers are using, but that's sort of like an obese person complaining about food companies making him fat.

We could charge more for fossil fuels, but this effectively functions as a regressive tax. It's a tax based on how long people need to commute through and need more energy to deliver goods over greater distances. This disproportionately impacts less developed areas, which are typically less wealthy.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#216

Post by 52-6F-62 »

village-idiot wrote: post #214
52-6F-62 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that’s great, thanks! So it (at a high level, barely read place) sounds like standard fertilizer proves to have negative effects at scale when used where there might be the need for methane breakdown. Do I have that about right? I’ll have to read that at length later, but it seems so simple that I feel I have it wrong. Because otherwise it seems like an easy fix—even if it means production has to decrease and pr…

That's pretty much my read as well.

It really makes me wonder if, funny enough, places like Alberta and Texas are actually low methane producers because they allow their cattle to simply wander in large natural pastures much of the time to graze...

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#217

Post by crispinb »

bamboozled wrote: post #122
crispinb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this 1. Political leaders in many countries (eg. Australia) have been deeply corrupted by the fossil fuel industry. And they're mostly legally immune because they essentially allow that industry to write the laws (including those permitting them to take up fossil fuel company sinecures when they quit politics). 2. Even when you have less-corrupti…

At some point it might even need to become a national security / defence force issue. I mean, what was the point of all the wars, death and destruction if the military just allow themselves to suffocate? That would seem like a strange end.

Well this is an astonishingly clear example of corruption of our political system by the fossil fuel industry. Even in nations where militaries pretty much get what they ask for, almost regardless of budget (eg. the US & Australia), they are waved off by governments when they put climate collapse forward as a major security issue (which they often do).

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#218

Post by brandmeyer »

vneumanarc wrote: post #129
mullingitover wrote: post #19

Weird that there's no mention of the melting permafrost as a methane source. I thought that was a well understood potential feedback loop for climate change.

Because it doesn't jive with the vegan agenda. Look at the most upvoted comments here. It's all stealth vegan propaganda masquerading as concern about the environment. Never mind that cars, ships, agriculture ( I bet most of these vegans haven't ever heard of petrochemicals or fertilizers ), smartphones, electricity, etc are all individually greater contributors to environmental damage. Also, the growing numbers of b…

> Also, the growing numbers of bison, deer and other ruminants around the world contributes to increase in methane levels.

XKCD put up a well-sourced graphic depicting the relative amounts of mammal biomass on the Earth. Wild animals aren't anywhere remotely close to food animals.

https://xkcd.com/1338/

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#219

Post by vneumanarc »

brandmeyer wrote: post #218
vneumanarc wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it doesn't jive with the vegan agenda. Look at the most upvoted comments here. It's all stealth vegan propaganda masquerading as concern about the environment. Never mind that cars, ships, agriculture ( I bet most of these vegans haven't ever heard of petrochemicals or fertilizers ), smartphones, electricity, etc are all individually greater contributors to environmental damage. Also, the growing numbers of b…

> Also, the growing numbers of bison, deer and other ruminants around the world contributes to increase in methane levels. XKCD put up a well-sourced graphic depicting the relative amounts of mammal biomass on the Earth. Wild animals aren't anywhere remotely close to food animals. https://xkcd.com/1338/

I know. But a lot of that is due to humans wiping out most of the wild animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile_edit.jpg

If you want to understand the scale of the extermination, look at the historic ranges of these animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_original_range_map....

There used to be bears, wolves, elk, bison, jaguars, etc all over the US. Not to mention billions of birds like passenger pigeon. They were all wiped out and in their place we have livestock.

There is a reason why the state animals of many states are extinct. No california bears in california. No wolverines in michigan.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#220

Post by mullingitover »

vneumanarc wrote: post #129
mullingitover wrote: post #19

Weird that there's no mention of the melting permafrost as a methane source. I thought that was a well understood potential feedback loop for climate change.

Because it doesn't jive with the vegan agenda. Look at the most upvoted comments here. It's all stealth vegan propaganda masquerading as concern about the environment. Never mind that cars, ships, agriculture ( I bet most of these vegans haven't ever heard of petrochemicals or fertilizers ), smartphones, electricity, etc are all individually greater contributors to environmental damage. Also, the growing numbers of b…

> And sad as it is, veganism will actually increase fossil fuel usage as the vegetation that people eat need petrochemical fertilizers

I'm trying to wrap my head around this argument (and I'm not a vegan). If we're not vegan, we're eating animal protein, and those animals making that protein are...vegan. We're ultimately all getting our protein from plants.

Post reply on HN