this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
469 points (84.7% liked)

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

5281 readers
675 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

most of the carbon is part of the earth’s existing carbon cycle

I'm afraid that's a bit too simplistic. I'll name a few reasons to give a hint why.

For example, both carbon dioxide and methane are "part of the earth's carbon cycle", but both have different climate impacts. Ruminants transform one into the other; from bad to worse.

Another person pointed out how meat production also involves burning fossil fuels, for example for transport. Or synthetic fertilizers.

Yet another reason is land use change. Meat production, being inherently less efficient due to more intermediate steps (see trophic levels), uses more land for the same amount of nutritions compared to plant based agriculture. This translates to more deforestation, more dried up wetlands, more desertification, and more stress on other species.

Finally, scale and speed make a difference. It's true that both carbon dioxide and methane are part of Earth's existing carbon cycle. Yet, the scale and speed at which we emit those is unprecedented.

[–] psud@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But natural ruminants like deer would take up places cows were removed from. They will have the same emissions as cows per unit biomass

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Says who, got any source on that? Do we have any evidence for both assumptions, specifically the second?

As far as I know, natural herds of ruminants can actually help keep carbon in the ground. The natural population density is also much lower compared to modern factory farms.