It’s time to freak out about methane emissions
By - craftcorners
It's been time for a long time now
I'm part of an air quality activist group in northern Colorado. We've discovered that oil & gas production activity is resulting in air quality problems that are often worse than the millions of cars on the roads here.
Leaks from methane producers are suddenly much easier to spot- but politicians are doing their best to give the problem by refusing to acknowledge it, refusing to find air quality monitoring, and refusing to enforce existing rules for air quality against scofflaw producers.
It's a shit show.
Yeah, when you allow things like lobbying it's easy for a company to get politicians on their side. Unfortunately we can't expect much out of most of the US.
We're pushing for monitoring at the local city council level in an upscale environmentally conscious city and we're having this much trouble. It's amazing.
The group this poster is talking about is lobbying. FYI. Transparency is needed, not disallowing people grouping up to petition elected officials.
I should've been more clear. I mean when you allow giant corporations with tons of money to lobby, then that is an issue.
I just saw a post earlier asking for signatures for legislation to get composting infrastructure funding implemented throughout the US. Food waste decomposition in landfills is one of the major sources of methane gas and this needs to be rectified.
That assumes a municipality is willing and able to competently do something about methane sources in landfills.
Which definitely includes not only food waste, but animal waste and vegetation.
All of which can be composted
And release methane...?
Oh yes of course if only there was an efficient way of harvesting methane. Oh right that's why we're here in the first place.
Anaerobic digestion of biomass. There are 3 companies and 4 facilities within 200km of my city. It exists and it works. Wow hey?
Well people aren't gonna stop eating so it's at least better to do something useful with the compost instead of leaving it in a landfill
Some modern Landfills are using local biomass reactors to generate power, but it can only really be done on capped landfills, doesn't help open air, active ones
Regulate that all compostable material has to be capped. Done.
I'm not a landfill expert, but once you cap the landfill you can't add more material to the mound.
They're literally burying the landfill in soil.
Not sure that "freak out" is the best response.
Now, maybe pushing for effective methane emission reduction policies might be helpful.
A good start is with the communities most affected, to act.
I think it’s time for us all to act.
We are all affected.
Methane comes out of the atmosphere way faster than CO2 and it actually holds heat better as well.
All you have to do to help is stop eating animal products.
>All you have to do to help is stop eating animal products.
Political activism is more important. We need systemic changes.
Yes but why would the two not be able to co-exist?
Stop eating animal products, reduce methane emissions AND be an activist. Be the change.
I said in other comment that the best is a vegan activist. Then (in my opinion) a non-vegan activist, then a vegan non-activist, and finally people that just lives their lives without doing anything about the environment.
Why not do both?
As I said in another coment:
>Political activism is fundamental. Ideally, vegan activists, but if I had to choose, Id pick a non-vegan activist over a vegan non-activist any day of the week.
It's too late. The artic feedback loop will release enough methane to make the planet unlivable for humans.
There are no runaway feedback loops that would make us into a venus. There are feedback loops, yes, but they are all limited.
Is there a citation? I was under the impression that we don’t know this for sure
Well, I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but we've been looking very hard and found none that are runaway.
It doesn't have to be runaway. A loop with a finite amount if fuel will be enough
Yes, but discrete feedback loops are considered in most models, and none are apocalyptic. Catastrophic? Yes. But not "we are doomed, let's give up activism" level.
Doomers like you are a bigger problem than deniers at this point. If you want to take it lying down or run to the hills instead of fighting, you are part of the problem.
Really? What hills are you fighting on? 🤣
Okay but ponder this! What if all of them?
Well, climate models definitely take them into account. So, "what if all of them"? What we know already. It is not like scientists are dumb you know.
I was being facetious.
You know how the internet works
Okay - let’s talk about a feasible plan because we may cut back but you will not get 300 million people to completely stop eating animal products. Because it’s much more than steak and burgers.
You won't get 300 million people to do anything, we're fucking doomed. They're gonna drive cars, and live in suburban sprawl, and water their lawns in the desert, and eat 16oz of meat 3x a day.
We live in a world where everyone is trying to make enough money so problems don't apply to them anymore, not a world where people will try and solve them at their own inconvenience.
Well government regulation is our best hope. I do see a lot of private equity getting involved. Even sociopaths may desire continued existence.
This is why socialism works in Europe. Because it came about naturally and people voted for it. In countries like Russia and Cuba, the socialists took power and forced their people to either comply or die. Hence, you get resistance from the globe and from the people, it never ends. And while I'd love to see American organically grow into responsible adults as a society, I also believe that's unlikely. The government forcing people to do the right thing won't end well, we can't even get people to wear a surgical mask. GOP is already running on 'the Leftists want to take away your hamburgers"
I think we're just the Titanic. Maybe Musk, Bezos, and Branson are the 1st class people who get lifeboats but I feel like I'm in the band. Just powerlessly making music on a sinking ship until the ship brings me down with it.
Actually we have another hope - technology - and that’s our best hope. Either way it takes leadership and that is one resource we have appeared to run out of completely.
Bad news good news. The bad thing about methane is that it traps heat much better than CO2. The good thing is that it is much easier to mitigate. We can stop fracking and capture methane from waste and biological sources.
« [The largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions is agriculture, responsible for around a quarter of the total, closely followed by the energy sector, which includes emissions from coal, oil, natural gas and biofuels.](https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020)
So once again going vegan is the best thing an individual can do to help mitigate this.
So vegan for the methane and carbon tax on oil production for co2?
Interesting, the most recent U.N. report flips the ordering:
- Oil & gas 23%
- Coal 12%
- Landfills & wastewater: 20%
- Livestock manure & ruminants: 32%
- Rice cultivation: 8%
Wait I might be an idiot but it looks like in what you posted livestock manure and ruminants, while written lower on the list, is still the highest percentage listed. Doesn't that support the prior post's point?
Edit: I think I get it. Yours separates oil and coal, but if they're added together as the sector, it's a few percent higher than animal ag (though if you combine ag together, that still appears to be higher overall if I'm reading it right). Either way it seems really important to tackle both. They're both major impacts and completely ignoring one for personal comfort, imo, is a mistake. Not saying you're doing that! I've just seen more than enough people take that angle.
> The point of the comparison is that fossil fuel methane emisisons are low-hanging fruit. To eliminate the 32% of methane emissions from animal agriculture, we need to change the behavior of billions of people. To eliminate the 23% from oil & gas extraction, we only need to change the behavior of a few thousand people (and the profits of a few hundred companies). They don't even need to shut down, just submit to proper inspections and install better safety equipment.
Yes, exactly! The point of the comparison is that fossil fuel methane emisisons are low-hanging fruit. To eliminate the 32% of methane emissions from animal agriculture, we need to change the behavior of billions of people. To eliminate the 23% from oil & gas extraction, we only need to change the behavior of a few thousand people (and the profits of a few hundred companies). They don't even need to shut down, just submit to proper inspections and install better safety equipment. I don't even know where it comes from in coal mining, so maybe it's harder to capture there.
>The point of the comparison is that fossil fuel methane emisisons are low-hanging fruit. To eliminate the 32% of methane emissions from animal agriculture, we need to change the behavior of billions of people.
In all honesty, to have a massive impact in that area all we'd have to do is go after the corporations, too, not the billions of people. I'm not sure why people don't think corporations are the driver of issues in livestock and seem to give them a free pass. Not saying that's you, but I will say they really love this farmwashed image of the wholesome rancher feeding his family and protecting the land because...that's just not reality anymore. Factories are the reality, and they love the blind eye we turn to them acting like they aren't responsible for the massive damages they cause like any other wasteful sector which is rightfully getting called out.
If we removed, or even just reduced subsidies, of animal products so they reflect more of their true cost, or heck tax the companies to help internalize their externalities like environmental degradation, they would be pushed closer to the luxury items that they really are and both supply and demand would decrease. The corporations are driving our consumption with artificially low costs (that we still ironically pay for through taxes and other damages though a lot of people don't realize that). Even if we didn't do that, just imposing extremely basic farm animal welfare would help reduce that sector and improve emissions as a result. Just look at how pork farmers in California are freaking out over needing to give their pigs enough space to *turn around* saying that is enough to destroy some of them. Go after the corporations like we do with the energy sector, don't scapegoat the people to let this continue unabated (though I do also support personal action in both sectors where able).
We don't need to convince people to go vegan any more than we need to focus on telling people to stop using cars or other products from the oil industry while ignoring those corporations responsible like we for some reason do when it comes to animal products. We need to go after the corporations in both, and the rest will begin to fall better into place.
Edit: a random example could be SB 5947 in Washington State. We didn't have to convince the public to buy more sustainable foods. We created a structure to encourage farmers to grow more sustainable (regeneratively), and by extension thousands to millions of people will be eating more sustainable products. It's a tiny example bi demonstrates what I mean by even in food, it's not about convincing billions. It's still about policy and corporate responsibility.
This is a very good point, top-down levers *can* be pulled in any industry if there is political will. The California pork issue is going to be a great case study. There is a real difference between raising prices due to increased costs (like labor, paperwork, etc), and raising prices due to decreased supply (unable to produce as much using the new process, and unable to expand quickly).
Right now, we don't know if the CA law will simply double the price of pork, or reduce supply so much it's essentially unavailable in some areas. It will impact thousands of businesses who rely on pork and bacon dishes to attract customers.
OTOH, if a few refineries have to raise prices or shut down because of methane regulations, it's not likely to have a visible impact to the consumer.
Something else to consider, 100% of fossil fuel contributions release *new* carbon into the atmosphere. For the other sources, as bad as they are, at least part of the carbon released was absorbed from the atmosphere at the source.
In this context, we're talking specifically about highly-potent methane. It would actually be an improvement if the fossil industry would burn all their methane *before* releasing it into the atmosphere, even if it was the same amount of carbon, because it will do less damage overall. And it's still bad if biological processes are turning atmospheric carbon dioxide back into methane.
I bet the energy sector is lying, not saying ag isn’t the highest but fossil fuel extraction has been lying about the amount of methane they release for years so it is at least as bad . Plus not the methane release from permafrost melting.
Ok let’s say that fossil fuels produce even more. Agriculture is still very significant. There is no reason people can’t do more than one thing to mitigate the damage we cause. We should strive to eliminate our use of fossil fuel while simultaneously eliminating our use of animal products
The point of the comparison is that fossil fuel methane emisisons are low-hanging fruit. To eliminate the 32% of methane emissions from animal agriculture, we need to change the behavior of billions of people. To eliminate the 23% from oil & gas extraction, we only need to change the behavior of a few thousand people (and the profits of a few hundred companies). They don't even need to shut down, just submit to proper inspections and install better safety equipment.
Low hanging if you care to detect and contain it. It has been cheaper for them to let it go without even burning it off.
>To eliminate the 23% from oil & gas extraction, we only need to change the behavior of a few thousand people (and the profits of a few hundred companies). They don't even need to shut down, just submit to proper inspections and install better safety equipment.
I'm sorry, but if the supply of oil dries up or becomes more expensive, then the behaviour of billions of people will be changed, forcibly.
In comparison, changing your eating habits is easy and fun, and you don't need anyone's permission to do it. It's entirely in your own hands.
I'm sorry, but the entire point of a market system is so that no one is "forced" to do anything, merely account for the impacts of their choices. We already need a carbon tax to make oil more expensive at the pump, and refund the proceeds to low-income consumers; any price increase from methane regulations will have an even more
direct impact on emissions.
According to (NASA's most recent study](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3087/study-identifies-methane-super-emitters-in-largest-us-oilfield/), methane emissions are concentrated at just a handful of really bad sites. Fixing just those sites won't have a massive impact on the overall market.
The reason oil companies give for opposing methane regulations is how expensive it is to install and make sure their own equipment works properly--things they should be doing anyways, to avoid the facility explosions we seem to take for granted. If aerial surveys could be used in binding enforcement, it could really cut down on the amount of leg work needed to find emissions.
> I'm sorry, but the entire point of a market system is so that no one is "forced" to do anything, merely account for the impacts of their choices.
Sure, and then your steak will multiply its price too. So it's your choice to get ahead of the curve and learn replacement recipes now, or to make much harder cuts in transportation where it's not just you, but your employer etc. that needs to cooperate to make meaningful changes there.
>According to (NASA's most recent study](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3087/study-identifies-methane-super-emitters-in-largest-us-oilfield/), methane emissions are concentrated at just a handful of really bad sites. Fixing just those sites won't have a massive impact on the overall market.
Fixing those sites also won't be enough. We need to go for zero emissions and preferably some sequestration on top.
>The reason oil companies give for opposing methane regulations is how expensive it is to install and make sure their own equipment works properly--things they should be doing anyways, to avoid the facility explosions we seem to take for granted. If aerial surveys could be used in binding enforcement, it could really cut down on the amount of leg work needed to find emissions.
Absolutely, no qualms with that. But that's all included in the fossil fuel related emissions, the methane emissions from agriculture are another section. Non-fossil fuel emissions are still 25% of the total.
But that was my point as well. Even if it's just individuals changing their behavior, it will impact businesses selling steaks or burning oil. They will have to change whether the forcing function comes from the bottom or from the top. We can't hold up the fact that a business needs to change as a reason not to do something. The only difference is how fast that change is likely to come--advocating for bottom-up-only change guarantees a very slow transition, good for business in the short term but bad for everyone in the long term.
> Fixing those sites also won't be enough. We need to go for zero emissions and preferably some sequestration on top.
And like *every other argument about priorities*, when it gets too hard we say "do everything" and end up doing nothing.
> But that was my point as well. Even if it's just individuals changing their behavior, it will impact businesses selling steaks or burning oil. They will have to change whether the forcing function comes from the bottom or from the top. We can't hold up the fact that a business needs to change as a reason not to do something.
-advocating for bottom-up-only change guarantees a very slow transition, good for business in the short term but bad for everyone in the long term.
You were the one arguing that it was just the companies needing to change, I was arguing that was no reason to leave the opportunity for individual change. Moreover, without people willing to accept change in their lives you cannot implement those changes in a democracy.
>And like every other argument about priorities, when it gets too hard we say "do everything" and end up doing nothing.
But that's the whole point: you don't need anyone's permission or cooperation to stop stuffing steaks in your face. You can do that right now, parallel to any other changes we are doing on the society level, like putting the screw on companies. And that will only be easier, politically, with people showing that they're serious about this transition business and not just looking for an easy scapegoat.
But it’s so much more complicated than that. If everyone went vegan tomorrow, what would happen to all the animals we already have? Plus lots of products are vegan that are absolutely horrible for the environment. Oreo and Coca Cola are vegan but both are terrible for the environment. Plus going vegan has effects on your health. I have watched my aunt suffer in agony because she went vegan. Doctors tell her health problems are directly related to her diet but she refuses to change.
The best option is for us to reduce meat consumption. In addition, we need to drastically reduce consumerism and reduce food waste. Reducing consumerism is a double whammy because not only does it reduce the use of plastics and other harmful materials but it also reduces the fossil fuel use of getting them around the world. And reducing food waste is much easier than having the entire world change its diet while having almost as big of an effect.
It’s ridiculous to say everyone will go vegan tomorrow. Nothing can or would change overnight. As more people become vegan, then fewer and fewer animals are bred into existence until eventually no animals would be bred for human consumption.
Buying Oreos and coke aren’t requirements of veganism. I don’t buy either of those products. You can be vegan while also avoiding plastics and palm oil, having fewer children, and so on. Obviously you have to thoughtful in all the choices you make.
I don’t know why everyone who defends killing animals “knows someone” who almost died from veganism. If your aunt is sick she has other health problems. Just going vegan is not detrimental to your health. The American dietetic association says veganism is healthy for all life stages.
> Just going vegan is not detrimental to your health.
Short term it’s fine but long term it will 100% cause issues. I tried vegan for a year and started running into health issues. My aunt’s doctor said it’s directly related to her diet and after doing some research I think he’s right. She had no prior health issues until starting this diet. Don’t you ever wonder why old vegans have tons of health issues?
The diet I’m currently on makes me feel 100X better than I ever did when I was on a vegan diet. I don’t eat a lot of meat or dairy anyways. I also source everything locally and grow most of my own food and have my own chickens for eggs.
The American diabetic association isn’t a reliable source of information for the general populace either. Obesity and diabetes cause lots of issues but vegan diet isn’t the best way to combat this
What source do you have if the ADA isn’t a good source. The WHO also says a vegan diet is healthy. I have anecdotal evidence too. My mom and I have been vegan 8 years and are in better health than ever before. The only supplement I take is b12
I don’t understand how a healthy person, who eats a balanced diet, could get sick from lack of animal products. What nutrients were you lacking? Either your family has undiagnosed health issues or you ate nothing but coke and Oreos.
I ate a balanced diet. I haven’t drank coke in 20 years and I’m not a huge fan of Oreos. It was causing issues with my kidneys. I eat a largely plant based diet but just throw in some animal meats, eggs and occasional dairy. I feel 100x more energetic than when I was vegan. I did nutritional yeast on vegan diet for b vitamins but my body does better on meat and eggs.
Glad vegan works for you. Not all of us are made that way. Humans are omnivores. There are people who medically have to eat meat. Moderation of everything is key.
Just like some can not digest dairy some might need meat protein cause they are set up that way besides cultural conditioning. Like some have gluten issues or diverticulitis and can’t eat nuts or seeds. It won’t be a one size fits all until famine forces it. Humans are like that. We are social animals not hive animals .
I am all for voluntary simplicity almost a vow of not poverty, but low consumerism . Less stuff , back to yankee frugality that hates waste and loves DIY and reuse repair. I absolutely hate engineered obsolescence. It infuriates me to know companies do this ( apple ). More money for better food, cultural experiences, education, real charity not tax shelters .
>But it’s so much more complicated than that. If everyone went vegan tomorrow, what would happen to all the animals we already have?
What will happen in reality is that animal farms will go out of business and/or reduce the number of animals they breed, as the demand for meat drops. It won't happen that fast, but suppose it does, then consider how long it takes to rear a meat animal: less than a year, just a couple of months for a chicken.
>Plus lots of products are vegan that are absolutely horrible for the environment. Oreo and Coca Cola are vegan but both are terrible for the environment. Plus going vegan has effects on your health. I have watched my aunt suffer in agony because she went vegan. Doctors tell her health problems are directly related to her diet but she refuses to change.
You can have unhealthy diets as a meat eater too, that's really besides the point.
>The best option is for us to reduce meat consumption. In addition, we need to drastically reduce consumerism and reduce food waste. Reducing consumerism is a double whammy because not only does it reduce the use of plastics and other harmful materials but it also reduces the fossil fuel use of getting them around the world. And reducing food waste is much easier than having the entire world change its diet while having almost as big of an effect.
We'll need to do everything. Incidentally, meat spoils more easily, so it's a relatively bigger source of food waste.
Moderation in all things as the wise man said. I have cut my carbs and meat down , eat fake meat and find often it works well in say spaghetti sauce or fajitas, chili. But in summer I eat way to much fruit and sweet corn. If beef steers are fed that seaweed the methane is drastically reduced but you still have the problem of feed for meat and dairy animals is a huge part of agricultural pressure on the land . Corn and soybean over and over.
Cows aren’t fed corn and soybeans where I live. I know they can be in factory farms but the farmers around me do 100% pasture raised. And in addition, most of them actually use cows to restore the land so they are benefiting the environment. If they are fed seaweed, cows would actually be more environmentally friendly than going vegan (at least here). We need to learn to live more off local foods.
Steer clear of fake meats though. They are contain chemicals that aren’t good for you. They use soybean root to get leghemoglobin which provides the taste of those burgers. That has never been consumed by humans before so it’s new territory.
Yeah but environmentalists love bacon and cheese more than the environment for some reason
Bacon is kinda like sex--- even bad bacon is still pretty good.
It still blows my mind that people will use reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags, metal straws, shorter showers, bike to work, tiny house, recycle, etc the whole shebang and then balk when someone says, hey, maybe you should stop consuming animal products to also help the environment
Maybe you should stop using electricity and leaving pompous comments to help the environment?
You are right, giving up electricity would be great for the environment. However it would decimate our current way of life. Almost every aspect of our lives uses electricity in some way. However giving up animal products doesn’t reduce quality of life at all. For most people going vegan isn’t very difficult nowadays.
I’m not sure why you think it’s pompous to suggest meaningful changes people could make in their everyday lives. Do you think asking some recycle is pompous?
No not recycling but dictating what food they can eat.
Oh honey, no one is dictating. It is merely a reasonable suggestion. You likely feel defensive because you know you’re not making the best choices but it’s hard to admit it and change.
You can eat animals if you want.
You're directly contributing to methane emissions and deforestation. 5.6 million acres of rainforest were cleared in Brazil to farm soy beans to feed to cattle in Europe. 80% of the plastic in the Pacific Garbage Patch is fishing gear. Dead zones in the oceans from pig farms. It's fucking blight on the environment and all you have to do is choose not to eat animal products to directly effect change.
Researchers at the University of Oxford found that cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an individual's carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent.
It's something incredibly simple that you can do immediately to effect real change or you can talk about change but be unwilling to change. Driving an EV that has lithium batteries and is made of plastics and has oil inside it is great but you'd make a much bigger impact by changing your diet to put your money where your mouth is.
Soy beans are eaten by vegans as well you know.
I appreciate eating animals has an environmental cost, but **every** food has an environmental cost.
Personally I eat locally sourced and free range meat and you know what it makes me feel really healthy.
We will do more to save the planet by focusing on the big polluters of this world (namely big oil and their lacky governments), not everyday people.
If you can source local, regenerative farmed animal products that don't have a huge environmental impact, that's a better solution.
Big Food and Big Factory Farm are polluters as much as big oil
I'm not vegetarian or vegan either (though I am trying to reduce how often I eat meat), so I'm not claiming any moral high ground over you and I'm aware I'm somewhat of a hypocrite, but I think your point is misleading on the environmental cost of food.
Yes, we also need to eat vegetable crops too, but if it takes say x amount of acres/water/resources/processing/fuel/etc. to make that food for us to eat, you would have to multiply those resources many many times to feed it instead to the animals for their whole lives until they are killed so that we can eat them.
The meat industry is one of the big polluters of the world along with oil and others and it's a lower hanging fruit in the sense that we don't need to eat meat to survive or for society to function, or really even to be healthy (not saying it's necessarily unhealthy, but it's definitely not a necessity), mostly we just like the way it tastes. Whereas right now there is nothing available to replace oil and gas because we are dependent on it at so many levels.
> Soy beans are eaten by vegans as well you know.
> I appreciate eating animals has an environmental cost, but every food has an environmental cost.
Eating soy directly uses at least 7 times less than feeding it to an animal first, and then I'm not accounting for the methane of the cows, the processing, refrigeration, transportation, and waste of the meat.
>We will do more to save the planet by focusing on the big polluters of this world (namely big oil and their lacky governments), not everyday people.
Meat agriculture is responsible for about 10% of global emissions, not accounting for the downstream processing. We can't ignore such a large fraction of our emissions. The meat industry *is* a big polluter of this world.
Meat is responsible for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions, not including the processing and transport of it. That's an easy 10% that you can cover by changing your eating habits a little, and you don't need anyone's permission or cooperation for it. On the other hand, if you don't, that's 10% that will have to be compensated by sequestration, and we'll all have to put in more effort in other sectors.
It’s because none of those other things are really necessary. I tried going vegan and my health suffered. My aunt has been vegan for over a decade and she has insane health issues directly related to it. We should absolutely reduce our consumption of meat and other animal products. But telling everyone to go vegan is literally going for the highest hanging fruit. Instead we should encourage people to reduce food waste and reduce consumerism. If people stop buying so many unnecessary products, it does a lot more for the environment than giving up meat. Not only does it reduce harmful materials used but it also reduces emissions used to transport those materials all over the world. Drinking a Coca Cola a day is far worse for the environment than eating a burger once a month.
They catch squid in Rhode Island and ship it to China to be processed, then they ship it back to the US to sell.
They farm pigs here, ship them to China for processing, ship them back to sell
They grow soy in Brazil, ship it to Europe to feed cattle, then ship the beef around.
Meat is an unnecessary product
> They catch squid in Rhode Island and ship it to China to be processed, then they ship it back to the US to sell.
Do you have a source on this? It doesn’t make any sense but I don’t eat squid anyways so I guess I’m not the problem.
> They farm pigs here, ship them to China for processing, ship them back to sell
This one isn’t true. A lot of American farmers do ship pigs to China but they stay in China.
> They grow soy in Brazil, ship it to Europe to feed cattle, then ship the beef around.
Soy isn’t a part of the cows natural diet. If you are eating soy fed cows, you’re doing it wrong. America actually does a good job of keeping our beef local here. The beef I eat I buy directly from a farmer who I can almost throw a baseball from my house to his field. But I also don’t eat much beef.
Meat isn’t unnnecessary. Designer clothes, video games and Coca Cola are. Coca Cola dries up water sources all over the world, tears up natural forests to plant soy and palm trees, and uses insane amounts of aluminum and plastic. They then process all those into a garbage product and then ship it all over the world. Coke is worse for the environment than beef.
15 years in seafood industry, they do this with Alaskan Cod too
Smithfield does this
If you're lucky enough to live close by a regenerative farmer, you're a minority.
I'm not pro-Coke, pro-designer clothes. I'm just saying eating 16oz of meat, three times a day is real fuckin bad for the environment and small scale farming is not a solution to feeding the world. Factory farming is a blight on the environment and most people don't get access to pricey grass fed local meats.
But lentils are cheap
> 15 years in seafood industry, they do this with Alaskan Cod too
I don’t eat a lot of seafood but that’s good to know.
> Smithfield does this
Smithfield is only one producer. I used to work in the pork industry and I’ve never heard of any producer doing this. Maybe it’s gotten worse or is more common now but I can’t find anyone besides Smithfield doing it. Smithfield is a garbage brand anyways.
> If you're lucky enough to live close by a regenerative farmer, you're a minority.
This is becoming more common though, I actually thrnk the better solution to this whole issue is to supplement animal diets with seaweed and do regenerative farming and permaculture practices. Agriculture in general in current form is not environmentally friendly. The corn that vegans eat is pretty devastating to the environment in a different way than beef.
> I'm just saying eating 16oz of meat, three times a day is real fuckin bad for the environment and small scale farming is not a solution to feeding the world.
Jesus I don’t know anyone who does this. I eat lsss than 16oz in a day, 48 oz a day is an insane amount. Yeah I agree that’s bad for the environment but I think obesity is rampant in this country and that’s a whole separate issue. Factory farming is bad for the environment which is why I avoid fast food and big box stores like Walmart who use these methods.
> Jesus I don’t know anyone who does this.
This is what I'm saying. We all surrounded ourselves with like-minded individuals but that doesn't mean the rest of the country is following our perceived norms.
Breakfast: Eggs, butter (toast,) bacon
Lunch: Ham, Cheese, Mayo (eggs)
EDIT: ew this is gross, let's say Hamburger, Bacon, Cheese
Dinner: Pot Roast
Dessert: Ice cream
USA uses more resources per capita than any other country. We have 330 million people and hundreds of millions of them are complete idiots who eat like this every day. The more people who phase meat out of their diet, especially in urban areas, the less demand, the less factory farms, the better for the environment.
It works exactly like boycotting factory farms in favor of local, regenerative, grass fed, etc except it's cheaper.
Maybe someone eats meat once a week, twice a week. In the old days, one big pork rib chop would flavor broth for a soup that would feed a family for a few days. Now, that rib chop is one half of the meal a fat fuck gets at Texas Roadhouse and his fries have bacon on them and his appetizer was shrimp that was caught with slavery.
Most of the obesity is a result of corn subsidies but that's a whole other thing.
Also, I love seafood, like I said I worked in it for 15 years but the ocean is the last wilderness left on Earth and the way the seafood industry works, there is no ethical way to care about the ocean and eat it outside maybe farmed clams, oysters, and mussels. I love it all so much, I have eaten some seriously weird seafood meals, from amazing chefs, all over the country as part of my job and it's so delicious but I just can't anymore. Even brands that tout sustainability are shipping all over the world via jumbo jets and using Styrofoam to prevent leakage. It's so sad.
Stop using fossil fuel cars and the fracking can stop reducing both massive methane output AND massive CO2 output.
As I said elsewhere, there is no reason not to do all these things. Giving up animal products doesn’t interfere with eliminating reliance on fossil fuels
The (13 year old) article you're quoting literally says ruminant livestock emissions account for 15% of all global emissions, 25% of all human emissions.
Not sure how to square a 13-year-old study from the International Atomic Energy Agency with a 3-month-old study from the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
> The report notes that most human-caused methane emissions come from three sectors: fossil fuels, waste, and agriculture. In the fossil fuel sector, oil and gas extraction, processing, and distribution account for 23 per cent, and coal mining accounts for 12 per cent of emissions. In the waste sector, landfills and wastewater make up about 20 per cent of emissions. In the agricultural sector, livestock emissions from manure and enteric fermentation represent roughly 32 per cent, and rice cultivation 8 per cent of emissions.
>Radiative forcing is the change in energy flux in the atmosphere caused by natural and/or anthropogenic factors of climate change as measured by watts / metre2. It is the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect on planets, and plays an important role in computational models of Earth's energy balance and climate. Changes to Earth's radiative equilibrium that cause temperatures to rise or fall over decadal periods are called climate forcings. Positive radiative forcing means Earth receives more incoming energy from sunlight than it radiates to space.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/environment/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Carbon taxes would go a long way to stop this. Political activism is fundamental. Ideally, vegan activists, but if I had to choose, Id pick a non-vegan activist over a vegan non-activist any day of the week.
Noooo shit! (pun intended).
We need less shit on our planet - especially livestock shit. So, the first thing we can do for the planet as consumers is to eat plants, as opposed to animal products which result in producing unfathomable amounts of methane.
Saving the planet starts on your plate.
Veganism can help this immediately
Clathrate gun here we goooooi
That's the scariest thing.. I mean climate change in general is, but in some form life would continue/rebuild. But if Earth turns into Venus?
> Landfills around the world are one source of rising methane. Others include oil and gas and cows.
Not cows, but rice fields.
"Additional methane emission categories such as rice cultivation (RIC), ruminant animal (ANI), North American shale gas extraction (SHA), and tropical wetlands (TRO) have been investigated as potential causes of the resuming methane growth starting from 2007. In agreement with recent studies, we find that a methane increase of 15.4 Tg yr−1 in 2007 and subsequent years, of which __50 % are from RIC (7.68 Tg yr−1), 46 % from SHA (7.15 Tg yr−1), and 4 % from TRO (0.58 Tg yr−1)__, can optimally explain the trend up to 2013." - ["Model simulations of atmospheric methane (1997–2016) and their evaluation using NOAA and AGAGE surface and IAGOS-CARIBIC aircraft observations" (2020)](https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/5787/2020/)
Us crazies at collapse have been. But we’re crazy soo...
All of a sudden methane is pushed everywhere to deflect attention away from CO2. Wonder who is behind this campaign..
Not all of a sudden, it's been talked about for ages. And it doesn't deflect from the CO2 problem, they go side by side, along with many other things. The people behind this are environmental scientists. Definitely one of the weirder places to look for a conspiracy
Are the scientists writing these headlines and posting them on social media sites? My bad, didn't realize they had a social media team.
It could be me but recently i read a lot about methane is worst than CO2 followed up by animals are the main source of methane followed by a discussion about veganism instead of regulating the oil and gas industry.
I'm not claiming the scientists are involved with this at all but i do suspect the oil industry from trying to steer away the public discussion from regulating them to a discussion about veganism.
I listen to scientists and limit my personal share. I know i can improve but i drive electric, disconnected my home from the natural gas network, invest in green energy, bank at a sustainable bank and mostly eat plant based alternatives. If i eat meat i try to buy organic.
I'm also trying to counter the big oil spin online.
The graph show its going down