I'm glad that France, Germany, and England are getting hit hard. It means that some of the most powerful countries in the world will actually take action. If it were only some countries in the Global South then there would be less incentive to fix what we've broken.
That's hilarious, since France, Germany, and UK combined barely make up 8.7% of China's total CO₂ emissions [1]. In other words, China emits about 11.4 times as much as France, Germany, and the UK put together.
> It means that some of the most powerful countries in the world will actually take action.
They wont. When the IPCC said the worst case scenario is off the table, the reaction of the conservatives was, now it’s time to reduce all that climate change stuff and put some "common sense“ back in, so the companies have less environmental laws to follow
What makes you think so? My naïve view is if people eat soy instead of an animal eating the soy there's less total soy needed, by a fair margin. The pasture animals are a different deal but that represent a tiny proportion of consumes nutrients around the world.
Moreover, people that transition from omni to veggie diet don't eat 10x more veggies (with exceptions of course), even if grains and pulses are counted as veggies. We can't eat as much as what the livestock eat themselves.
> i wonder what would happen if the whole world went vegan from tomorrow
Mass starvation probably. We aren't prepared for it. Give it 10 years and maybe it could be done.
> would it actually cut down emissions, methane? co2?
You'd have to do something about all the existing livestock. Again with 10 years' lead time you could just stop breeding new livestock and let them die out.
> but [what] would be the impact long term
Less deforestation, less fertilizer (and therefore fossil fuels) used, lower methane emissions. If people could adjust their diets the impact would only be good (other than losing meat and dairy, which would be sad).
A bit of pollutants would go down, but cow farming isn't a one way street as their manure is also a potent fertilizer and they primarily eat legumes that fixate nitrogen or unmanaged grass and neither use pesticides.
Hardly anything worthwhile, like paper straws, those are the kind of feel good measures, while the planet gets destroyed via wars, depletion of resources, wild construction, fires actually started by pyromanics and speculation for burned wood and construction sites, all everything else destroying Earth thanks to greed of a few in detriment of everyone else.
This paper straw thing is the dumbest take of them all. It's about reducing plastic waste (which is equally important) and has nothing to do with climate change. I have no clue how people can repeat it, as it has no obvious relation to each other?
I was able to find sources for your methane production figures, but can you provide them for the CO2?
To your point about increasing CO2 from farming plants: 40-66% of corn and 58%-77% of soy grown in the US is currently fed to animals, and we dedicate 5,000% more acres to growing feed crops than to vegetables[1]. Since between 3 and 10 calories of plants fed to an animal yields 1 calorie of animal product (depending on animal)[2], there would be room to either plant less, plant different, and/or use less emissive practices.
> and we dedicate 5,000% more acres to growing feed crops than to vegetables
And it's worth considering what would replace all that land (maybe some would end up being biofuel production, but a lot might be allowed to return to nature if it's not profitable anymore), along with things like less demand for slash and burn.
Is tiresome explaining this again and again to people that don't want to understand. Not. This plan will never work. Is a dead end.
Seriously. Anybody repeating this ideas again, should prove that they tried to read a handbook about ecology at least. Ecology is a science. This has been researched since the 70's.
Because humans eat a lot of ocean products that fall into omnivore diet and would need to be replaced by soy.
Because many arid places where you can have cattle are not suitable to culture soy, so if you remove cattle you are changing cattle by nothing and reducing the amount of feed produced, so we would need to compensate it killing some humans (not desirable) or increasing the pressure of agriculture over the natural areas somewhere.
Because vegetables are not enough in very cold places. You really need to eat animal fat there. Lots of it.
neither deserts or oceans or cold mountains or roads or cities are suitable to culture soy, the only remaining suitable places are the forests.
A meadow with cattle were it was a rainforest is a tragedy, but replacing the meadow with a monoculture of soy is making the problem much, much worse. The meadow is an ecosystem at least. The soy field is a dead zone.
> Is tiresome explaining this again and again to people that don't want to understand
I feel the same way.
> Because humans eat a lot of ocean products that fall into omnivore diet and would need to be replaced by soy.
How much seafood? How much soy?
> Because many arid places where you can have cattle are not suitable to culture soy
What percent of all cattle is that? What if only free-range cattle-rearing in already-existing pastureland were allowed to continue, but feedlots and grain-fed cattle were phased out?
> Because vegetables are not enough in very cold places. You really need to eat animal fat there. Lots of it.
Sure. We're basically talking about Siberia, Greenland, northern Finland/Sweden/Norway, and northern Alaska and Canada. Not very many people. They could continue to eat animal fats and it wouldn't make much difference.
> replacing the meadow with a monoculture of soy
Soy isn't the only bean. There are literally dozens of types of beans.
I don't think you realize:
1. How much soy and corn are grown to feed animals
2. How inefficient that is compared to feeding soy and corn to humans
the problem, that is not bieng discussed is that the high temp record is different than anything else historicaly as the average temp is attached to some realy wierd cold water upwelling just about everywhere
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
China also makes most of the world's solar panels, EVs, and batteries.
They wont. When the IPCC said the worst case scenario is off the table, the reaction of the conservatives was, now it’s time to reduce all that climate change stuff and put some "common sense“ back in, so the companies have less environmental laws to follow
- would it actually cut down emissions, methane? co2?
- the price of veggies would obviously go 10x in the short term but would be the impact long term
What makes you think so? My naïve view is if people eat soy instead of an animal eating the soy there's less total soy needed, by a fair margin. The pasture animals are a different deal but that represent a tiny proportion of consumes nutrients around the world.
Moreover, people that transition from omni to veggie diet don't eat 10x more veggies (with exceptions of course), even if grains and pulses are counted as veggies. We can't eat as much as what the livestock eat themselves.
Mass starvation probably. We aren't prepared for it. Give it 10 years and maybe it could be done.
> would it actually cut down emissions, methane? co2?
You'd have to do something about all the existing livestock. Again with 10 years' lead time you could just stop breeding new livestock and let them die out.
> but [what] would be the impact long term
Less deforestation, less fertilizer (and therefore fossil fuels) used, lower methane emissions. If people could adjust their diets the impact would only be good (other than losing meat and dairy, which would be sad).
- methane production would only drop by a max of 32% due to farming
- rice alone already emits 12% of world methane, this would increase
- only 15% of co2 comes from farming.
- 45% of the co2 from farming is plants. This would increase.
So it wouldn’t do anything.
Follow traditional cuisines that have worked out healthy vegetarianism. Don't buy fake meats.
> methane production would only drop by a max of 32%
Only? If I cut your salary by 32% would you say it isn't much of a drop?
> rice alone already emits 12% of world methane, this would increase
And would be more than offset by the methane emitted by cattle.
> 45% of the co2 from farming is plants. This would increase.
Why? Feeding people plants takes less plants than feeding animal plants and then feeding people animals.
To your point about increasing CO2 from farming plants: 40-66% of corn and 58%-77% of soy grown in the US is currently fed to animals, and we dedicate 5,000% more acres to growing feed crops than to vegetables[1]. Since between 3 and 10 calories of plants fed to an animal yields 1 calorie of animal product (depending on animal)[2], there would be room to either plant less, plant different, and/or use less emissive practices.
1: https://insideanimalag.org/feed-crop-takeaways/
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Conversi...
And it's worth considering what would replace all that land (maybe some would end up being biofuel production, but a lot might be allowed to return to nature if it's not profitable anymore), along with things like less demand for slash and burn.
And what percent of that is farming plants to feed animals?
The thing is, as you can see from the data, it’d reduce methane and co2, but not substantially.
Bottom line is that there is too much heavy industry, too much oil, gas and coal, and too many people.
The problem isn’t me eating meat. It’s 9 billion people eating anything.
massive deforestation to culture soy
And every human farting at the same time would make the cows look like saints.
Seriously. Anybody repeating this ideas again, should prove that they tried to read a handbook about ecology at least. Ecology is a science. This has been researched since the 70's.
Because humans eat a lot of ocean products that fall into omnivore diet and would need to be replaced by soy.
Because many arid places where you can have cattle are not suitable to culture soy, so if you remove cattle you are changing cattle by nothing and reducing the amount of feed produced, so we would need to compensate it killing some humans (not desirable) or increasing the pressure of agriculture over the natural areas somewhere.
Because vegetables are not enough in very cold places. You really need to eat animal fat there. Lots of it.
neither deserts or oceans or cold mountains or roads or cities are suitable to culture soy, the only remaining suitable places are the forests.
A meadow with cattle were it was a rainforest is a tragedy, but replacing the meadow with a monoculture of soy is making the problem much, much worse. The meadow is an ecosystem at least. The soy field is a dead zone.
I feel the same way.
> Because humans eat a lot of ocean products that fall into omnivore diet and would need to be replaced by soy.
How much seafood? How much soy?
> Because many arid places where you can have cattle are not suitable to culture soy
What percent of all cattle is that? What if only free-range cattle-rearing in already-existing pastureland were allowed to continue, but feedlots and grain-fed cattle were phased out?
> Because vegetables are not enough in very cold places. You really need to eat animal fat there. Lots of it.
Sure. We're basically talking about Siberia, Greenland, northern Finland/Sweden/Norway, and northern Alaska and Canada. Not very many people. They could continue to eat animal fats and it wouldn't make much difference.
> replacing the meadow with a monoculture of soy
Soy isn't the only bean. There are literally dozens of types of beans.
I don't think you realize:
1. How much soy and corn are grown to feed animals
2. How inefficient that is compared to feeding soy and corn to humans
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/products/ocean/sst/contour/
and what I believe will end up bieng record low artic summer ice
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today
and what is heading towards record low antartic winter ice
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today#nav-paragraph-308563
more graphs and charts
https://climatereanalyzer.org/
I think you’ve simply misunderstood the basic mechanism/claim here.