this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
4 points (64.3% liked)

World News

38578 readers
2100 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zitroni@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Every time I read about meat and greenhouse gases I feel the need to explain the natural carbon circle. A cow does not produce carbon. It takes carbon from plants and releases it to the atmosphere. Then plants retake that carbon.

Humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere by digging out stored carbon from the ground and bring it to the atmosphere.

So we have to fix the part where we bring additional carbon to the atmosphere. But yes, there are other environmental issues with cattle if you read the op's article.

The Biogenic Carbon Cycle and Cattle: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

[–] DouchePalooza@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A cow also produces a lot of methane, a much worse greenhouse gas.

Besides, the problem isn't the grass from cows grazing, it's the rainforests that go down all around the world to convert to farmland to produce animal feed.

It's much more efficient to use that farmland to feed humans than to feed cows and then feed humans (1kg of meat needs 25kg of feed)

Disclaimer - I'm not vegan but I try to reduce my meat consumption overall, especially red meats.

[–] Zitroni@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Methane is broken down within 10 years which is pretty short. Yes, the other environmental issues are real. BTW, I am eating less and less meat. I just see a lot of false assumptions regarding carbon in the atmosphere.

[–] Vegoon@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel the need to explain the natural carbon circle.

You know that the problem with ruminants is that they produce methane and not CO2 which is 25 times worse? A cow takes carbon from the ground and the bacteria creates a 25 times more potent GHG. But you are right that creating new fields and tiling the soil is a huge factor.

IPCC on methan

[–] TauZero@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel that anyone who advocates to stop eating meat for methane reasons is a vegetarian in disguise who latched onto global climate change to push their own agenda, having failed to dissuade meat eaters on animal rights grounds. They are doing the fight against climate change a disservice by muddying the waters. If they were serious about methane specifically (which anyone concerned about GHG should be, to within (x*25)% of its contribution), they would be dedicating 10 times more of their time in researching some kind of pill to give the cows to stop them from making methane - a much more feasible outcome. But doing so does not synergize with their animal welfare goals.

[–] ProfezzorDarke@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

The other thing is that cattle needs much more space. From all the fields that we could use to grow food, a large part ends up as cattle fodder.

[–] curiouscuriosity@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This sounds like a balance. Is that balance still intact? Doesn't the combined effect of unprecedented scale of animal consumption and existing global warming necessitate a compensatory and proportional reduction of GHG?

I like eating meat, but I feel like this is not the complete picture.