this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
42 points (93.8% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5185 readers
461 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I'll note that if this works, it solves the methane problem, but not the land use problem associated with cattle.

Access options:

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Men would literally re-engineer the Cow before eating fewer burgers

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not too surprising; we've been using selective breeding to radically alter everything we eat since the development of agriculture.

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Artificial selection and gene editing aren't exactly the same thing. Also, trying to use technology to get out of technology-caused problems (the issues from raising and slaughtering tens of billions of bovine a year) is a modern techbrobillionaire-promoted pipedream, like us being able to colonize mars when we fail to address human-caused climate change on this planet

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Technical solutions aren't crazy; we've pulled them off before for other problems. (Eg: sewage)

It's a question of whether the specific tradeoffs associated with a particular technical approach to a particular problem are worthwhile.

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

I never said technical solutions were crazy. I just mean to draw attention to the fact that we're reading a story published in a publication owned by the world's richest man that says we don't need to curb consumption currently causing a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions that we know beyond all reasonable doubt are killing our planet and compromising the longevity of our species - because a sometime-in-the-future technology will rescue things, enabling us to keep consuming at levels that are unsustainable in many other areas beyond methane emissions.

We are in the midst of a great propaganda effort to undermine concern about planetary health in the masses so that the investor class' profits don't slow down as the planet turns to shit. This article is a part of that

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago

Or maybe we should cut down on the demand for beef and pork. We (especially in the US) have grown accustomed to eating meat as the primary element of nearly every meal. Eating a more balanced diet is better for you and better for the environment.

[–] BaumGeist@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Going vegan could save as much as 50% of diet-based greenhouse gas emissions, which in total is around 20% of all ghg emissions.

Or, y'know, we could overengineer a solution without knowing what the unintended consequences are and end up shifting from one global crisis to another, but at least our tastebuds wouldn't have to miss out on our precious rotting corpse flavor.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago

all of agriculture is only about 20% of our GHG emissions. at least according to owid. do you have another source?

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 5 points 2 months ago

Having one digestive tract per cow is kinda wasteful. Why not have dozens of cows hooked up to one central digestive system? The same goes from nervous systems.

Has anyone tried reversing polarity?

If my cowculations are correct that should allow them to breath methane and fart oxygen

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Sounds like precision fermentation is probably a better solution, but we should be exploring all avenues for sure.