Author Topic: Climate Change Catchment Thread  (Read 50361 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12077
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #720 on: July 08, 2019, 06:42:12 PM »
A fucking opinion piece?  To answer for a study?  Does a low-carb diet cause a terminal lack of awareness?

Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5150
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #721 on: July 08, 2019, 06:44:40 PM »
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.

From everything I have read, it is significantly more than 3%.

Regarding this discrepancy between 3% or significantly more than 3% you have to pay attention to exactly what is being measured. The 3% probably refers to direct emissions.  When you include indirect emissions related to meat production (mainly from growing food for cattle and shipping the animals or the meat) you get amounts around 14% (iirc). You also get different amounts depending if you are talking about global emissions, or US emissions, or some other group of countries. Also, when people criticize the amount of meat produced it is not only based on gas emissions,  water use is also a big factor.

That claim is not valid, because if you use all the direct and indirect emissions related to meat production, you need to compare that to all direct and indirect of other other sources of emissions. Other wise it's a false comparison.

It's very likely that the indirect emissions related to producing and transporting autos and their parts and fuel, for example, is significantly higher than the indirect emissions from agriculture.

No, it's the percentage of the total estimated anthropogenic emissions:

Quote
LLS estimates the global contribution of anthropogenic GHG emissions from the livestock sector at 7100 Tg CO2-eq/yr, which is approximately 18% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (FAO et al., 2006). For comparison,  global  fossil  fuel  burning  accounts  for  4000–5200 Tg CO2-eq/yr (FAO et al., 2006). According to FAO et al. (2006), the major categories of anthropogenic
GHG emissions are:

1. Enteric fermentation and respiration (1800 Tg CO2-eq / yr
2. Animal manure (2160 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
3. Livestock related land-use changes (2400 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
4. Desertification linked to livestock (100 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
5. Livestock related release from cultivated soils (230 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
6. Feed production (240 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
7. On-farm fossil fuel use (90 Tg CO2-eq / yr)
8. Postharvest emissions (10–50 Tg CO2-eq / yr)

Granted, 2006 is a bit dated, but it's not going to magically go from 3 to 14 percent of total anthropogenic emissions just because you calculate the specifics of some other sector differently (unless that drastically changes the estimate of the total, of course, but that seems unlikely).

It's the other side of the equation where they don't go that detail.

If you can't calculate the total indirect input of the other sectors you cannot accurately or validly attribute a percentage.

Given the number of autos and truck on the road and planes in the air in any given moment and the amount of infrastructure needed to support them, I think it's quite likely that the number would drastically change.

So you are saying we are severely underestimating the rate of total anthropogenic carbon emissions? If that is not what you're saying, your argument is irrelevant wrt the percentage of total carbon emissions that comes from livestock. If it is what you're saying, you really need to make a stronger case for that than just "I think the researchers probably didn't think of the things I thought of in these ten minutes I spent contemplating this from behind my keyboard".
Get back to me when youve read the paper


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uhm... As far as I can tell, the only one who linked to an actual paper is me. Lonely Moa linked to an opinion piece that questions the 18% figure, stating that the estimate was lowered to 14.5% (the figure that we referenced earlier), and then raises questions about that in turn, but as far as I can tell does so without backing it up with anything concrete and just claims that the figure for indirect emissions for cars "is impossible calculate" [sic]. Pretending that he's established a reason for this doubt, the author then moves on to what they refer to as "the knowable, direct emissions" (why are the indirect emissions, which according to our best estimates far outweigh the direct emissions, "unknowable"? I would like a source on that claim before I throw out the estimates used by the IPCC and other researchers), and finishes with a slight bait and switch with the EPA figure to get to the 3.9% estimate for cattle, which he himself points out is a U.S. only, cattle only estimate, and therefore not directly comparable to the global percentage estimate for livestock.

I don't have the EPA report here, so I can't be sure what the 9% "direct emissions" figure includes, or whether it talks about CO2 only or CO2-equivalent. FWIW the paper I linked to notes that livestock is responsible for 9% of CO2, 35–40% of CH4, and 65% of N2O, which leads to the CO2-eq figure of 18% (later adjusted to 14.5). But that 9% may just be a coincidence.

I love me my meats, so I hope you're right, but if this is supposed to convince me to throw out the current best estimates we have, I'm not quite buying it.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 06:47:45 PM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9329
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #722 on: July 08, 2019, 09:02:54 PM »
I find Australia a generally likable country. It is definitely on my list of countries I could imagine myself living in some day. So I am very disappointed to read this. I thought better of you.

One country of about 25 million people could potentially be responsible for 17% of global carbon emissions? That's insane.

Disappointing, yes. But if this surprises you, you haven't been paying attention. Our government is basically 100% beholden to Big Coal. Our current Prime Minister (before he was PM) once brought a lump of coal into Parliament to show everybody how non-scary it was. A huge brand-new coal mine has just recently been approved.

Disappointing, yes. But not even remotely surprising.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5035
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #723 on: July 09, 2019, 04:53:55 AM »
I find Australia a generally likable country. It is definitely on my list of countries I could imagine myself living in some day. So I am very disappointed to read this. I thought better of you.

One country of about 25 million people could potentially be responsible for 17% of global carbon emissions? That's insane.

Disappointing, yes. But if this surprises you, you haven't been paying attention. Our government is basically 100% beholden to Big Coal. Our current Prime Minister (before he was PM) once brought a lump of coal into Parliament to show everybody how non-scary it was. A huge brand-new coal mine has just recently been approved.

Disappointing, yes. But not even remotely surprising.

Oz is also the leading miner of uranium, btw, for what that's worth. 
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CookieMustard

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 202
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #724 on: July 09, 2019, 10:17:27 AM »
Probably closer to 3% net. Not much worse than grains and veggies. And people gotta eat.
From everything I have read, it is significantly more than 3%.

Regarding this discrepancy between 3% or significantly more than 3% you have to pay attention to exactly what is being measured. The 3% probably refers to direct emissions.  When you include indirect emissions related to meat production (mainly from growing food for cattle and shipping the animals or the meat) you get amounts around 14% (iirc). You also get different amounts depending if you are talking about global emissions, or US emissions, or some other group of countries.

That claim is not valid, because if you use all the direct and indirect emissions related to meat production, you need to compare that to all direct and indirect of other other sources of emissions. Other wise it's a false comparison.

I might be misunderstanding you but what you are saying here doesn't seem to be valid.  If you have an estimate of the percentage of the total due to direct emissions from meat production that means you have an estimate of the total. If you then add in estimates of indirect emissions of meat production due to grain production, transportation and such you can compute what percentage of the known total this constitutes.
And clearly the direct+indirect will be a greater percentage if the total than just direct (14% and 3%  from the  EPA  sources I found)
Yes, if you compare direct emissions from one source with direct+indirect emissions from another source that would be misleading, but that is not what is being done here.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #725 on: July 09, 2019, 04:44:41 PM »
Quote
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez move to declare climate crisis official emergency

Exclusive: Democrats to introduce resolution in House on Tuesday in recognition of extreme threat from global heating

A group of US lawmakers including the 2020 Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders are proposing to declare the climate crisis an official emergency – a significant recognition of the threat taken after considerable pressure from environment groups.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic congresswoman from New York, and Earl Blumenauer, a Democratic congressman from Oregon, plan to introduce the same resolution in the House on Tuesday, their offices confirmed.

A Sanders spokesperson said: “President Trump has routinely declared phoney national emergencies to advance his deeply unpopular agenda, like selling Saudi Arabia bombs that Congress had blocked.

“On the existential threat of climate change, Trump insists on calling it a hoax. Senator Sanders is proud to partner with his House colleagues to challenge this absurdity and have Congress declare what we all know: we are facing a climate emergency that requires a massive and immediate federal mobilization.”

I suppose this is a step forward. But will a declaration of emergency actually lead anywhere in and of itself? Isn't it at the risk of being watered down to mean nothing?
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12324
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #726 on: July 09, 2019, 05:01:46 PM »


How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?



Quote
So, animal agriculture and meat consumption are significant contributors to global warming, but far less so than fossil fuel combustion.  Moreover, fossil fuels are an even bigger contributor to the problem in developed countries, which use more energy and have increased livestock production efficiency (Pitesky et al. 2009).  For example, in the United States, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 80% of total greenhouse gas emissions as compared to about 3% from animal agriculture

Quote
What the science says...
Animal agriculture is responsible for 13–18% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and less in developed countries (e.g. 3% in the USA).  Fossil fuel combustion for energy and transportation is responsible for approximately 64% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and more in developed countries (e.g. 80% in the USA).

They are even calling it a myth.
Quote

Climate Myth...
Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Becoming Vegan or cutting down on your own personal meat consumption could be the single most effective action that you can do to help reduce green house gas emissions.

The 3% number is the US number, and the 13-18% is the global number. I still maintain that globally the actual contribution of animal agriculture is closer to 3% than 18%.

One of the issues I have is that they attribute nearly all agricultural deforestation to meat production.

I don't think that's valid. First, a good percentage of deforestation is done to grow bananas. The acreage can only sustain banana crops for a limited number of seasons. After that they need to cut down more forests to maintain production levels. The acreage that is abandoned by the banana farmers is then used mainly for grazing, which is why they attribute that to animal agriculture.

Another part of their thinking is that any cropland used to raise food for animals, could be repurposed to raise food for humans, and thereby reduce the need for expanding cropland by deforestation. The problem with that logic is that it is in the US, and to a lesser degree in Europe, where significant amounts of food are raise for animal consumption. Repurposing that food is not going to make the farmers in the developing world decide to not farm or expand their farms.

And, BTW, significant deforestation is not happening in the US (except wildfires).




Everything You Need to Know About Agricultural Emissions | World Resources Institute


1) What share of global greenhouse gas emissions comes from agriculture?

Quote
Farms emitted 6 billion tonnes of GHGs in 2011, or about 13 percent of total global emissions. That makes the agricultural sector the world’s second-largest emitter, after the energy sector (which includes emissions from power generation and transport).

So that's 13% for all of agriculture, and animal agriculture would be significantly less. (So again the total for animal agriculture would be closer to 3% than 18% globally).

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12077
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #727 on: July 09, 2019, 05:31:37 PM »
Neither of those are saying what you think they are saying.  Nor did they disagree with the actual article linked earlier.

You continue to try and compare apples to oranges. And when you do so you ignore a massive source of the contribution to atmospheric CO2.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5150
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #728 on: July 09, 2019, 05:41:03 PM »
Quote
What the science says...
Animal agriculture is responsible for 13–18% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and less in developed countries (e.g. 3% in the USA).  Fossil fuel combustion for energy and transportation is responsible for approximately 64% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and more in developed countries (e.g. 80% in the USA).

They are even calling it a myth.
Quote

Climate Myth...
Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Becoming Vegan or cutting down on your own personal meat consumption could be the single most effective action that you can do to help reduce green house gas emissions.

No, they are calling "Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming" a myth, not the 14% figure. No one is disputing that transportation and energy fossil fuel emissions together vastly outweigh livestock emissions.

The 3% number is the US number, and the 13-18% is the global number. I still maintain that globally the actual contribution of animal agriculture is closer to 3% than 18%.

The article you quote (which I already linked to earlier, btw), and in fact the quote itself, directly contradicts what you're saying.

One of the issues I have is that they attribute nearly all agricultural deforestation to meat production.

Do you have an academic source for that claim? For reference, here's what the 2009 article says:

Quote
Land-use change is defined as greenhouse gas emissions from human activities which either change the way land is used (e.g., clearing of forests for agricultural use) or has an effect on the amount of biomass in existing biomass stocks (e.g., forests, village trees, woody savannas, etc.) (IPCC, 2000). From a livestock perspective, land-use changes would include any land adapted for livestock rearing (e.g., animal grazing, production of cropland for livestock feed). Forested areas are particularly sensitive to land-use change. When forest ecosystems undergo relatively abrupt land-use changes, such as deforestation, forest regrowth, biomass burning, wildfires, agriculture abandonment, wetland drainage, plowing, accelerated soil erosion, and so on, a significant loss of SOC and increase in GHG emissions occur (CAST, 2004; Dixon et al.,1994; Houghton et al., 1999).

Using the IPCC’s definition of land-use change, livestock uses directly (i.e., pasture, LPS) and indirectly (i.e., production of feed crops) the largest land mass in the world (Bruinsma, 2003; Naylor et al., 2005) and is a primary driver for land-use change. LLS (FAO et al., 2006) estimated that livestock related land-use change produces 2400 Tg CO2-eq / yr or 35% of the total GHGs attributed to livestock. LLS (FAO et al., 2006) identifies deforestation in Latin America as the primary source of GHG emissions associated with global livestock. Specifically, land-use changes, including expansion of pasture and arable land for feed crops, primarily occur at the expense of forested land. Forest conversion for permanent crops, cattle ranching, cultivation shifts, and agriculture colonization are considered to contribute equally to the agriculturally driven land-use changes in these countries (Geist and Lambin, 2002). Smith et al. (2007b) estimates that over the last 40 years, an average of 6 and 7 Mha of forestland and non-forestland, respectively, was converted to agricultural land in the developing world.Houghton (2003) estimated that ‘‘Indonesia and Brazil accounted for approximately 50% of the global land-use change C flux in the 1990s.’
(Emphasis mine)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 05:51:21 PM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12324
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #729 on: July 09, 2019, 06:07:19 PM »
Quote
What the science says...
Animal agriculture is responsible for 13–18% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and less in developed countries (e.g. 3% in the USA).  Fossil fuel combustion for energy and transportation is responsible for approximately 64% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and more in developed countries (e.g. 80% in the USA).

They are even calling it a myth.
Quote

Climate Myth...
Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Becoming Vegan or cutting down on your own personal meat consumption could be the single most effective action that you can do to help reduce green house gas emissions.

No, they are calling "Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming" a myth, not the 14% figure. No one is disputing that transportation and energy fossil fuel emissions together vastly outweigh livestock emissions.
Quote

I believe that was one of the claims here, or in the links posted.


The 3% number is the US number, and the 13-18% is the global number. I still maintain that globally the actual contribution of animal agriculture is closer to 3% than 18%.

The article you quote (which I already linked to earlier, btw), and in fact the quote itself, directly contradicts what you're saying.

The article I linked to is an updated version of the one you linked to and a bit more accurate.

The US total is 3% and what I'm saying is that if you don't attribute the bulk of deforestation to animal agriculture the global total is probably closer to 3% than 18%.


Quote


One of the issues I have is that they attribute nearly all agricultural deforestation to meat production.

Do you have an academic source for that claim? For reference, here's what the 2009 article says:

Quote
Land-use change is defined as greenhouse gas emissions from human activities which either change the way land is used (e.g., clearing of forests for agricultural use) or has an effect on the amount of biomass in existing biomass stocks (e.g., forests, village trees, woody savannas, etc.) (IPCC, 2000). From a livestock perspective, land-use changes would include any land adapted for livestock rearing (e.g., animal grazing, production of cropland for livestock feed). Forested areas are particularly sensitive to land-use change. When forest ecosystems undergo relatively abrupt land-use changes, such as deforestation, forest regrowth, biomass burning, wildfires, agriculture abandonment, wetland drainage, plowing, accelerated soil erosion, and so on, a significant loss of SOC and increase in GHG emissions occur (CAST, 2004; Dixon et al.,1994; Houghton et al., 1999).

Using the IPCC’s definition of land-use change, livestock uses directly (i.e., pasture, LPS) and indirectly (i.e., production of feed crops) the largest land mass in the world (Bruinsma, 2003; Naylor et al., 2005) and is a primary driver for land-use change. LLS (FAO et al., 2006) estimated that livestock related land-use change produces 2400 Tg CO2-eq / yr or 35% of the total GHGs attributed to livestock. LLS (FAO et al., 2006) identifies deforestation in Latin America as the primary source of GHG emissions associated with global livestock. Specifically, land-use changes, including expansion of pasture and arable land for feed crops, primarily occur at the expense of forested land. Forest conversion for permanent crops, cattle ranching, cultivation shifts, and agriculture colonization are considered to contribute equally to the agriculturally driven land-use changes in these countries (Geist and Lambin, 2002). Smith et al. (2007b) estimates that over the last 40 years, an average of 6 and 7 Mha of forestland and non-forestland, respectively, was converted to agricultural land in the developing world.Houghton (2003) estimated that ‘‘Indonesia and Brazil accounted for approximately 50% of the global land-use change C flux in the 1990s.’
(Emphasis mine)

I'll look...

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5150
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #730 on: July 10, 2019, 12:48:23 PM »
The article you quote (which I already linked to earlier, btw), and in fact the quote itself, directly contradicts what you're saying.

The article I linked to is an updated version of the one you linked to and a bit more accurate.

I was talking about this:

Quote
What the science says...
Animal agriculture is responsible for 13–18% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and less in developed countries (e.g. 3% in the USA).  Fossil fuel combustion for energy and transportation is responsible for approximately 64% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and more in developed countries (e.g. 80% in the USA).

This directly contradicts the global 3% figure you're claiming is more likely.

The US total is 3% and what I'm saying is that if you don't attribute the bulk of deforestation to animal agriculture the global total is probably closer to 3% than 18%.

Yeah, I understood what you were saying, I just think it's highly suspect to go from 14% to 3% on the basis of an assertion without a reference to support it.
Mooohn!

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5035
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #731 on: July 10, 2019, 02:17:30 PM »
Aotearoa has a quite high per capita agricultural carbon footprint compared to any other countries.  However, we export enough food, in caloric terms, to feed 35 million humans.  Does that give us the ability to divide that part of our footprint by 7? 

Mind you, the tyranny of distance and the unbelievable lack of foresight by Government to create and maintain rail (and public transport in general) would still keep us in the bad carbon emitter books. 
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 06:19:06 PM by lonely moa »
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10130
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #732 on: July 10, 2019, 06:09:06 PM »
... in war the screams are loud and harsh and in peace the wail is so drawn-out we tell ourselves we hear nothing.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12324
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #733 on: July 10, 2019, 07:32:20 PM »
https://apple.news/ANjGfp3wHQvqAKOjNC8d0Ww


New Orleans is already getting flooded by what could turn into a hurricane

Quote

The National Hurricane Center predicts Tropical Storm Barry will form in the Gulf of Mexico by Thursday and strengthen to a hurricane by Saturday, when it's expected to make landfall in Louisiana.
The tropical system has already spawned its first tornado warning and flash flood emergency, both in the New Orleans area on Wednesday.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Igor SMC

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #734 on: July 12, 2019, 12:04:13 PM »
While I as researching mindfulness and meditation, I've stumbled upon this video... In the intro, he says that in 1971 Scientists were already alarmed and were trying to cause massive action. Nineteen fucking seventy one. Corrupt politicians and businessmen successively delayed society's awareness and massive action for at least 50 years... What about today? Today we have Trumps EPA, and Bolsonaro's Ministry of Environment.... Fuuuuuuuuuck.... what can we do?

"Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable"