this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
289 points (92.6% liked)

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

5194 readers
866 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Would it make more sense to compare based on calories and not weight? Since you need to eat more tofu than beef for the same calorie intake. If my math is right, tofu is about 760 kcal per kg while beef is 2500 kcal per kg so that makes it ~34 grams of CO2 per kcal for beef and ~3 grams of CO2 per kcal for tofu.

Definitely tofu is still better obviously, just wanted to compare with that metric. Not sure if it makes more sense or not.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

The website has a graph for that and for protein as well. It's pretty neat

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The carbon that we dig out of the ground and put in the air, that is the ony one relevant to global warming. Everything else is just a change of phases in a cycle.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but problem is that the methane phase is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2

CO2 in air » plant » cow » methane in air (cow bacteria farts and burps) » CO2 in air

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Also carbon sinks around the globe are being replaced by systems that are at best carbon neutral. Every acre of carbon sequestering rainforest cleared to farm cattle is a net decrease in our ability to process atmospheric carbon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

True, add to that CO2 emission for transporting all that animal feed around the world

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm all in for reducing beef consumption, not just because of the green aspect but also health... having said that, this is yet another fool's errand the masses have been set to follow:

  1. we could curve global beef consumption significantly by realign massive sectors of the supply chain, agriculture and education OR
  2. we could get rid of the Kardashian (sp?) that likes to take private jet hops to avoid minutes of traffic
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You know who says changing beef consumption is impossible so it's meaningless to even try? Beef industry spokespeople.

I mean, what's more impossible - changing Western dietary habits or changing the entire structure of capitalism and representative democracy that allows rich people to own private jets?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I mean, what's more impossible - changing Western dietary habits or changing the entire structure of capitalism and representative democracy that allows rich people to own private jets?

I don't know, do you?

All I'm saying is eliminating bad habits from literally a few individuals would have a greater effect than curving the habits of millions

I mean, what are you? A spokesperson for Boeing?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

this is based on the poore-nemecek study and should not be regarded as "true". it's "true if they methodology reflects reality" but it does not.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Can you expand on that or at least link me to the people smarter than me?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

they take a myopic view of the inputs and outputs for food sources, not considering, for instance, that much of what is fed to animals would otherwise be wasted. the beef doesn't produce all that CO2, poore & nemecek were calculating all the co2 that goes into the inputs. i mentioned elsewhere cottonseed, but frankly i know that only takes up a minute portion of what they're calculating. instead, they are also counting soy, and that's almost as dishonest as you can get. nearly all soy is pressed for oil, and after that, the waste product is what is fed to cattle and other livestock. technically, you could eat it, but most people don't and don't want to. feeding it to livestock actually reclaims waste products. and even the calculation for the soy itself is skewed since it often also counts the deforestation that has already taken place as an emission source, regardless of whether that particular plot of land has been deforested for decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah that seems like it's pretty flawed. Even just going down the soybean oil byproduct rabbit hole the Internet says most of it is "acidulated" to prepare it as an ingredient in lubricants and plastic. So beef production isn't even the main use of the byproduct.

Do we have any better studies? Or is this like the infamous self defense with a handgun study, bad science and all we have at the same time?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I was surprised to see 0.34 Kg or CO~2~ per Kg of Potatoes, but now that I read this, it makes sense.
They are taking many other things into account.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I didn't lie at all: the other user doesn't seem to know how poore and nemeceks lcas are calculated in the first place

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I'm afraid they're straight up lying. The paper doesn't mention cotton even once. See for yourself in the paper here or the database here. It doesn't even specify one type of feed for the beef cattle, because it is a meta-analsyis of hundreds of others papers about specific practices in specific areas. It takes a weighted average of those depending on how much of the world's production the area studied in each one accounts for.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I can just tell you: they did some looking at each production process and the inputs and outputs, then extrapolated it out to global scale.

The problem is that inputs and outputs vary wildly from place to place, that’s why some places are all corn and beans and others are cattle and yet others are something else. Given those differences are because of the economic inputs varying as opposed to the environmental inputs and outputs varying.

You can’t just go around to all the beef producers in the county and figure out how their operation works then multiply it by however much to fit the world scale because the rest of the world might be doing it wildly differently.

Although while I see the criticism of their methodology I think it means things are actually way worse, not better in terms of the environmental impact of beef.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The original paper says that they weighted each measure to the country's national production and then weighted those by the country's share of global production. They didn't just average each result they got for beef with no regard for location.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Yes I was wildly oversimplifying the methodology using a hypothetical intended to help people who might not have a background in either research or beef production understand.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think their point is that scaling to the volume of beef production of other countries isn't correct because the methods of production vary widely enough to produce much different results. As in, some countries likely produce more or less CO2/kg of beef so it makes no sense to simply scale the number they got from a single county to global scales.

Not the guy you're replying too though, so I'm not certain.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Right, but they didn't do that. It's a meta-analysis, so they took the value that each study got for a given crop in a specific country and then weighted all of the values by the share of global production that that country is responsible for. So if we pretend that the only three countries are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, they did the following:

  • Found three studies from Estonia, two from Latvia, and two from Lithuania
  • Averaged the values of the three Estonian studies
  • Did the same for the two Latvian ones and the two Lithuanian ones
  • Found that Estonia is responsible for 60% of the world's beef, Latvia 25%, and Lithuania 15%
  • Took their three national averages and weighted them 0.6 for Estonia, 0.25 for Latvia, and 0.15 for Lithuania to get the final value for beef
  • Repeat for each other crop

The dataset was 1530 studies across 39,000 farms in 119 countries

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I freakin love tofu, air frying it is so tasty. I just wish it were cheaper.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Aldi and Fresh Thyme tofu is pretty cheap around me if you have those.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Where I am it's cheaper than beef, sometimes cheaper than chicken.

load more comments
view more: next ›