> Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have larger greenhouse gas impacts than indicated by existing inventories. [1]
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314392110.abs...
"According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of U.S. GHG emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28 percent of total emissions), transportation (28 percent) and industry (22 percent). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9 percent. All of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing 3.9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That’s very different from claiming livestock represents as much or more than transportation." [0]
Global direct greenhouse gas emissions from transportation versus livestock represent 14 versus 5 percent respectively. [1]
Also consider: "According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock." [1]
[0] https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-envi...
The FAO's latest number for livestock emissions is 14.5% when considering the full life-cycle. It doesn't matter that we don't have a full life-cycle analysis for transportation - that doesn't change the number for livestock. The author tries to dismiss the 14.5% because "[transportation might be a bigger culprit]" and talks about "unringing" the bell on the FAO report simply because of a correction from 18% to 14.5%, which seems a bit of an overstatement.
On top of this, new (2017) data seems to suggest that our predictions of livestock emissions were too low:
> Using the new emissions factors, we estimate global livestock emissions of 119.1 ± 18.2 Tg methane in 2011; this quantity is 11% greater than that obtained using the IPCC 2006 emissions factors, encompassing an 8.4% increase in enteric fermentation methane, a 36.7% increase in manure management methane, and notable variability among regions and sources.
[1] https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissio...
It's because of this, and practical reality, that I don't understand why scrubbing is not considered a bigger part of the discussion on these topics. For instance one new technological solution [1] proposes an atmospheric removal of CO2 that could cost as little as $94 per ton. Our current CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels are about 37 billion tons a year. That's $3.5 trillion, 4% of the global GDP, to remove 100% of annual emission output. And an even better aspect of these solutions is that they also scale indefinitely. For instance you could not only reduce our footprint to 0 but even reduced the concentration of various gases in the sky, such as CO2, if that was deemed desirable. The same technology (or an inverse) also has direct application to future geoengineering efforts on other planets.
Ultimately this is technology that there does not seem to be any physical barrier against - in other words we can develop it. And now seems like a great time to develop it. The current mitigation ideas of cutting back on x seem to be all we consider, yet they have immense barriers to execution. By contrast technological solutions would be something that would require no sacrifice and simultaneously also greatly expand our technology and developmental capabilities. And most importantly they all seem tantalizingly close.
Yet in spite of all of this there seems to be near 0 discussion of these options. This is something I find confusing.
[1] - http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/ne...
But, if I’m looking for errors, it seems more likely to me that we’d mis-estimate methane leaking out of the ground during fracking or from landfills than methane coming out of cows or manure storage facilities. I mean, you can measure a cow. You can put it in a room and measure the methane. But how do you measure the ground? It seems like the kind of thing you can mess up.
Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions. These need to be dealt with, swiftly.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
Most of these 100 companies are oil companies, and the emissions from oil they sold on to consumers is unfairly attributed to them. Exxon don't burn oil for fun, they sell it to people to power their cars.
This statistic is incredibly misleading.
I’m fed up reading comments along the lines of ‘we shouldn’t try to solve this problem, because we should be solving this other problem instead’. In every case I’ve seen this argument, there’s absolutely no constraint at all preventing us from doing both.
It doesn't. I reduced my own meat consumption and I don't think it was enough. In fact, no single measure would be enough. There are no low hanging fruits here. We need lots and lots of different adjustments across the board.
So, this is a good advice, along with all the other good pieces of advice.
I’m increasingly convinced that carbon sequestration on industrial scales is the only serious way to solve this problem.
This is akin to trying to prevent the dust bowl[0] with giant vacuum cleaners. The environment is a system. We are a function of it, not the masters of it. We need to address the feedback loops causing this crisis that we are creating.
Even if that would work - As others have pointed out, we don't have the luxury of time to deploy industrial scale carbon sequestration. And even if we did - this type of thinking still discounts nature's value. [1] Why do we think it is easier to develop and deploy industrial scale carbon sequestration equipment when we have plants that are pretty damned good at doing just that? [2]
We need a total perspective change here. Nature doesn't need saving, the concrete deserts that are cities need green roofs and trees. We need to stop useless commutes and start working from home where applicable. We need to realize that lawns are an ecological disaster. [3]
But above all else, We need to make environmental damage illegal and stop allowing companies to profit off of it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
[1]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/this-is-why-putting-a...
[2]https://www.thoughtco.com/which-trees-offset-global-warming-...
[3]https://earther.gizmodo.com/lawns-are-an-ecological-disaster...
I did an estimation once for Western Europe using FAO stats[1] and by switching to a vegan diet we could roughly double the size of the forests, that's a massive scale! It'll help fighting the climate crisis and it'll also help solving the species extinction crisis in Western Europe. And the cool thing is that we don't need to wait for all the human population to switch overnight to a vegan diet, reducing meat and dairy consumption is a perfectly valid first step that everyone can do! The more people switch diets and the more space will become available for rewilding.
We can already see plant based diets becoming more and more popular, and at the same time it seems that flexitarian diets are also getting quite mainstream. I think there's hope on that front at least.
[1] https://vinc.cc/essays/changing-our-diet-for-a-wilder-world/
If quitting meat sounds tough, consider that I’ve heard the only effective thing to do would be immediately cease all ICE production/use. But oddly feeding cows seaweed would cut their methane production something like 90%.
Hard problems always feel this way. <insert slavery reference>
1. No way to stop eating animals 2. No way to stop driving/flying 3. Don't ask me to change. YOU change.
=> no change in status quo
People can be vegan just fine, it's only a matter of habits.
Changing our own diet is on the table too... considering we don't need to eat cattle to survive. This problem is one of overconsumption, and isn't going away by keeping our lifestyle the same.
Well managed cattle herds can sequester carbon in the top soil. There is absolutely no need to go vegetarian to save the planet.
[0] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612452/how-seaweed-could-...
I'm Argentinean, if I stopped eating meat my passport would probably be revoked. I grew up thinking that it was perfectly normal to eat meat 7 days a week. Even with this background, I started reducing the amount of meat some time back. I'm not vegetarian by any means, but I reduced my meat consumption about 80% without even trying. I'm sure there are lots of people that could too.
> Less humans due birth control or fortuitous events (e.g. a plague)
Like everything, consumption follows a Pareto distribution, where some "whales" drive most of the demand. You can focus on them instead of hoping for lots of people dying.
Also, reduce poverty and the amount of newborns in this planet will naturally decrease precipitously, without any need for a mandate from anyone.
There are a million articles on the internet arguing either way. I would start with this one for an interesting angle: https://theconversation.com/from-pests-to-profits-making-kan...
Kidding. Well kinda... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2606956/Now-...
But it is no substitute for voting.
For example Methane Sat[1] looks like it can cover a wide area and is coming on-line in the time frame to do some good (2020).
If you take one transatlantic flight, you'd produce more CO2 than by driving for a year.
At the same time, the majority of methane is produced by fossil fuel production that drives industry, transportation and energy production, that are also the largest sources of C02 emissions.
It seems to me that by addressing the emissions of industry, transporation and energy production, we'd be killing two birds with one stone- whereas by going vegan or vegetarian we would only achieve a small reduction in both kinds of emission.
The best thing to do to reduce emissions seems to stop driving, stop flying, prefer public transport, stop buying a new phone every year and stop burning as much excess electricity as we now do. Going vegan or vegetarian seems like a personal option, and a distant third or fourth priority for the general population.
There are many more, much more effective things to do than stop eating meat.
_______________
[1] Thus, there is wide agreement among experts that, regardless of the drivers behind the surge, reducing emissions from fossil-fuel production and distribution, primarily through ending leaks and venting, is one of the few options available to control global methane levels and that this option is the most practical one. In addition, scientists report that there are narrow opportunities to address agricultural emissions, e.g. changes in the diet of livestock can reduce the production of methane without affecting production.
They feed on our fears...
How will it be done exactly? How long will it take? Will they be released to nature? Killed? Not allowed to reproduce and we'll wait for them to die of old age? Be supplied condoms?:-)
I don't have the knowledge to know whats needed to be done, or which steps are needed to be taken to do that, even if we stop consuming livestock products.
That's longer than the normal farm lifespan of almost all food animals. Most ones reared for meat have less than two years.
Reproduction of farm animals is totally controlled today by segregation usually from birth.
And policy needs to be global in scope. Because even if advanced economies were to reduce their emissions to zero, this would be insufficient to prevent warming with substantial risks. Note that emerging economies are producing an increasingly large share of total global emissions, while the share from advanced economies is dwindling, now accounting for only 35% of global emissions. This trend continued past 2015 and is forecast to continue in the coming years.
By 2040, emerging economies will produce 75% of all emissions, while only 25% will come from advanced economies.
But policy-makers are still stuck in a mid-2000s mindset. Back then, their emissions were still the highest in the world and they had to focus their policies on reducing their own emissions. This no longer makes sense.
Advanced economies have a special obligation to do more to lower emissions in all countries. Why is it our responsibility? Because our per capita emissions are still the highest and we have emitted the most carbon since the industrial revolution.
Only if the policies of advanced economies lead to reduced emissions in all countries, can we prevent dangerous climate change. The most effective policies to prevent climate change are those that stimulate clean energy innovation. In other words, those that stimulate progress or breakthroughs in clean energy technologies (or any low-carbon technology that lowers emissions as well as demonstration projects, i.e. RD&D). Providing the global public good of cheaper clean energy technology helps all countries reduce their emissions.
If you want to do something check out my crowdfunding campaign for effective climate policy here: https://www.lets-fund.org/clean-energy
Until we substantially reel in the global population size the situation will continue to be rather precarious.
What does this mean? Forced sterilization? One-child policies? I don't ask this to be confrontational, but because it's a difficult question and I honestly want to hear opinions. Access to contraception doesn't make a difference when the culture still says you have 8 kids. This is borne out by what has happened: continued growth of the third-world population. T
I suspect that the availability of contraception is being over estimated.
Even in Poland I had Catholic hardliner pharmacists refuse to sell me morning after pills, and in some cases, regular birth control pills.
In any case, availability of contraceptives just gives people choices, and what people choose depends on lots of things, economic and otherwise.
Also be careful what you wish for. Some of our most important social programs (such as social security) have intense insolvency issues as birth rates continue to decline.
Yes, population is the core problem, and there's no avoiding that fact. There's no easy solution to it--increased education and wealth slowly reduce the birth rate, but that takes generations and is far from certain. Absolutely critical--and very easy--would be dropping immigration from countries with net-positive birth rates to zero. Good luck finding support for that among people concerned with climate change.
Quality of life tends to increase, and correspondingly impact increases. We already have far too many people if you consider the quality of life is destined to normalize at the "western" end of the spectrum.
People that raise this point almost 100% exclusively mean that about "people that are not me"
People who don't think they need to breed to have a number of descendants survive childhood mortality to look after them in their old age don't have lots of kids.
They said that, until we do, the situation will remain precarious. I'm sure you can imagine an (admittedly extremely improbable) scenario where the global population shrinks to 4 billion over the course of 500 years without significant injustice being done to anyone to achieve the shrinkage.
Sadly, when it comes to greenhouse-gas-driven climate change, the timeline on which we will succeed or fail to address the problem is too short for any population size adjustments to be of any use (unless you want to achieve the adjustment by mass murder).
This is probably the source of any misunderstanding between you. The OP is not contemplating mass murder, but does not appreciate the urgency of the climate issue. You appreciate the urgency and so assume the OP must be advocating an "immediate" extermination.
Abort all children unless the condition is met, and if they are birthed in violation of that, take them away from the mother and imprison her.
[here "woman" is intended as "person with an uterus"]
If you're suggesting I want other people to have fewer kids while I raise a family myself, you're mistaken - zero kids here and none in my future.
But what do we have instead? Ignorance, unwillingness, a dangerous continuation of the status quo on the state level andin the general polulation. Think about exxon who knew this was a problem since the '70 and there's no change in sight. A dark (or should I say hot?) future awaits us.
Future generations, if there are ones, will look back at this time and see that we have an oil burning culture. Everything we eat, where we live, fossil fuels have been used to produce and maintain it. If it only was cars that was the problem we would easily solve it.
To make a real change a Total War economy would have to be implemented, with the sole function of combating climate change. No-one wants to even start suggesting that because there would be so much inconvenience and angry people.
Since the effects are only a minor inconvenience yet, for people in the developed world, its much easier to do nothing. Some deny there is a problem, others acknowledge it, but put it on the back of their minds mostly (I'm in this category). The effect is the same. Politicians follow the path of least resistance, that is how they are elected.
I'm not sure it's so dire as that. Taking the US as an example (numbers from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...), the largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation at 29%. A real push to switch to electric cars could have a significant impact without significantly changing the way people live their lives. If presented correctly, people could see it as a net benefit: no longer going out of your way to find a gas/petrol station, you just plug in at home and have a full "tank" every morning.
The next largest source is electricity production (27%). Again, a major push towards green energy would benefit from strong leadership, but it wouldn't impact our culture very much. It makes little difference whether the electricity comes from a coal power station or solar power combined with grid storage as long as my TV turns on.
The next chunk is industry (22%). Most of this is actually for power generation again, so see electricity generation above.
Only now do we get to residential and commercial uses at 12% (mostly heating). Only here are we starting to impact the little people in a big way, and I would argue that even then, changing out my furnace for a heat pump is not going to have a big impact on how I live my life.
It could have already started by respecting the Paris agreement.
In this regard, the US decision to go out of the agreement, to protect the american way of life etc, can be considered as belonging to the same category than crimes against humanity.
How can US people have tolerated this desision ? I mean, from my place, I didn't see a lot of protest.
Such a shame.
A political leader who'd force their nation "go full green" would be ousted at the next election, if not quicker - immediate riots on the streets would be likely.
One of the triggers for gilets jaunes in France was a comparably tiny fuel eco-tax - can you imagine the effect of a taxation that's intented to meaningfully decrease consumption; an eco-tax so large not that people pay more and whine at increased prices but that many of them would actually be forced to stop eating beef and driving cars because they can't afford it? Most of the population currently doesn't want such restrictions and the political leaders won't force them to.
1. Political leaders in many countries (eg. Australia) have been deeply corrupted by the fossil fuel industry. And they're mostly legally immune because they essentially allow that industry to write the laws (including those permitting them to take up fossil fuel company sinecures when they quit politics).
2. Even when you have less-corruptible or more courageous political leaders, they have to try to convince populations which have been subject to relentless corporate propaganda (eg. from Exxon-funded sources as you suggest) for 4 decades. Propaganda has its limits, but it does work.
I mean, what was the point of all the wars, death and destruction if the military just allow themselves to suffocate? That would seem like a strange end.
The incentives are just not there within the current system. When was the environment a major topic in an election anywhere? It's always pitted against "the economy" despite being part of the economy.
Add to that there's no immediate visible benefits. A political term is a few years. If the climate stays liveable for a few years, nobody is going to notice.
Plus most countries are small. It doesn't matter if France or the UK go totally green. What's needed is international influence so that everyone goes green. Who is going to run on a platform of "We'll go green, and I'll convince the rest of the world as well"?
It is much easier to frame climate change as a made up political issue than to actually try to do anything about it.
It boggles the mind that our one hope is an authoritarian state run by engineers.
Besides the domestic unrest others mention, yeah, they do think about the effect it could have on neighbouring countries. The immediate effect would be tanking one's own economy and significantly reducing the country's position as compared to the neighbours who didn't implement such change. Countries compete with each other too, just like companies do, and they are hesitant to change much for the same reasons companies are.
The short term effect of these policies is to cause a significant amount of economic pain and discomfort on the people you enact them against.
They appear to be venturing into new areas and releasing carbon there, furthering global warming.
There are just too many scenarios of that kind.
Either we really are doomed, and climate will switch into a new kind of equilibrium hostile to humans.
Or, there are lots of mechanisms in place that counteract against such effects, and which are not yet well understood.
With so many climate based doomsday scenarios, how did earth survive for so long? I think there have to be at least some regulating mechanisms.
See the other 5 mass extinction events.
Humans are actually very adaptable to all sorts of climates. They've lived in the arctic and in the Saharah.
Also, mass extinction events OK, but we are talking about a runaway effect of heating up the atmosphere, turning it into a Venus like planet. That doesn't seem to have happened before.
Earth will be fine. Us, not so much.
For 20 years there have been articles/studies saying that the "calthrate gun" containing all the methane stored in Siberia and the arctic is the best reason we need to keep CO2 levels below 400 ppm.
Now CO2 is at 415 ppm and we're starting to see the accelerated release of methane and it's "unexpected." Why not interview one of the people who said this is exactly what was going to happen 10 years ago, and ask them what happens next?
"The 'why' behind this resurgence is hotly debated and not well understood. That said, most experts in the field suspect that all traditional sources (natural and anthropogenic) are contributing at least in small part to the surge, and that the biggest contributor might be wetlands responding to climate change (though there is some dissent on this point)."
Higher arctic temperatures = permafrost melts, releasing trapped methane. e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4
And in those regions in particular have 2 possitive feedback loops, with less snow the land absorb more heat, and then the "unexpected" release of methane.
Because methane is trapped in ice, and it's believed that the ice will melt, releasing more methane.
> Potential drivers in the category of increased emissions include emissions from intensive agricultural practices, emissions from oil and gas operations, and increased emissions from wetlands responding to global warming. [This last potential driver is particularly worrisome as it implies the engagement of a global warming feedback loop.]
So maybe "wetlands" is a veiled reference to permafrost. Which in fact are basically frozen wetlands.
Never mind that cars, ships, agriculture ( I bet most of these vegans haven't ever heard of petrochemicals or fertilizers ), smartphones, electricity, etc are all individually greater contributors to environmental damage.
Also, the growing numbers of bison, deer and other ruminants around the world contributes to increase in methane levels. People forget that all ruminants ( bison, cows, etc ) all produce methane though they'll use the faux stat of them being net negative contributors.
And sad as it is, veganism will actually increase fossil fuel usage as the vegetation that people eat need petrochemical fertilizers to grow and a vegan diet cannot be locally sourced like meat can, so they need to ship vegan food from all over the world. But vegans don't like facts too much. They'll throw in the nonsense about livestock agriculture being transfered for humans. Good luck surviving on corn, soy and wheat. Humans aren't ruminants. We are omnivores by nature.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this argument (and I'm not a vegan). If we're not vegan, we're eating animal protein, and those animals making that protein are...vegan. We're ultimately all getting our protein from plants.
XKCD put up a well-sourced graphic depicting the relative amounts of mammal biomass on the Earth. Wild animals aren't anywhere remotely close to food animals.
New kind of clathrate gun we didn't anticipate?
This graph is more fun but not up to date https://www.methanelevels.org/
If it's been rising for centuries and is continuing to rise now, shouldn't the six year period of stability be the anomaly, not the fact that it's continuing to increase?
