Author Topic: Climate Change Catchment Thread  (Read 61448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5152
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #705 on: July 08, 2019, 04:23:07 AM »
Beef cattle drink 20 or 30 litres of water a day and return 99% of that back to the soil.  Rain supplies all the irrigation most beef cattle need to grow pasture.  No doubt there is water used in processing, probably a similar amount to what you put down the drain everyday.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5660
  • mooh
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #706 on: July 08, 2019, 06:43:35 AM »
From here:

Quote
The burning of fossil fuels for energy and animal agriculture are two of the biggest contributors to global warming, along with deforestation.  Globally, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 60% of human greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation at about 18%, and animal agriculture between 14% and 18% (estimates from the World Resources Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Pitesky et al. 2009).

[...]

Beef is a bigger problem than other sources of meat

Producing beef requires significantly more resources (e.g. land, fertilizer, and water) than other sources of meat.  As ruminant animals, cattle also produce methane that other sources (e.g. pigs and chickens) don't.

Eschel et al. 2014 estimated that producing beef requires 28 times more land, 6 times more fertilizer and 11 times more water than producing pork or chicken.  As a result, the study estimated that producing beef releases 4 times more greenhouse gases than a calorie-equivalent amount of pork, and 5 times as much as an equivalent amount of poultry.

[...]

There are often suggestions that going vegan is the most important step people can take to solve the global warming problem.  While reducing meat consumption (particularly beef and lamb) reduces greenhouse gas emissions, this claim is an exaggeration.

An oft-used comparison is that globally, animal agriculture is responsible for a larger proportion of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (14-18%) than transportation (13.5%).  While this is true, transportation is just one of the many sources of human fossil fuel combustion.  Electricity and heat generation account for about 25% of global human greenhouse gas emissions alone.
Mooohn!

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3299
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #707 on: July 08, 2019, 07:23:15 AM »
And agriculture is the primary driver of deforestation.

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2977
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #708 on: July 08, 2019, 07:46:27 AM »
Beef cattle drink 20 or 30 litres of water a day and return 99% of that back to the soil.
If water is taken from wells and aquifers and pissed out on the ground, it can be as wasteful as using that same water for a golf course or just dumping it out somewhere. You always seem to forget that most of the world's beef isn't produced like it is in New Zealand.

Plus the water footprint also includes pollution caused, which is going to be high regardless of where the cows' food comes from.
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5685
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #709 on: July 08, 2019, 01:57:20 PM »
Quote
Fossil fuel exports make Australia one of the worst contributors to climate crisis

Australia looking to become an emissions superpower, the Australian Conservation Foundation says

Australia is responsible for 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and could be contributing as much as 17% by 2030 if the pollution from its fossil fuel exports is factored in, research says.

Under climate accounting rules that record carbon dioxide released within a country, Australia is responsible for about 1.4% of global emissions. The analysis by science and policy institute Climate Analytics found more than twice that, another 3.6%, are a result of Australia’s coal, oil and gas exports.

If all proposed fossil fuel developments went ahead, including Adani’s Carmichael mine, other proposed coal developments in the Galilee Basin and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects in Western Australia, and other countries adopted policies consistent with the Paris agreement, Australia could be linked to up to 17% of carbon pollution.

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.
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13404
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #710 on: July 08, 2019, 02:08:21 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.
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12174
  • What seals I auditioned for this job.
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #711 on: July 08, 2019, 03:03:49 PM »
Bullshit.  You are just pulling shit out of your ass.  Any numbers I see almost always add in indirect costs. 

Besides that, what kind of criticism is it to say "other numbers don't calculate the whole cost, so the number that does is wrong."
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5660
  • mooh
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #712 on: July 08, 2019, 04:00:59 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).
Mooohn!

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13404
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #713 on: July 08, 2019, 04:11:33 PM »
Bullshit.  You are just pulling shit out of your ass.  Any numbers I see almost always add in indirect costs. 

Besides that, what kind of criticism is it to say "other numbers don't calculate the whole cost, so the number that does is wrong."

Read the paper I linked to earlier.
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13404
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #714 on: July 08, 2019, 04:15:15 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.
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2977
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #715 on: July 08, 2019, 04:59:35 PM »
That could only change what sector something counts in. It wouldn't change the total. For example, the amount produced by transporting car parts and fuel is still part of total GHG emissions, whether or not it's counted as part of personal transportation emissions.
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5660
  • mooh
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #716 on: July 08, 2019, 05:05:17 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".
Mooohn!

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13404
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #717 on: July 08, 2019, 05:08:30 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
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12174
  • What seals I auditioned for this job.
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #718 on: July 08, 2019, 05:18:25 PM »
Bullshit.  You are just pulling shit out of your ass.  Any numbers I see almost always add in indirect costs. 

Besides that, what kind of criticism is it to say "other numbers don't calculate the whole cost, so the number that does is wrong."

Read the paper I linked to earlier.

You haven't linked to a paper at least in the last 2 pages.  You can't even remember that you didn't provide evidence, but we are supposed to trust you that this non-linked paper will answer the fundamental flaws in your thinking on this?
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13404
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #719 on: July 08, 2019, 06:11:39 PM »
Bullshit.  You are just pulling shit out of your ass.  Any numbers I see almost always add in indirect costs. 

Besides that, what kind of criticism is it to say "other numbers don't calculate the whole cost, so the number that does is wrong."

Read the paper I linked to earlier.

You haven't linked to a paper at least in the last 2 pages.  You can't even remember that you didn't provide evidence, but we are supposed to trust you that this non-linked paper will answer the fundamental flaws in your thinking on this?

No. Hell no. You are not supposed to trust my thinking on this.

Here's what I was referring to.

Lonely Moa linked to the article, and I quoted from it.

Nina Teicholtz (generally an food author and activist) pointed to this article: 


http://m.startribune.com/it-s-not-about-the-hamburgers/512276872/?fbclid=IwAR3TI_HH-aAFL1NT-kO0_TjRY9LIU_iDsKFueOMI82afCbLnOOTyIVpE-nE

Worth reading, CS.

Quote
When you stick to the knowable, direct emissions, the climate burden of cattle fall away. The EPA estimates that 9% of all direct emissions in the U.S. are due to agriculture, compared with 20% from industry, 28% from electricity and 28% from transportation. Just 3.9% are due to livestock. That’s half the CO2 attributable to concrete.

Exactly



... and Donald Trump is president of the United States