• @ChocoboRocket
    link
    29
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Taking normal things and then mass producing them isn’t a part of the normal carbon cycle, especially when areas are deforested or changed to make it more accommodating to mass production.

    I’d love to read anything to the contrary - it’s not that I believe cow farts is a horseman of a climate apocalypse.

    But I find the idea of deforesting, mass animal production, the food used to feed cows being controlled (potentially causes more gas) far more unnatural than some extra cows in a field.

    It’s easy to say something is “natural” when referring to an animal existing, but the existence of these cows barely dips a toe in the natural world.

    So if there is any legitimate proof that the beef/dairy industry don’t contribute anything beyond the natural carbon cycle I’d love to educate myself!

    I don’t disagree that the main cause of CO2 emissions is clearly oil and gas, and that should absolutely be the focus. But to insinuate everything else is absolutely fine to ignore and Oil and Gas is the only source that can be mitigated seems disingenuous - especially since oil and gas aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

    • RemembertheApollo
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      To add on - the feed we give cattle exacerbates methane production in their gut.

      Cattle fed high-grain, low-forage diets produce 42% more methane than those fed-low grain, high-forage diets (Boadi et al.,2004). Methane (CH4) is composed of carbon and hydrogen. The formulation of diet influences the carbon: nitrogen ratio of manure, which impacts the amount of methane released. Diets high in grain have higher levels of readily fermentable carbohydrates, which create methane to be released into the atmosphere. Grain type can also change the amount of methane emissions. During the finishing phase, cows fed a corn-based diet released less methane than cows fed a barley-based diet (Beauchemin and McGinn, 2005).

      So there is nothing “natural” about the excess methane produced by cattle because if they were naturally foraging the amount produced is lower.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Yeah, cows are adapted to eat grass, but that doesn’t fatten them up. So we give them corn and whatnot instead. It’s a generally unhealthy diet for them. As in, they are literally more prone to disease because a grain diet impacts their immune system.

        When you offer a cow grass in one hand and grain in the other, they will always go for the grass.

    • bioemerl
      link
      fedilink
      -14
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Taking normal things and then mass producing them isn’t a part of the normal carbon cycle

      All carbon coming from cow farts must be created using carbon from the air. If you look at carbon levels in the atmosphere you’ll see the cycle and human activity in this space will just make the cycle more spikey instead of tending up like it does now.

      This isn’t a question of “natural good”. Natural sucks. This is good because it poses few long term existential risks.

      Fossil fuel emissions are an existential risk. Cow farts and land use can be important if you want to protect biodiversity and such, but not for global warming.

      • @ChocoboRocket
        link
        12
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So if we’re taking “natural environmental carbon” and turning it into methane - how is that better??

        Trees take carbon out of the atmosphere = natural

        Taking an empty field (carbon sink), mass farming cows with a gas-rich diet and not sequestering the methane produced by digestion/waste (methane production) = natural? (and carbon neutral?!)

        You’re out to lunch with that opinion my guy. Provide some actual sources aside from a misunderstanding of how the carbon cycle works please.

        • bioemerl
          link
          fedilink
          -8
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So if we’re taking “natural environmental carbon” and turning it into methane - how is that better??

          Because it’s near impossible to convert enough methane through cows to create a catastrophic temperature change on the whole planet. It’s not like fossil fuels with a cumulative effect.

          • @ChocoboRocket
            link
            71 year ago

            Again. With the stupidest of arguments.

            “this isn’t the sole source of a major problem, and won’t singularly bring about catastrophe. So let’s ignore it entirely, even though there are very simple means to prevent it from happening. it upsets the oligarchy because it’s fatter profits to do nothing.”

            You are an idiot.