Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
guido
Ironically, the tactics of this administration are resulting in most civil service work coming to a grinding halt, making your tax dollars less efficient and more wasteful dollar for dollar than they've been in decades. The endgame of course is to drive out good employees and all the knowledge they hold, making government ineffective in an attempt to generate data that supports the narrative. It's a good strategy on their part, but it is a slow process and my only hope is that 4 years passes before it begins to really succeed in ways that affect land and environment. It will literally take decades to repair the damage that's already been done in very quiet, subtle ways, all while the public is distracted by the latest tweet.
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Whoever’s next should offer “combat pay” for all who survived, and a “hiring bonus” for anyone who returns.
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bcm119
Ironically, the tactics of this administration are resulting in most civil service work coming to a grinding halt, making your tax dollars less efficient and more wasteful dollar for dollar than they've been in decades. The endgame of course is to drive out good employees and all the knowledge they hold, making government ineffective in an attempt to generate data that supports the narrative. It's a good strategy on their part, but it is a slow process and my only hope is that 4 years passes before it begins to really succeed in ways that affect land and environment. It will literally take decades to repair the damage that's already been done in very quiet, subtle ways, all while the public is distracted by the latest tweet.
I think it is easier than that. I was discussing fracking with a person from NYSDEC a few years ago and ultimately, all you have to do is defund enforcement. After that, it doesn't matter what regulations are on the books, if companies don't fear enforcement, they will do whatever they want. And this is then is Gresham's law.
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
guido
The quote on beef is way off. I think a flight from NY to London in economy is 980 kg/passenger
According to Japanese research, one KG of beef is 36.4 kg of carbon. So 4 lbs of beef is 66 kg of carbon.
Numbers aren't even close.
Even though the guy won a noble prize, I call bullcrap.
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
water use feels like the bigger beef ... with beef
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vertical_doug
The quote on beef is way off. I think a flight from NY to London in economy is 980 kg/passenger
According to Japanese research, one KG of beef is 36.4 kg of carbon. So 4 lbs of beef is 66 kg of carbon.
Numbers aren't even close.
Even though the guy won a noble prize, I call bullcrap.
I took the quote from this New Yorker article:
Can a Burger Help Solve Climate Change? | The New Yorker
I trust their fact checking.
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
There is a big difference between grass-fed and grain-fed. Nearly all US beef is raised on grass for the first 9 months. Once the intensive confinement and grain feeding starts, the carbon footprint skyrockets, along with antibiotic use to deal with the digestive problems caused by grain feeding. IMO it comes down to convincing people who grew up with grain-fed solid white marbling that yellower, softer grass-fed marbling is "better" -- if people can be convinced that blue cheese is anything other than toxic waste, surely they can choke down some grass-fed beef, or better still, bison. ;)
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vertical_doug
The quote on beef is way off. I think a flight from NY to London in economy is 980 kg/passenger
According to Japanese research, one KG of beef is 36.4 kg of carbon. So 4 lbs of beef is 66 kg of carbon.
Numbers aren't even close.
Even though the guy won a noble prize, I call bullcrap.
I don't understand how you can look flowcharts of the US's, or the world's, greenhouse gas emissisons and determine that eating beef has such an outsize footprint. Here's one for the US:
http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/f...C%202012_0.jpg
Agriculture is 8.1%, livestock & manure is 3.3%. Not to pooh-pooh the benefits of a low-impact diet, but these charts show the urgency and opportunity of doing something about how we generate electricity and heat, and travel over roads. Even if that is to get, cook, and eat a hamburger.
My concern is this issue so often comes to the forefront to confuse, frighten, and encourage inaction. "Look, they want to take away our hamburgers!" and "But what about the cow farts?"
Similar to how there's a lot of kvetching about air travel, because we can't see a clear path to significantly greening that up right now (other than purchasing offsets). But if over-the-road transport has 11 times the impact, and there are existing technologies that can radically increase its efficiency, both in miles per gallon and people per trip, why not put that on the front burner and turn that burner on high? You know, put a nice sear on it...
TH
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Lots of conflicting data out there. Here is an article in Science that puts it higher:
Environmental impacts of the entire food supply chain
Today’s food supply chain creates ~13.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq), 26% of anthropogenic GHG emissions. A further 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2eq (5%) are caused by nonfood agriculture and other drivers of deforestation (17). Food production creates ~32% of global terrestrial acidification and ~78% of eutrophication. These emissions can fundamentally alter the species composition of natural ecosystems, reducing biodiversity and ecological resilience (19). The farm stage dominates, representing 61% of food’s GHG emissions (81% including deforestation), 79% of acidification, and 95% of eutrophication (table S17).
Today’s agricultural system is also incredibly resource intensive, covering ~43% of the world’s ice- and desert-free land. Of this land, ~87% is for food and 13% is for biofuels and textile crops or is allocated to nonfood uses such as wool and leather. We estimate that two-thirds of freshwater withdrawals are for irrigation. However, irrigation returns less water to rivers and groundwater than industrial and municipal uses and predominates in water-scarce areas and times of the year, driving 90 to 95% of global scarcity-weighted water use (17).
Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers | Science
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
The NYTimes did a good piece on the climate impact of specific types of food:
Your Questions About Food and Climate Change, Answered - The New York Times
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
I suspect the New Yorker and NYT are like every other media outlet, in that the headline determines the clicks. Given the reader demographic-- people interested in feeling like they're making a difference-- headlines focusing on simple changes like eating less hamburgers is going to generate more clicks than headlines about less tangible changes like industrial energy production technology.
Ever since newspapers switched to online subscription models, the articles have shifted away from what's actually important to know to what's irresistible to click on.
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
I thought the Climate thread was the designated science/journalism denier thread... It is getting so hard to keep track.
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
guido
That’s a great article, Guy. Like Bill McKibben says, when it comes to the threat of climate change there is no silver bullet, but there is silver buckshot.
So for each of us to determine where to fire first, we should know what our own carbon footprint is. And whether to take aim at that tenderloin on the table or the Cayenne in the car park. And for that we need rules, and to be sure we’re evaluating these carbon footprints using the same rules. Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3.
Unless you just want to go on an indiscriminate carbon killing spree, just rack up the body count. Happy to aid and abet that as well. Wanna convert your Buderus to biodiesel and get a 1.0-gpm shower head? Scrap the boiler and go heat pump? Plumb the depths of net-zero energy or net positive? I’m your huckleberry.
But for public policy, and focusing the lion’s share of our (the collective our) efforts where they’ll get the best bang for the buck, we need to be accurate. And fair.
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
guido
I trust their fact checking, but the fact they checked was not whether or not the math was right, but rather is the quote attributable to Steve Chu. I believe it is. I am not disputing that ag is a huge contributor to greenhouse gases but I do hate sloppy math. I will right the New Yorker and challenge and ask for a clarification.
But his reasoning is methane.
The typical beef cow is two years old. The carcass weight is about 621 lbs on average. The typical cow emits between 7o to 135 kg of methane per year. We will take the high side.
135 kg/ yr x 2 yr / 621 lbs = .43 kg of methane per pound over 2 years. 4 lbs of beef = 1.74 kg of methane. Methane is 25 x as powerful a green house gas as carbon so 1.74 x 25 = 43 kg equivalent carbon. 43 + 66 from the previous article. = 109 kg of carbon. Obviously, this is still and impressive number considering the average american eats 222 lbs of beef. However, 4lbs of beef is about 1/9 of a one way flight to London.
My family flies a lot and have looked at my carbon footprint attributable to flying and it is a large number.
The running total for this year is just of 20t to date but looks like it is equivalent to about a 4 member household in the US consumption of beef per year. (yeah, its a big number)
Re: Read me >>> sharing illuminating journalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vertical_doug
I trust their fact checking, but the fact they checked was not whether or not the math was right, but rather is the quote attributable to Steve Chu. I believe it is. I am not disputing that ag is a huge contributor to greenhouse gases but I do hate sloppy math. I will write the New Yorker and challenge and ask for a clarification.
Kudos to you for challenging the accuracy of something presented that happens to agree with your larger world view. That’s an admirable trait that is in short supply these days.
