I am unqualified to answer but ran this question through an AI.
The rough number is that apparently 10% of CO2 equivalent comes from meat farming, but don’t trust this.
What did surprise me though is that a much larger benefit would result from repurposing the feed stock and grazing land, together comprising ~25% of the earths habitable land. Land and ecosystem restoration would likely result in feedback loops in the opposite direction.
I have a friend in Denmark that used to run a small carbon neutral farm, where the carbon offsets were all generated by other activities on his land. His all in cost for a kilo of pork was 700kr, or over $100 dollars. Meanwhile, you can but a kilo of port at a supermarket for ~$20. He could only sustain this because he ran a farm restaurant selling the best burgers in town, and even these were probably a loss leader for his best-in-town fries and mayonnaise making up the difference.
Of that 10%, a lot of that is livestock, I've heard as high as 75-90%, but vegetable agriculture is still a part of that 10%, too.
But assuming all of that was livestock, it's still only 10%.
One of the reasons for the emphasis on "go vegan" as an individual choice is that the current industrial approach to cattle (cows for milk and beef) produces more methane than carbon and in some scenarios methane will have a 10x/100x impact on outcomes (making them much, much worse) per volume than carbon. But you can't just rely on eliminating methane production to "solve" climate change, because atmospheric carbon still "sets the tone", the question of atmospheric methane is how bad the "runaway" effects get after carbon has done more than enough damage on its own.
"...following a phaseout of livestock production would, through the end of the century, have the same cumulative effect on the warming potential of the atmosphere as a 25 gigaton per year reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, providing half of the net emission reductions necessary to limit warming to 2°C." (emphasis mine)
> We don’t yet have a full explanation. But new research suggests changes in clouds is a big factor.
> Clouds have a cooling effect overall. But the area covered by highly reflective white clouds has shrunk, while the area of jumbled, less reflective clouds has grown.
> It isn’t clear why the clouds are changing. One possible factor could be the consequences of successful efforts to reduce sulfur in shipping fuel from 2020, as burning the dirtier fuel may have had a brightening effect on clouds.
...
It seems to me that the climate change will be totally solvable by releasing some random gas into the atmosphere. No need to fret about it.
8 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 31.4 ms ] threadThe rough number is that apparently 10% of CO2 equivalent comes from meat farming, but don’t trust this.
What did surprise me though is that a much larger benefit would result from repurposing the feed stock and grazing land, together comprising ~25% of the earths habitable land. Land and ecosystem restoration would likely result in feedback loops in the opposite direction.
I have a friend in Denmark that used to run a small carbon neutral farm, where the carbon offsets were all generated by other activities on his land. His all in cost for a kilo of pork was 700kr, or over $100 dollars. Meanwhile, you can but a kilo of port at a supermarket for ~$20. He could only sustain this because he ran a farm restaurant selling the best burgers in town, and even these were probably a loss leader for his best-in-town fries and mayonnaise making up the difference.
Agriculture, total, is 10% of current US estimated greenhouse gas emission: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
Of that 10%, a lot of that is livestock, I've heard as high as 75-90%, but vegetable agriculture is still a part of that 10%, too.
But assuming all of that was livestock, it's still only 10%.
One of the reasons for the emphasis on "go vegan" as an individual choice is that the current industrial approach to cattle (cows for milk and beef) produces more methane than carbon and in some scenarios methane will have a 10x/100x impact on outcomes (making them much, much worse) per volume than carbon. But you can't just rely on eliminating methane production to "solve" climate change, because atmospheric carbon still "sets the tone", the question of atmospheric methane is how bad the "runaway" effects get after carbon has done more than enough damage on its own.
"...following a phaseout of livestock production would, through the end of the century, have the same cumulative effect on the warming potential of the atmosphere as a 25 gigaton per year reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, providing half of the net emission reductions necessary to limit warming to 2°C." (emphasis mine)
> We don’t yet have a full explanation. But new research suggests changes in clouds is a big factor.
> Clouds have a cooling effect overall. But the area covered by highly reflective white clouds has shrunk, while the area of jumbled, less reflective clouds has grown.
> It isn’t clear why the clouds are changing. One possible factor could be the consequences of successful efforts to reduce sulfur in shipping fuel from 2020, as burning the dirtier fuel may have had a brightening effect on clouds.
...
It seems to me that the climate change will be totally solvable by releasing some random gas into the atmosphere. No need to fret about it.