The big problem is that economies and countries and people (farmers, etc) who depend on cows (beef, dairy, etc) are being punished for no good reason. Economies and counties and people are being damaged financially. Countries that are damaged financially have less money to fight fossil fuels, and are wasting resources that could be used to fight fossil fuels. — Agree to Disagree
They are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as the Titanic slowly sinks. — Agree to Disagree
I think that there is something that we might be able to do about global warming long-term. If we concentrate on the right solutions. Even then, it will be difficult and take a long time. I favor a slow move away from fossil fuels. But not so fast that it creates big problems. — Agree to Disagree
I think that you and I agree on about 99% of what we are talking about. But that doesn't make for an interesting discussion, so I am going to concentrate on the 1% where we disagree. Also, I don't like tofu. :grin: — Agree to Disagree
I favor a slow move away from fossil fuels. But not so fast that it creates big problems. — Agree to Disagree
I mean, the very notion that people would sit around arguing about cows seems crazy to me. — frank
I think that there is something that we might be able to do about global warming long-term. — Agree to Disagree
I presently have an immortal fish with whom I have a troubled relationship. — frank
Part of the reason for this is that people don't understand the real situation and are concentrating on the wrong solutions. — Agree to Disagree
We've pissed away the last 30 years, and now have about 10 years left. — BC
I mean, the very notion that people would sit around arguing about cows seems crazy to me.
— frank
Amen, brother. Can we please stop discussing the god damned cows! — BC
They have been saying that we only have 10 years left for the past 40 years. — Agree to Disagree
Amen, brother. Can we please stop discussing the god damned cows! — BC
I mean, the very notion that people would sit around arguing about cows seems crazy to me. — frank
The big problem is that economies and countries and people (farmers, etc) who depend on cows (beef, dairy, etc) are being punished for no good reason. — Agree to Disagree
But his own source proves that it does contribute.My point is just this: his assertion is not illogical. I would need more than a vague principle to accept that cattle farming is net-zero. But if he's correct that it is, then he's right that it's not a contribution to global warming. — frank
a previous post, Agree to Disagree linked to an article from the University of California that supposedly showed that cattle farming is net-zero. However this article makes the OPPOSITE point (apologies for shouting). The full impact of this article is that reducing methane from cattle farming is a cost effective way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2. — EricH
Various technologies (like hydrogen) would be far less polluting than even natural gas, but we are a long ways from having the infrastructure to produce, distribute, and use enough H to make a difference, Again, think 40 years. — BC
It doesn't seem to require much intelligence to be a propaganda parrot. — wonderer1
What am I missing? — Benkei
I'm not a hydrogen booster. Namibia is planning a hydrogen production facility driven by wind and solar. If steel and lime can be made with electricity, then use that instead of making a fuel with electricity first. I don't see H being a major form of energy. — BC
https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-concerned-by-record-high-global-methane-emissions/Worldwide emissions of methane have hit the “highest levels on record”, according to an international team of scientists.
The finding comes from the latest update to the Global Methane Budget, an international collaboration that estimates sources and sinks of methane around the world.
Their estimates for 2017 – the most recent year for which a full budget has been produced – show that annual global emissions hit almost 600m tonnes. That is around 9% higher than the 2000-06 average.
By the end of 2019, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere reached around 1875 parts per billion (ppb), the researchers say – more than two-and-a-half times pre-industrial levels.
Breaking down the different sources, the budget shows that rising emissions from “both the agriculture and waste sector and the fossil fuel sector are likely the dominant cause of this global increase”. This highlights the “need for stronger mitigation in both areas”, the researchers say.
The work also shows “no evidence to date for increasing methane release from the Arctic”. This “crucial” finding means “we are not yet being confounded by substantial feedbacks” that could make meeting the 1.5C and 2C warming limits even harder, another scientist tells Carbon Brief.
In North America and Western Europe around 40% of livestock manure is handled in liquid form [1]. Liquid manure (slurry) represents a mainly anaerobic environment and is a significant source of atmospheric methane (CH4), which is the second-largest anthropogenic source of radiative forcing next to carbon dioxide (CO2) [2]. Volumes of liquid manure increase in many parts of the world due to intensification of livestock production [3], and thus it becomes increasingly important to determine effects of manure treatment and management on emissions of CH4.
This is an entirely tractable problem, that requires mere money to be thrown at it. Cover the slurry, and collect the gas for domestic use. Pre-industrial farming would use straw bedding that mixed with the effluent and would be mainly aerobically composted in a heap and then spread as fertiliser on the arable fields. And of course the peasants ate little meat, so a win win. — unenlightened
Steps need to be taken toward this happening. — Changeling
I looked at the video. At the portion you marked, the guy is suggesting that if we limit methane emissions from cattle (apparently California has already dropped it by 25%), then we can reduce the CO2 content in the atmosphere.
He's saying that in cattle production there's an opportunity to go beyond net zero to net negative. — frank
It looks like it's saying that cattle farming is not a significant contributor. What am I missing? — frank
He's saying that in cattle production there's an opportunity to go beyond net zero to net negative. I get that. We haven't discussed that up to this point, though. We were just talking about whether or not cattle production is net zero. — frank
Firstly I should have looked a bit more closely at the source of these articles. While they are by University of CA, from what I can gather these studies are funded by our old friends the cattle industry (I could be wrong on this — EricH
Now just to be precise we could quibble about the "net zero-ness" of this cycle since the whole process of raising cattle creates additional CO2 apart from the CH4 - but for purposes of discussion we can ignore that. — EricH
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.