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

211–220 of 344 posts

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

#211

Post by wumpus »

axiolite wrote: post #195
wumpus wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> virtue-signaling greens Fun how insulting people is OK these days.

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.

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

#212

Post by wumpus »

adrianN wrote: post #200
wumpus wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. I wonder how you think calling people names advances a civil discussion? Good that you're open-minded on the topic.

I think that people don't act rationally outside of theories taught in Economics 101 classrooms is commonly known. I don't mean it in a derogatory way, being irrational is just part of human nature.

How many good discussions have you had after calling the other person's position irrational?

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

#213

Post by randomperson_24 »

Doji wrote: post #111
tasty_freeze wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article seems highly motivated to marginalize the effects of livestock. Quoting a section: While methane is 28-times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide, methane’s lifespan is just a decade, while CO2 — known as a long-life pollutant — remains in the atmosphere for 1000 years. After ten years, methane is broken down in a process called hydroxyl oxidation into CO2, entering a carbon cycle which sees the gas ab…

There is a certain amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and a certain amount of carbon in the ground. When you burn oil, you take carbon from the ground and introduce it into the atmosphere. This increases the total amount of carbon resident in the atmosphere. When you grow plants, you take carbon out of the atmosphere. When you eat it, you release it back into the atmosphere. The total amount of carbon resident in th…

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)

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

#214

Post by dillondoyle »

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.

And even more land that becomes too hot, too dry, or not sustainable local sustenance

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

#215

Post by thepangolino »

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

Slavery took a civil war to be abolished in the USA. Child labour only ended following massive strikes that were violently repressed at first in Europe.

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

#216

Post by y4mi »

wumpus wrote: post #153
y4mi wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't say that. > In practice, farms regularly use synthetic fertilizers. They might cut down trees to clear fields for animals. They use heavy, oil burning equipment. These, and many other practices, actually increase atmospheric carbon, and for that reason should be discouraged. I cannot say anything wherever cows really are inconsequential wrt the warming effect, but it definitely goes against what's general…

I suppose you could grasp at that straw, but the reality is that grain farms always use diesel and electricity, not just "heavy, oil burning equipment", no matter how much you might think they don't, and that's multiplied by a factor of 10 when you feed that grain to a cow.

You're clearly misunderstanding what I wrote, which is likely because of my poor phrasing.

To phrase it differently:

Climate scientists generally think that cows are an issue, but I do not have the qualification to judge wherever Dojis claim (that they don't matter) has any truth to it, as I'm not informed enough to form an opinion on the matter.

Doji did not claim that modern agriculture isn't harmful, they just addressed cows specifically.

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

#217

Post by OneTimePetes »

Ah, yes.. lets talk about something that is cyclic in nature of producing and reusing - even if it is cattle, and ignore the carbon adding elephant in the room that pays lots of media to shape the discussionscape to be about anything else but gasoline driven mobility.

Agriculture always had the lousiest lobby, thats why its discussed so much, while the car industry and industry in general happily gets ignored. My parents farm went almost broke, while the newspapers in germany discussed the dangerous climate and environmental factors of farming in great detail. Not a word about VW, BMW, Mercedes and many others.

I'm all for going vegan, but then in a combined deal. Full vegan, with full stop to petrol cars- at the same time. Everywhere on the planet. Tie it all together and watch the discussion distortion artists squirm.

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

#218

Post by sofixa »

sdenton4 wrote: post #192
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?

(just to drop the links again... You can deploy untold millions of solar panels while waiting for a nuclear plant to come online, and they will be considerably cheaper as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy )

And then during the night we do... ? (We should also probably mention the fact that unlike nuclear, decommissioning and recycling costs are not included upfront, so you should budget for those too).

Solar on itself can only be a very small part of the solution. It needs storage most localities don't have the budget, place, technology to build.

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

#219

Post by libertine »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #138
tobtoh wrote: post #79

As someone in the Gen X demographic who has never smoked, I've watched the anti-smoking campaigns and shift in attitudes towards smoking with interest - particularly how resistant smokers were to initially giving up smoking. I feel like eating meat is going to be my generations equivalent of smoking. Intellectually, I agree that eating meat is bad for the environment, cruel to animals (esp industrial farming) etc ...…

Did you notice what drove the change in attitudes towards smoking?

I think it was part policy making part witnessing the end-game for a lot of smokers.

The cool factor goes out the window.

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

#220

Post by wumpus »

axiolite wrote: post #186
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incredible. Thanks for sharing. I had no idea. What is “pumping loss “?

> 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?
Post reply on HN