Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Archangel1313 t1_ittch0o wrote

And vegans still want us to believe that cow farts are the problem?

−4

janojyys t1_ittqm6e wrote

27% of US methane came from cattle and another 9% from manure. 32% from natural gas/petroleum systems. So yes cows are a problem (not to mention all the other massive environmental problems of animal production)

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane

6

Archangel1313 t1_ittvf3x wrote

Cows produce less than 2% of the total annual global greenhouse gas emissions.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8567486/

It just sounds worse when you put it in percentages of a percentage. When put in perspective, it's a drop in the bucket. This is classic misdirection. The fossil fuel industry would love it if we wasted our time going after the meat industry instead of them.

4

janojyys t1_ituqk2k wrote

Depending on the source, roughly 1/3 or 1/4th of global ghg emissions come from food of which the majority come from agriculture and land use for agriculture (of which the majority is cattle).

There honestly isn't much to debate here. I'm not trying to downplay fossile fuel industry emissions but food is equally as important even if it conflicts with your meat eating.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9

3

RedLotusVenom t1_ituvyu1 wrote

Methane is a 100 times worse greenhouse effect than CO2 though, so that 2% has a much higher impact than you’re representing. And guess what? If we stop breeding them, that 2% disappears. Not to mention the emissions from growing food just to feed them.

But you can’t live without steak I guess, so go off

1

marklein t1_ittfnbp wrote

When you're burning the planet to the ground you address ALL the problems.

5

Archangel1313 t1_ittfv78 wrote

No...you tackle the biggest problems first, then mop up the small ones once you've stabilized the situation. That's triage.

−1

marklein t1_ittkdvt wrote

Triage exists to prioritize action when faced with less labor than is needed for a crisis. Triage is not needed to address global warming because we have the people necessary to address all causes. Yes, definitely address the biggest items ASAP, but those have no bearing on addressing all the other causes.

7

Archangel1313 t1_ittldgk wrote

Wut? Are you seriously saying we have time to fuck around with this? We aren't even coming close to addressing the largest contributor to global warming...we're too busy banning plastic straws, and complaining about cow farts.

Methane from cows totals about 2% of our total global emissions. Burning fossil fuels for energy equals about 70%. These campaigns to shift the priorities to the smaller contributors is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants. It's a joke that people keep falling for the same trick over and over again.

−4

but-imnotadoctor t1_ittzsgx wrote

Source on your percentages?

1

kaba40k t1_itthdwp wrote

To be fair, nothing in the article suggested that these emissions contribute more than the cows.

The second thought is that these emissions are not purely "problems to address", they are negative side effects of some positive effect (just like the farm cows emissions are). So the process imo would less resemble medical triage, and more resemble a budget balancing exercise, where you need to take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, as it won't be possible to just eliminate all factories or all cows.

4

lan69 t1_ittynyc wrote

It’s not just cow farts. It’s also the fact you’re using oil/gas to grow crops for these animals, house them and ship them. There’s a whole lot of energy and land being used to raise livestock. But whatever you like your strawman

5