If we reduce the number of cows, all sorts of things would be better, but I agree that fossil fuels are what we need to focus on. — frank

The following 3 articles show that there is a very positive side to cows.

Here are some highlights:

- Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life.

- Cellulose content is particularly high in grasses and shrubs found on marginal lands, which are places where grains and other human edible crops cannot grow. Two-thirds of all agricultural land is marginal, full of cellulose dense grasses that are indigestible to humans. But guess who can digest cellulose?

- beef cattle turn low-quality feed into lots of high-quality protein for human nutrition.

- Grazing of pastures by livestock helps remove GHG from the air by stimulating more plant growth, which accelerates the absorption of CO2 from the air, turning it into carbon in plants and soil.

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life. — Agree to Disagree

It goes up into the atmosphere first. Methane is lighter than air. But yes, increased CO2 is good for plants.

"Looking at remote sensing data from NASA's satellites, we've discovered that over the last two decades, the Earth has increased its green leaf area by a total of 5 percent, which is roughly five and a half million square kilometers—an increase equivalent to the size of the entire Amazon rain forest.". NASA

beef cattle turn low-quality feed into lots of high-quality protein for human nutrition. — Agree to Disagree

They do, but American beef promotes obesity, heart disease, and strokes. Non-American beef is much better for you.

For those not interested in bogus climate denial websites:

Cows (primarily, of all livestock) produce 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of methane.

It’s a big problem, and one many scientists (and farmers) are addressing. (Aka, People who know something about the subject.)

A new study published Thursday in the journal PLOS Climate found the wealthiest 10% of Americans are responsible for almost half of planet-heating pollution in the US, and called on governments to shift away from “regressive” taxes on the carbon-intensity of what people buy and focus on taxing climate-polluting investments instead. — CNN

If only governments would do that, but I have little confidence that they will. It's not just governments and industry but the voters; if we all consistently voted against any political party that did not call for decreased consumption, massively increased taxes on the wealthy, and, fro example restrictions on the size of newly produced ICE vehicles and heavier taxes on existing vehicles based on their CO2 production, then things would change. But we don't.

It seems to me that most people don't really care beyond paying lip service to the slogans that say "something should be done about global warming" and will vote against any political party that threatens to introduce policies that will impact negatively on the lifestyles they have become accustomed to.

When are people going to realize that industry and governments will not do anything significant unless forced to do so by the people?

Cows (primarily, of all livestock) produce 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of methane. — Mikie

Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
Cows eat the plants.
The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.

It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows.

The problem of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the use of fossil fuels, not cows.

How did the livestock issue end up on your radar? Are you a farmer?

It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows. — Agree to Disagree

Is this serious? I’ll assume it is.

Yes, there is. There’s an increase in greenhouse gases.

“Rainforests sequester carbon. Logging releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. It’s a cycle. Thus, there is no overall gain or loss in the destruction of the rainforests.”

Your ignorance (and logic) is embarrassing. Try reading about this subject.

When are people going to realize that industry and governments will not do anything significant unless forced to do so by the people? — Janus

I think they’ll begin to realize (maybe) as they see more and more destruction. But the propaganda is strong.

Rainforests sequester carbon. Logging releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. It’s a cycle. Thus, there is no overall gain or loss in the destruction of the rainforests.” — Mikie

That's actually true. Young trees take up a significantly higher amount of CO2 than old trees, so harvesting wood isn't a problem if it's done sustainably, and as my recent post pointed out, we've gained a whole Amazon rainforest since the 1980s due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's truly your ignorance that is embarrassing. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. It just really is.

How did the livestock issue end up on your radar? Are you a farmer? — frank

Not a farmer. I was a computer programmer / software tester for about 40 years.

I had been reading about how cows are very bad for global warming because they emit greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2 and methane).

I wondered how many cows there are in the world. There are just under 1 billion (about 1 cow for every 8 humans).

I thought that 1 billion cows must be causing a huge problem. But then I researched further and found that CO2 and methane from cows are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows (in the long-run).

Most people are spending a lot of time and resources trying to reduce emissions of GHG's from cows. It is a total waste of time and resources. As I said earlier:

- Reducing biogenic carbon won't reduce atmospheric CO2 in the long-run, because it is a cycle.

- Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon is a waste of time and will hurt many country's economies. If a country's economy is hurt then the country will have less resources to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.

- Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon wastes the resources that could be used to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.

It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows.

Is this serious? I’ll assume it is.

Yes, there is. There’s an increase in greenhouse gases. — Mikie

Please explain how cows increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.

It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows.

Remember that carbon atoms are not being created or destroyed. So they are easy to account for.

thought that 1 billion cows must be causing a huge problem. But then I researched further and found that CO2 and methane from cows are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows (in the long-run).

Most people are spending a lot of time and resources trying to reduce emissions of GHG's from cows. It is — Agree to Disagree

I don't think most people are worried about cows. It would turn our world upside down to stop using coal and natural gas. Once we figure that out we can worry about any other contributions we're making by way of agriculture.

One thing you're not mentioning though is that cows don't usually just eat grass. They feed them corn, which requires fertilizers that put CO2 to the atmosphere.

It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows. — Agree to Disagree

Livestock, including cows, are a significant contributor and significant problem. They add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Your embarrassing ignorance notwithstanding.

Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere. — Agree to Disagree

You really can’t see it, huh?

Well see if you can point out the fault in this logic (I’ll make it easier):

- “Atoms of carbon” are taken up by plants. Those plants get fossilized.

- We burn those plants.

- We release those atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.

Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.

That still too hard? Alright: more cows, more land is needed to raise cows. Millions of hectares.

Those plants get fossilized.

- We burn those plants. — Mikie

Fossils don't burn, Sparky. They're made out of rock.

Just read this from the denialist WSJ opinion pages, extolling the CEO of a major polluter. Laughed out loud.

Mr. Huntsman first began to entertain doubts about climate orthodoxy in the years after he saw Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” “His story was so well laid out, so precise,” Mr. Huntsman says. “At certain times, certain events would happen, certain measurements would be reached.” They didn’t and weren’t. [Actually, they have.]

It wasn’t a sudden “Aha” moment, he says, but he began to think about other dire predictions that had people panicked not long ago. “In the ’70s [here it comes…] we were going into an ice age. Then we went to acid rain—in six or seven years that was going to destroy all the oak trees and pine trees, and New England would be this deforested area. Then the ozone was going to disappear. And then we got to global warming, and we were all going to fry to death.”

Here.

:lol:

Fossils don't burn, Sparky. They're made out of rock. — frank

They don't burn, Sparky, because they ain't got no carbon left in them. Fossilised carbon deposits is coal and oil and tar, and they burns pretty good.

Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
Cows eat the plants.
The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere. — Agree to Disagree

There are so many cows emitting atoms of carbon that there are not enough plants on the planet to consume those additional atoms of carbon.

They don't burn, Sparky, because they ain't got no carbon left in them. Fossilised carbon deposits is coal and oil and tar, and they burns pretty good. — unenlightened

Yep. It takes a bunch of pressure to turn old fossils into coal or oil.

Tar comes from pine trees.

I'm almost directly in the path of Hurricane Hillary. Kind of weird to see a tropical storm warning for the High Desert of Southern California.

He didn't call fossilised plants fossils, now did he? Fossil fuels are fossilised plants (and some animal remnants).

Tar comes from pine trees. — frank

Also wrong. Natural tar is crude oil coming to the surface of which the lighter part evaporates leaving tar or asphalt.

Fossil fuels are fossilised plants (and some animal remnants). — Benkei

I think it's more that under pressure, fossilized organic material produces oil and coal. An actual fossil won't burn because it's made out of rock.

Also wrong. Natural tar is crude oil coming to the surface of which the lighter part evaporates leaving tar or asphalt. — Benkei

Once upon a time, all tar came from pine trees. Tar was used to coat the bottoms of sea vessels and most of it came from one of the English colonies.

You only need to know that if you're into college basketball and you want to know why one of teams is called the Tarheels.

But yes, there's another kind of tar that comes from coal.

thought that 1 billion cows must be causing a huge problem. But then I researched further and found that CO2 and methane from cows are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows (in the long-run) — Agree to Disagree

The problem with cows is less CO2 and more methane CH4. Cows digest grass/feed through enteric fermentation which produces methane as a by-product--those 4 stomachs... Methane is a much more potent green house gas than CO2 because it absorbs more solar heat. Cows are not the only source of methane: leakage from natural gas operations, rotting vegetation, rotting thawed permafrost soils. Methane also occurs as a hydrate -- water and methane combined in fragile solid deposits in the ocean.

Cows could disappear and methane would still be a significant contributor to global heating,

Once upon a time, all tar came from pine trees. — frank

In various parts of the world, petroleum has seeped out into pools, which then evaporated, forming thick tars. Think of the LeBrea tar pits in L.A. Ancient people found various uses for these substances. Another source of very sticky resin comes from birch bark. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens both extracted a glue from birch bark. Amber is fossilized pine resin.

Pitch, resin, asphalt, and tar name the same (and different) substances. Yes, confusing. It gets worse: plastics derived from petroleum are also called resins.

The sap of pine trees is called resin.
Pitch, asphalt, and tar are forms of petroleum.

A violinist uses a small block of "rosin" or "resin" to increase the stickiness of the horsehairs on the bow. Use the song, "Rosin the beau" as an mnemonic device to connect resin with horsehair. The "bow" in the song is inconveniently spelled "beau" which spoils the whole thing, but never mind.

Pitch, asphalt, and tar have all been used as sealants for boats, wine barrels, and other leaky things.

Tree-sourced resin (or rosin) is used for skateboards to prevent cracking, chipping, and breakage. Turpentine from certain pine trees has been used medicinally for treatment of cough, gonorrhea, and rheumatism. Tar water, resin steeped in water, used to be recommended by doctors for illnesses such as smallpox, ulcers and syphilis.

If you should get a case of gonorrhea, smallpox, or syphilis, I strongly recommend that you not resort to turpentine as a cure.

Correct. And coal is a rock.

Turpentine from certain pine trees has been used medicinally for treatment of cough, gonorrhea, and rheumatism.

Applied topically? Or do you drink it?

Fossil fuels are fossilised plants (and some animal remnants).
— @Benkei

I think it's more that under pressure, fossilized organic material produces oil and coal. An actual fossil won't burn because it's made out of rock. — frank

The word "fossil" is leading us astray here. Fossils are plants or animals whose tissues have been replaced by minerals. The original animal is altogether absent (except for insects trapped in fossilized amber).

Coal formed because during the carboniferous period, there were no fungi to break down lignin. So, as the masses of vegetation died, accumulated, sank, were buried deeply, heat and pressure cooked the vegetative mess into coal. Minerals did not replace the vegetative matter: If they did, one would have petrified wood, which is interesting, but can't burn.

The Carboniferous Period came to an end with the rise of fungi which were capable of turning the dead plant matter into soil -- no more coal formation.

"Petroleum, also called crude oil, is formed from the remains of ancient marine organisms, such as plants, algae, and bacteria". All that stuff wasn't fossilized. If it was, it would resemble limestone more than grease.

Kerogen is incompletely formed petroleum and makes up shale oil.

The Sinclair Oil Company not withstanding, dead dinosaurs are not the source of crude oil.

Cool.

Applied topically? Or do you drink it? — frank

"We're sorry; the Turpentine Poison Hot Line is closed during the month of August. Please call back at a time when we might be open."

:lol: