Sophistrysapien247 t1_j8orb9l wrote
Methane(CH4) is an insanely bad GHG compared to CO2. "Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere."
And it can be remediate out of the atmosphere way quicker too.
So it's worse, and easy to remove from the atmosphere (even with no extra efforts). So if we just focused on CH4 as a starting point we could slow down a lot of warning.
The biggest source of methane is from farmed animals burping and farting. On top of the fact that it takes fossil fuels to run the machines to farm grain to feed them and get the food to them we could reduce so much warming emissions just from the food we eat.
It's something we could all do that would have a very measurable impact.
If you are complaining about people not giving a shit but you still eat animal products because you "recycle and don't buy plastic straws" you are kidding yourself and part of the problem.
It's something we can do while we wait for the large companies to be held accountable
madroxinide t1_j8ou6ac wrote
See, this guy gets it.
Stop doing stuff cuz you are contributing to the killing of the planet. If you stop doing stuff as well as him, none of us would have to worry about the planet dying because we could all cancel out our impact of existence by just not imposing our existence onto the planet by doing stuff.
CO2 feeds plants and plants don't do as much stuff as animals so it's not so bad. But the animals that do stuff like burp, that's bad. Even worse is the people that do stuff that makes it so the animals do stuff. It's absurd. Anyways so if we stop doing the stuff with the animals, the animals no longer do the stuff with the burps, and the stuff that isn't carbon dioxide but is way way way worse stops doing stuff to the atmosphere and the planet and stuff. Smart.
He even gets the part where we stop doing stuff, tell everyone else to stop doing stuff, but also sit and wait for the people that are doing stuff to be held accountable for doing the stuff. So by stopping doing the stuff ourselves and waiting and depending on the other folks to stop doing stuff, we can pretend less stuff is being done while the folks doing the stuff can do more of it and make more money from doing it because the stuff we didn't do meant they could step in and do more of it instead.
Sophistrysapien247 t1_j8ovhwx wrote
That was nice and incoherent
dancingkittensupreme t1_j8pul03 wrote
This makes no sense and it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about otherwise you'd actually respond like a real adult
[deleted] t1_j8ppr8s wrote
[deleted]
Sophistrysapien247 t1_j8pta76 wrote
https://www.science.org/content/article/grass-fed-cows-won-t-save-climate-report-finds
Grass fed cows live longer and each cow (each pound of meat it produces) takes longer to mature and so the cow produces more methane per pound of finished meat. And also all the food they eat (soy, wheat, corn etc) are a lot of the 'vegan food'you are saying is 'equally bad because of the transportation emissions'... how do you think cows food gets to them? And do you really think it makes sense for everyone to eat grass fed? That's some first world thinking right there
Again, read the comparison between CO2 (from transportation) in contrast to CH4. I already covered all of that. It's all bad but if you recycle or something like that I bet you care about the environment. Most plastic waste comes not from consumer goods but fishing nets in the ocean. Yet we applaud people using less plastic and recycling.
Maybe look into your actual impact and the facts instead of kidding yourself
gingerbreadguy t1_j8pvi21 wrote
Even switching from beef to chicken makes a big difference, correct?
Sophistrysapien247 t1_j8pw5ip wrote
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/12/4/20993654/chicken-beef-climate-environment-factory-farms
It's not as big of a difference as even the most transported meat substitute. since chickens have to eat a lot of calories to yield a lot of calories (trophic level heat loss) so we would still be growing all that grain to only yield 50% worth of calories of chicken. Did that make sense?
gingerbreadguy t1_j8pwy1p wrote
Yeah that makes sense. I eat neither so no need to convince me. Just searching for some low hanging fruit for people ready to make some changes. Got this particular detail from a website focused on pets' climate footprint, and it sounded like chicken based pet food was significantly better than beef based, though I don't know how trustworthy that source was.
Sophistrysapien247 t1_j8px7tm wrote
Yeah, some other ways are not having a child (just one less child even... not zero children) and also drive an electric car. But considering most people est multiple times a day, those small choices are much more accessible than the other two. So to me small diet changes are the most accessible
HoboDeter t1_j8smuep wrote
The largest source of methane emissions is not agriculture, its the fossil fuel industry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions
Edit: There is a relationship between the two as well, animals need to be transported multiple time for slaughter/processing/packaging. Energy has to be spent to maintain safe temperatures throughout for proper cold-chain handling.
Sophistrysapien247 t1_j8snoik wrote
UNTRUE.
Animal agriculture-30% Plant agriculture -18%
So total agriculture is 48%
A great deal of that plant agriculture is used as animal feed
HoboDeter t1_j8w5gnx wrote
Unless you include flaring from oil extraction, which almost doubles fossil fuel emissions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routine_flaring
Edit: There is a relationship between the two as well, animals need to be transported multiple time for slaughter/processing/packaging. Energy has to be spent to maintain safe temperatures throughout for proper cold-chain handling.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j8w5i4q wrote
>Routine flaring, also known as production flaring, is a method and current practice of disposing of large unwanted amounts of associated petroleum gas (APG) during crude oil extraction. The gas is first separated from the liquids and solids downstream of the wellhead, then released into a flare stack and combusted into earth's atmosphere (usually in an open diffusion flame). Where performed, the unwanted gas (mostly natural gas dominated by methane) has been deemed unprofitable, and may be referred to as stranded gas, flare gas, or simply as "waste gas".
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sophistrysapien247 t1_j8w8d61 wrote
Choosing less animal products is a lot easier than reducing individual fossil fuel consumption.
Considering that CH4 is more potent and you'd also reduce supply chain emissions it really isn't that hard for the Huge impact it would make
HoboDeter t1_j8w8vwh wrote
I agree we should aim to decrease our consumption of animal products. Honestly its a great way to save money, and eat healthier. Decreased consumption has a lot of benefits even if you you don't care about the environmental impacts.
Majestic-Feedback541 t1_j8p3k2x wrote
How do you suggest we stop cows from burping and farting? Slaughter them all? What would you like to do with all that meat after you kill all the living, breathing, farting, burping animals?
Sophistrysapien247 t1_j8pstye wrote
"Most cattle don’t get past the age of two. American beef comes mostly from steers and heifers slaughtered between 18 and 24 months old." https://www.texasmonthly.com/bbq/old-cows-texas-steaks-heartbrand/#:~:text=Most%20cattle%20don't%20get,%2C%20red%20meat%E2%80%94the%20better.
Maybe just stop breeding more of them??
madroxinide t1_j8p5va4 wrote
Yea what you described sums up the "stop doing stuff" part well. But you really gotta follow it up with a statement about how its good for the environment else you might come off a little aggressive.
And the meat thing will solve itself after you and everyone else stops doing stuff. Cuz it's only a temporary problem of having lots of meat for a bit but after it rots and goes back to the earth the earth is healed and without people doing the stuff to make more animals there won't be any of those bad animals that make burps and farts and meat so the meat thing you only have to worry about once. But as long as we didn't do the stuff that makes the animals it's ok cuz then if the animals still exist and burp and fart it's ok because it wasn't caused by stuff we did, it was caused by stuff the animals did and as long as we didn't cause the animals, the animals are part of nature and good for the environment.
Majestic-Feedback541 t1_j8p6f7a wrote
No, we have to reach higher, wipe out every single animal, because they all burp and fart. Then when we don't see a difference, it's time to wipe out all humans, because humans also burp and fart. Then, after all animals and humans have died, earth will be safe from climate change.
Sophistrysapien247 t1_j8ptuzm wrote
Do you know what reductio ad absurdum means by any chance?
I said eat less if you care about your environmental impact
I never said we have to genocide wtf why must you go to the extremes are you that much of a snowflake
madroxinide t1_j8peo6x wrote
Shhh don't spoil the ending for everyone.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments