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

41–50 of 344 posts

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

#41

Post by Manuel_D »

colordrops wrote: post #32
ginja wrote: post #27

I can’t read the full article because of the paywall but the main argument seems to be that cows emit a lot of CO2. Ruminants eat plants, which contain carbon captured from the atmosphere. They then release most of that carbon back to the atmosphere, from where it will be eventually absorbed by plants again. So it’s a cycle where no new carbon is really being introduced (unlike burning fossil fuels that would otherwi…

* a lot of energy is used to farm the cows, e.g. growing their food, fertilizers, butchering, shipping, etc * Cow methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than co2, orders of magnitude worse * Land that would capture a lot more CO2 and keep water in the environment is chopped down or otherwise destroyed to make pastures, the worst being rainforests. * Orders of magnitude more water is used to raise cows vs the equivale…

> Cow methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than co2, orders of magnitude worse

But it's also released in much lower quantities, and has a much faster half life. Let's be clear: carbon dioxide, not methane, is responsible for the overwhelming majority of long term warming.

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

#42

Post by wumpus »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #38
beckman466 wrote: post #2

this is a half-baked ‘solution‘ that just makes eating meat a luxury. a thing only for the rich. it’ll be like crimes that are punished by a fine - they just become the ‘fee’ that allows the propertied class to do whatever they want. beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage (Vice had a great video showing the Amazon deforestation due to beef production). edit: my point is that the prope…

>beef is deadly for humanity because of destructive water and land usage How is it more deadly than transportation in terms of emissions or deaths caused by it? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Your source doesn't support your point, it doesn't break out transportation related to beef or the stuff feed to cows to make beef.

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

#43

Post by wumpus »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #31
ginja wrote: post #27

I can’t read the full article because of the paywall but the main argument seems to be that cows emit a lot of CO2. Ruminants eat plants, which contain carbon captured from the atmosphere. They then release most of that carbon back to the atmosphere, from where it will be eventually absorbed by plants again. So it’s a cycle where no new carbon is really being introduced (unlike burning fossil fuels that would otherwi…

To be fair, it could be as easy as banning cows and using buffalo for better ruminant yields.

To be fair, that has nothing to do with the current economy, where almost all cows go to feed lots to be fed human food (corn) to double their weight.

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

#44

Post by mbg721 »

kcplate wrote: post #36
version_five wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think totalitarians just like more rules so they can be used as needed against people they don't like. It seems like advocates for these kind of things are generally in a position of privilege where they won't be personally affected. In practice, as another poster pointed out, it just becomes a war on the poor. If the price of steak doubles (and it has already doubled in the last few years) I'll pay it and grumble…

It’s been my observation that progressives seem to measure success of any position they hold more by its degree of good intention rather than it’s actual effects or results.

Why should anyone measure success? If the entire point is progress, then any and all benefit should go toward advancing the next position.

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

#46

Post by wumpus »

tw04 wrote: post #40
wumpus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you think I said a soybean is a steak, but I meant that a soybean is a soybean, corn is corn, and pork bellies are pork bellies, when we're talking about things traded on the commodities markets.

I guess I doing get your point. Fungible means interchangeable. The average consumer doesn’t think twice about whether their electricity comes from coal or solar as long as the lights turn on when they flip the switch. If you try to give someone soy beans when they ordered a steak they’re going to care quite a lot. Food isn’t fungible for the average consumer. That has absolutely nothing to do with it being a commodi…

Soybeans are a fungible commodity. That means that it's fungible with other soybeans.

Corn is a fungible commodity.

Pork bellies are a fungible commodity.

It's a mystery to me as to why you think I said soybeans and steak are the same.

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

#47

Post by gotoeleven »

analognoise wrote: post #33
timemachine wrote: post #8

I generally like the economist but this article is poor. The topic of deforestation is only whispered in at the end, almost a footnote. However, burning the Amazon for farmland to produce beef in Brazil should be part of the headline.

I thought the modern view was that the Amazon as the "lungs of the planet" was supposed to be totally bullshit and we could burn the whole thing down and be fine - but what we can't do is screw up the oceans, and it's already too late and we're all effectively doomed (walking ghost status) but we just don't realize it yet. I'm paraphrasing here.

If net neutrality doesn't get us first!

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

#49

Post by jeffbee »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #30
jeffbee wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most straightforwardly fair way to do it is a carbon budget. If each person has some carbon budget and you want to spend yours on beef and I want to spend mine on motorcycle racing fuel, who is to argue we made the wrong choice? It goes back to one of my pet peeves that it is increasingly hard to find the kind of light bulbs I prefer, despite the fact that the electric supply to my home is powered by 100% renewab…

Do you just see it as carbon? What of the refinement of lithium ion batteries, the production of solar arrays and the toxic waste that accumulates from the production of these devices? Ideally it would be a thermal budget rather than carbon.

Solvents from semiconductor production do not amplify and trap energy from the terrifyingly powerful object in the sky, threatening to destroy the biosphere, so yes it is all about carbon.

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

#50

Post by yboris »

fidgetspinner wrote: post #18

Hm, this seems to be missing the point that plant monocrops destroy the soil and are not nearly as efficient a source of food for the human body as fresh animal meat. Regenerative agriculture, which ideally requires both animal and plant cultivation, would be a better path forward if it could scale. If I remember correctly the papers that originally thought cattle were a big contributor to global warming turned out t…

"plant monocrops" -- like all the soy that is planted to grow so it can be fed to the cows?
Post reply on HN