Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

331–340 of 344 posts

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

#331
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguments that meat take an excessive amount of resources are disingenuous because those resources cannot simply be translated to other uses, examples being that the water use example many tout uses rainwater would fall anyways, that livestock will eventually urinate meaning it isn't actually lost, and land used for livestock is mostly non arable land and therefore cant be used for producing crops anyways. Also there…

Some counter points: 1. The number is around 14.5% in direct global emissions [1] according to the FAO, I cannot find any reputable source saying anywhere as low as 2.5% 2. Beef has roughly ten times more carbon footprint as Chicken. Beef has by far the highest CO2 equivalent per KG of product among any food [2] at 99.8Kg CO2 Equivalent, lamb / mutton comes a distant second at around 40Kg and Pork / Poultry are aroun…

Devil's advocate. I'll probably be down-voted, but note that ignoring details gives fuel to skeptics (as in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g).

1. How is this 14.5% number calculated? Does it include deforestation? Grass-fed is far different than deforesting for grazing land or crop land.

For instance from the FAO PDF you quoted: "extensive livestock are often kept in remote environments where deforestation and land degradation reflect weaknesses in institutions and policies". The headline then should read "deforestation and bad land policy causes climate change" not "stop eating cows".

2. Again, how are these 10x numbers calculated? Comparing e.g. industrialized agriculture to inefficient agriculture in a third-world country is not going to convince skeptics. If beef production is extremely inefficient somewhere, we should fix that.

3. If country A emits 100x the CO2 production of country B for the same end result, that needs to be noted. If my neighbor has a giant gas-guzzling monster truck spewing emissions, my neighborhood is not at fault, it's just him.

4. Agree 100%. We should be addressing the deforestation. Saying "stop eating meat" is not the solution. "Don't buy food from Brazil grown on land that had rain forest last year" is more nuanced and probably easier to follow. Matter of fact, don't buy products made by totalitarian regimes, slaves, child labor, etc. We should know where and how our products are made. I'm not advocating "don't buy sneakers" because some sneakers are made in unethical ways.

5. Humans love meat, that fact is not changing anytime soon. We should advocate for more efficient (and yet more ethical). If we need to, governments should pass laws to make production sustainable similar to what is done to prevent overfishing.

6. We have a perfect machine, well studied and used for millennia, for converting corn husks and other inedible things that would otherwise be thrown away into fertilizer: cows. Bonus, in addition to fertilizer, you get milk, hides, bones, highly nutritious meat, etc.

7/8. Totally agree. More laws need to be passed to regulate this industry, it's truly sickening. All meat products should be twice as expensive or more as they currently are to account for this.

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

#332
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 )

"The differences in outcomes for different assumed discount rates are dramatic — for example, NEA LCOE calculation for residential PV at 3% discount rate produces $150/MWh, while at 10% it produces $250/MWh.[15] LCOE estimate prepared by Lazard (2020) for nuclear power based on unspecified methodology produced $164/MWh, while LCOE calculated by the investor for an actual Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in Finland came out to be below 30 EUR/MWh.[16]"

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

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the greenhouse effect is about internal reflections basically. its the same effect that makes cloth appear darker when its wet even though water is basically colorless. greenhouse gases bend light slightly, making it more likely that a light ray will hit the ground multiple times.

This is a wrong answer if I've ever heard one.

seems like ive misunderstood this since i was a child. thank you for allowing me to embarrass myself in a safe environment.

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

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as delicious to people who grow up not eating meat. I expect if we want a change it'll have to be generational.

Meat is delicious even to life long vegetarians. This is anecdotal but just that fact that we have glutamate receptors means it probably generally holds true.

Also anecdotal, I’ve worked with about a half dozen people when they tried meat for the first time and remained unimpressed and never ate it again.

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

#335
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Michael Crichton, the author who has researchers overwhelmed with lust for research grants as the evil people in his novels.

If you see this is an unrealistic you should talk to someone (anyone) who works in academia. Actually I work in academia so I'll start the ball rolling by telling you this isn't unrealistic.

Actually I work in academia, too.

You can find a lot of people who work in academia who find Stage of Fear (in particular) to be a thinly-veiled attempt to smear the entire climate science community. Because everyone is in lust with grant money.

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

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most efficient usage of my time to lower emissions is donating part of my income to lobby groups that try to convince politicians to enact meaningful policies wrt climate change.

Yes, which lobbying groups do you like? I myself just suggest more sustainable practices and do my best, haven't been on a plane in over a decade. You use your voice though, what would you tell others to lower carbon emissions?

These guys seem to be good: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

Project Drawdown has a table of things we can do: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions

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

#337
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't found any conclusive numbers. About 6.5% of all beef eaten here is organic. However not organic does not always automatically mean it's 100% bad. My neighbor's meat is way cheaper than organic meat in supermarkets. Still at least twice as much as 'cheap' meat.

Near as I can find, baseline Swiss beef prices are already 4x the global average. I'd certainly be eating beef a lot less if it was 4x more expensive, never mind a premium on top of that.

I really don't know. However organic meat is usually cheaper or at least same price here than in Austria or Germany.

The cheapest variants may are expensive comparingly, quality however isn't.

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

#338
post #255

How about making meat production more ethical and practical? I live surrounded by cows, literally. The area has no good soil, so every farmer here has like 13 to whatever cows (13 is the magical number of cows you can have without studying agriculture or so, assuming you live in a relevant area). All these cows spend most of the time outside, in the summer they are in the Alps, spring and fall they chill in the field…

What do you think of using buffalo rather than cows? I don't think they are native to the swiss but in the US they used to be native to the area, I saw this article on them being easier to handle. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/buffalo-in-the-swiss-a...

Switzerland couldn't use 2/3 of their land without cow farming. However I too heard that they may would be a good alternative in regions they belong to.

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

#339
post #328
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. "Chemicals" are not all bad. Everything you eat is a chemical.

true. the question is whether your body can deal with it. it knows how to deal with chemicals it has been exposed to for thousands of years. it doesn’t know very well how to deal with GMOs.

That is nonsense in this generalization and also mostly unrelated to meat-substitutes. Humans have been genetically modifying their food ever since they came up with agriculture and there are plenty of meat-substitutes without GMOs if you don't like them.

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

#340
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The gulf stream is predicted to collapse in about 40 years. You won't catch me making strong predictions about what happens that far in the future, but the gulf stream is responsible for keeping North America's farm belt temperate, aka, farmable. The North is expected to cool dramatically, and closer to the equator is expected to warm dramatically -- perhaps inhospitably so. Additionally, the oxygen levels in the ocean may deplete to produce mass extinction in another major food source. I'm not sure what all is implied by "medieval era" to you, but all together, it looks pretty damned bleak. Evolution doesn't turn on a dime, but the weather might.
Post reply on HN