Gassy cows and pigs will face a carbon tax in Denmark, a world first

I say that only as it seems you have added paragraphs in all of your previous comments to retroactively protect yourself from points I later raised in my replies and you also seem to have deleted your paragraph that enough seaweed was not being produced and so you believe the problem is not solved.

Seaweed production is in line with current demand. When the market places enough pressure on Farmers to adopt the solution then seaweed production will naturally increase. Seaweed is one of the easiest and fastest growing organisms in the world.

Your most recent arguments regarding Marketing etc being a problem. You are scraping the barrel now looking for problems.

You see, our biggest issue right now is that despite all efforts from the west, we (as in we the world) is not ramping down or fossil fuel usage significantly and on the contrary, we can expect it to keep on growing.

In the past, given the disparity of power between the G-7 and the rest of the world, we could rely more or less on diplomatic pressure to keep the developed countries more or less inline on this global effort, but, right now, our capacity has been diminished on this front.

And the problem with decisions like that, and other stupid ones like the insistence on renewables as the panacea, to the detriment of real solutions like Nuclear energy, we are increasing our costs, because no matter how much PR you do about LCOE, the real hard fact is that renewables are fucking expensive in a system-wide based opposed to the fairy-tale world of LCOE, and this is ensuring the west is less competitive and thus less powerful. The reason for that, I am afraid, is beyond the current midwit zeitgeist, so I won't elaborate more, but it is fact easily proven by analyzing energy costs for consumers viz. penetration of renewables in a given market.

So, you see, individual small changes are not always positive, because sometimes small changes have unexpected side effects that their proponents rarely take into account.

Right or wrong, the developing world thinks that they are not responsible for most of the excess carbon on our atmosphere and think that if we became rich by spewing gigatons of carbon, it is only fair they have the same choice. And as we use less and less fossil fuels, at the same time our energy costs increase, we are even helping them by making fossil fuels less expensive.

So, yes, probably we (North America and Western Europe) will get closer and closer to net zero, at the cost of destroying our economies and our ability to lead the world in a more sensible way.

Yeah, I agree with you that changes have to happen. But they need to be rational changes, they have to be taken based on the context of objective reality. Voluntarism, taking action just for the sake of action usually sucks. There are almost unlimited ways of doing anything wrong, and usually just a few ways of doing it right.

When we post solutions to their problems to areas of a well rounded discussion, they enter into a backs against the wall mindset , posting paragraphs and paragraphs back to us with any wacky counter arguments and not picking of the solution they can think of.

In this thread it was “we don’t have enough seaweed” and then they went trawling the internet for opinion pieces to try and back themselves up and reply within minutes.

A person with good intentions and who was genuinely interested in solving the problem would take more time and research papers that support and go against the solution and make a more balanced response to the good news they were given.

There are billions of people starving in this world. The parent comment is correct to question the motives of these people. I get the impression these people are dressing up satanism or communism as green policies. The same smell we all get when people push absurb woke policies.

No. The concern is about the overall impact of the aquaculture required to scale this seaweed feed supplements production to have a meaningful impact on the methane production from livestock. If you ramp up seaweed production, and reduce methane, but the overall process (aquaculture, processing, distribution) produces anything but than a net negative in GHG emissions, then the only value of the process is greenwashing cattle ranching.

I am not hellbent on finding additional problems, the point is that a lab based solution doesn't solve the problem, and most of your comments have ignored the very real market realities. I would also wager that your opinions are not necessarily grounded in reality - I chatted with my brother, who was a pig farmer for nearly two decades and is still involved in agriculture in both farming and ranching, and my cousin who runs a very large ranch in Manitoba. Some of the concerns I brought up in my previous point about market pushback are summaries of the questions and concerns they raised, although they both thought it was really interesting because they are both especially interested in sustainable farming practices.

Switching gears because you moved the goalposts, nothing I have said has anything to do with starvation or hunger. Since you brought it up, it is almost absolutely certain that building technology that mitigates, partially or wholly, the environmental impact of cattle farms actually exacerbates world hunger. The simple reason that is that the labour and resources that go into producing meat for human consumption would produce significantly more human consumable calories if we shifted those to plant based alternatives (up to and including feeding people seaweed).