Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

81–90 of 344 posts

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

#81
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. Have you travled outside the US? This is not true in most parts of the world, I wouldn't be suprised to see it only being a US practice.

Yes, I've visited several dozen countries, and I assure you that the practice of using feedlots has spread to most developed countries, and is being spread to the less developed world as a way to increase incomes.

Nice insult, btw. I had to send my passport to get more pages sewn in.

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

#82
post #13

I disagree with this article and frustrated with those who try to push this narrative Here’s a 20 min video to show you why https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g

What are its main points?

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 is a relationship between livestock, agriculture and human society where they all are able to use resources that each other cant, or provide benefit to each other. For example a huge amount of agriculture fertilizer comes from manure, and a huge amount of livestock feed comes from agricultural waste. Without livestock we now have to get fertilizer elsewhere, and all the byproducts that would become animal feed becomes waste.

In the grand scheme of things livestock produce an insignificant amount of ghg and that if all Americans stopped consuming beef, it would reduce the nations ghg emissions by ~2.5%, whereas transportation, power generation and construction contribute to the overwhelming amount of emissions (~80%).

If you want to look at reducing emissions from food, it is much easier to look at food waste, where ~40% of food in the US is wasted, and of that roughly 80% is produce like fruits, vegetables, tubers etc, meaning that even if there was a transformation to a purely vegan population, food waste would probably increase.

edit: I should reiterate that these are points in summary that are made in the video, not my personal opinion.

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

#83
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than being headed into a new medieval era because climate change caused civilization to collapse.

There is no universe where climate change causes the literal collapse of civilization. Exaggerating the risks of something just destroys the credibility of the people doing the exaggerating: consider DARE and drugs.

>> There is no universe where climate change causes the literal collapse of civilization.

The confidence of this statement reeks of arrogance. How can you even claim to know what the potential impacts of climate change do not include? It's not like modern humans have lived in any era that was remotely similar.

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

#84
post #64

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

Better than being headed into a new medieval era because climate change caused civilization to collapse.

Climate change already caused civilization to collapse 20 years ago according to this article published in 1990:

https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

>" UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control...Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded...UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992...

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

#85
> The simplest way to cut beef output is for people to eat other animals instead, or become vegetarians.

That’s like, in 1900, saying “the simplest way to prevent road deaths is for everyone to drive slower.” That’s not simple at all - that’s an intractable group behavior problem. What you really need is for the government to come along and put up speed limits. Most people will push those rules, a few will flout them, but things will be better.

So let’s have a carbon tax that includes all sources of greenhouse gas, including domesticated animals, and stop passing moral judgement on people who are stressed enough as it is figuring out how to navigate our challenging world.

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

#86

I disagree, its a percentage of roughly 10% according to the EPA in 2019. Here are the EPA statistics. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... I am all for replacing them with native buffalo, but this is overemphasis on minute percentages, this information presented is much too technology based and not practical, it relies on assumptions about plant based foods and lab meat (farming crops is t…

We have to simultaneously lower emissions in all sectors if we want to prevent catastrophic warming. 10% is massive.

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

#87
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source that shows that it's not negligible? The carbon and water cost of 10 calories of grain is pretty large.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... The EPA site shows transportation and electricity as the main contributions to carbon. The grains are not the issue, the subsidies in the US are so strong that they are not a real factor. There is so much excess food produced they export it to other countries for instance. https://modernfarmer.com/2019/01/congress-finally-passed-a-n... https://abcnews.go…

Transportation and cooling of meat in particular is nothing compared to the land area of North America and South America combined that we devote to growing crops to feed livestock.

https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

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

#89
post #46
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#90

power is fungible. Nobody cares where their electricity comes from. Coal is failing because it is not price competitive. Food is not fungible, so I am not sure what point this is making.

You would be surprised much corn is used as base/key ingredient in so many food products.

Taste is not fungible, ingredients really are relatively changeable for most cooking.

When lab grown meet is cheap enough and tastes similar the market wouldn't even notice the change and real beef would become niche high end market for the customers who are ready to pay more because they believe it tastes better or it not GMO or Bill Gates injects 5G using artificial meat.

Post reply on HN