212
A Texas Dairy Ranks Among the State’s Biggest Methane Emitters. But Don’t Ask the EPA or the State About It
(insideclimatenews.org)
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
212 points (98.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5194 readers
1039 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.