https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-do-cattle-produce-m...
So maybe that is the problem. /s
But, hey, why not fix anorher problem and blame the first one. /s
Not insane.
The serious denialism that avoids actual science on HN is astounding.
Yikes. All this is is a successful attempt by the ruling class to convince the subjugated to give up even more rights and freedoms. “It’s for your own good” on steroids. If you want to see clear proof of this, just note that on the strict numbers, this practice won’t meaningfully move the needle on the climate issue. In fact, will it even move the needle overall? Once you feed the animals better, namely with some seaweed incorporated into cow feed in particular, this total emission from these sources drops by some 80% or more. But of course that solution won’t do, because the entire point of these co2 laws is to have more control over people’s lives rather than to solve problems. If climate change ended tomorrow, these same people would try to push the same laws because the intention is to control the masses and to tax people more to feed the bureaucracy machine.
People should be wary of hall monitors and bureaucrats aiming for “restructuring” of food systems, especially for moral posturing reasons. In history that tends to lead to starvation.
Interesting take, so the absolutely massive subsidies on meat that completely change the overall affordability of meat vs vegetables isn’t a problem. But trying to renormalize costs so the environmental impact of meat isn’t hidden away in subsidies is “control the people”.
If we removed all subsidies tomorrow the problem would go away as everyone just naturally cut 90% of their meat consumption because of the cost.
Not that it matters as the people who support these types of broad punitive measures are mostly just virtue seeking idiots who only care about complex issues to the extent it can be used to advertise their own feelings of moral superiority.
The people who want to reduce pollution most likely just want to reduce the harms associated with that pollution, not your wacky accusation of their motives. And even if someone's motives were some weird bad thing, if their actions are good (eg, helping us all live better lives in a lower-pollution world) that would still be a good thing.
When we post solutions to their problems to areas of a well rounded discussion, they enter into a backs against the wall mindset , posting paragraphs and paragraphs back to us with any wacky counter arguments and not picking of the solution they can think of.
In this thread it was “we don’t have enough seaweed” and then they went trawling the internet for opinion pieces to try and back themselves up and reply within minutes.
A person with good intentions and who was genuinely interested in solving the problem would take more time and research papers that support and go against the solution and make a more balanced response to the good news they were given.
There are billions of people starving in this world. The parent comment is correct to question the motives of these people. I get the impression these people are dressing up satanism or communism as green policies. The same smell we all get when people push absurb woke policies.
I guess it is a way to reduce meat consumption. But I think there are far better places to look, Oil Industry and use of fossils (ie plastics) then Cows and Pigs. But no Government wants to do the hard thing because the pols will loose their jobs in the next election.
>But I think there are far better places to look, Oil Industry and use of fossils (ie plastics) then Cows and Pigs. But no Government wants to do the hard thing because the pols will loose their jobs in the next election.
This is talking about Denmark. They certainly haven't forgotten about oil and plastic. They have very aggressive taxation on ICE cars and were one of the first countries to ban free plastic bags.
I have yet to see a paper that models this. Most of the estimates are purely based on output, which seems disingenuous at best.
But in this situation would you not be better off taxing the soy imports and fining waste outflow?
Denmark is a tiny country and their emissions are frankly, negligible.
So, just another emotional decision from western politicians.
The idea that no individual small change will ever solve the whole problem so we should just ignore it completely is a childish emotional reaction to the fact that changes have to happen.
You see, our biggest issue right now is that despite all efforts from the west, we (as in we the world) is not ramping down or fossil fuel usage significantly and on the contrary, we can expect it to keep on growing.
In the past, given the disparity of power between the G-7 and the rest of the world, we could rely more or less on diplomatic pressure to keep the developed countries more or less inline on this global effort, but, right now, our capacity has been diminished on this front.
And the problem with decisions like that, and other stupid ones like the insistence on renewables as the panacea, to the detriment of real solutions like Nuclear energy, we are increasing our costs, because no matter how much PR you do about LCOE, the real hard fact is that renewables are fucking expensive in a system-wide based opposed to the fairy-tale world of LCOE, and this is ensuring the west is less competitive and thus less powerful. The reason for that, I am afraid, is beyond the current midwit zeitgeist, so I won't elaborate more, but it is fact easily proven by analyzing energy costs for consumers viz. penetration of renewables in a given market.
So, you see, individual small changes are not always positive, because sometimes small changes have unexpected side effects that their proponents rarely take into account.
Right or wrong, the developing world thinks that they are not responsible for most of the excess carbon on our atmosphere and think that if we became rich by spewing gigatons of carbon, it is only fair they have the same choice. And as we use less and less fossil fuels, at the same time our energy costs increase, we are even helping them by making fossil fuels less expensive.
So, yes, probably we (North America and Western Europe) will get closer and closer to net zero, at the cost of destroying our economies and our ability to lead the world in a more sensible way.
Yeah, I agree with you that changes have to happen. But they need to be rational changes, they have to be taken based on the context of objective reality. Voluntarism, taking action just for the sake of action usually sucks. There are almost unlimited ways of doing anything wrong, and usually just a few ways of doing it right.
