this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
442 points (85.9% liked)

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

7109 readers
693 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Eating meat financially supports the raising of those animals, that was originally why I went vegetarian.

Edit: Before I get flamed, I agree with you. It's the industry not the consumer who needs to change. I decided to stop being part of the system for my own sake (and with the vague hope of putting some financial pressure on the industry).

On hunting, I'm conflicted. While yes it would be better in general, there's of course the risk of over hunting and the like. Here in Australia we have the opposite problem and have to constantly cull kangaroos to protect the environment, the meat is then available in supermarkets (it's also significantly healthier than beef, and IMO has a better taste).

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Eating meat financially supports the raising of those animals

those people are paid long before you walk into the store or restaurant

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago

Sure, but I meant the demand more than anything. I know I individually won't have a noticeable effect but reducing demand will. It will take significant collective action, but it's pretty much the only option we have in the current system.

I'm sick of just accepting how things are, so I decided to stop participating, better than nothing.

[–] psud@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

In favour of hunting: the animals get a life in the wild, making methane and CO2 at the rates of mass they grow

In favour of farming: the animals are in a farmer's control, they grow bigger, give milk, have fewer parasites so you can eat the meat rare, and they can be treated to reduce their methane production

If enough people stop eating meat for a beef farm to collapse and the land to be let go wild that will turn the grass over to wild deer that will have exactly the same emissions as the cows had, but with no chance of treating them to reduce their methane

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Except we won't be growing insane amounts of crops to feed them all. And I'm really not sure that what you've said is really true, unless you've got something that can back it up.

Will their population increase to replace the population of cows? A quick google suggests that before the US was settled methane from wild ruminants was around 70% of what beef in the US is now, and that number will certainly be much lower even without cattle farms. (I didn't provide that source because I don't trust it and I'm not going to do a ton of research because it's your claim, I would legitimately love to read any proper studies you have read though). Even then, that's just the US, not every country will have an effect like that. Stopping cattle farms here won't cause an increase in populations of much of anything that could cause methane production. Not to mention a lot of that land could be restored to forest in many parts of the world which is going to help with sequestration of CO2, and hopefully restore a ton of biodiversity making the environment more resilient.

I don't think we should hunt for food regardless, but that's just my opinion. I really don't see how the relatively smaller population increase is going to somehow offset the massive reductions from stopping beef farming. Especially if you consider the environmental impact (by which I mean land and water pollution) of growing all that extra feed crop.

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago

And I didn't even consider factory farming where insane numbers of animals are crammed into tiny spaces, which apparently is almost all of US livestock :|

https://medium.com/collapsenews/un-report-factory-farming-accounts-for-37-of-methane-emissions-b31753f103c7