>2. Methane warms the planet
>3. Warming the planet is bad for humans
So does CO2 (to a much lesser extent per quantity yes) Yet the issue we have today is not due to countless forest fires for hundreds of thousands of years. Because that CO2 too is part of a carbon cycle. And if those trees rotted instead they'd still largely release that co2.
It is still accurate to say the CO2 of those fires warms the planet. It is inaccurate to say it is part of the cause of global warming.
It is thus inaccurate to claim that stopping those fires would have been a viable part of a solution to stopping global warming even if we could.
After all the co2 ppm has shot up insanely since the start of the industrial revolution. Those first engines on coal and oil contributed to our issue today and anything similar has done the same since. The large amount of cows and their farts back then did not.
So....If we stopped introducing new hydrocarbons, didn't set off feedback loops and kept the livestock and their farts and manure would temperatures go up due to the lifestock? We could reasonably assume no.
>Counterpoint: no we don't. Who is we? I challenge you to find a single person who both advocates for less cow consumption because of the climate impact and promotes more fossil fuel consumption. I don't think such a person exists.
I don't think they're advocating for more fossil fuel use. That's not what I said.
The person you should challenge me to find is easily found in the majority of people.
I've saw plenty of people at my previous workplace (recent job change) saying they tried to eat less meat. Few even stopped it.
We were/are well off so no qualms about the price in that calculation i'd say.
If you'd ask em a plain question like should we strive to stop using hydrocarbons altogether few might even answer yes without delving too deep into the implications
They still drove to work every day and would continue to do so indefinitely. They still worked for a massively polluting corporation. Still traveled by plane and had a carbon footprint that's ridiculous in contrast to the situation or that of many people in less developed countries and they all patted themselves on the back for contributing their part in stopping climate change whilst contributing massively to it barreling onwards. The bit they did do not actually affecting long term results.
Now take the situation where we stop pumping up oil, gas and such and you get an even better sample because it's a lot more tactile of a matter when almost every damn industry heavily depends on fossil fuels in various ways leading to massive layoffs and degrowth, foodprices skyrocket, etc
I dare say finding support for an actual solution among them given that case becomes difficult.
Is that me arguing for continued use of fossil fuels? No. Is that me giving up? No.
But it does remind me of scenes in 'Don't look up' where they suggest trying alternative solutions first until it's too late ...and it's extremely frustrating.
>I mean, ok, if you want to give up I guess I can't stop you, but can you at least keep it to yourself and not try to bring everyone else down with you?
I don't want to give up in finding a solution but when a big part of the stuff put forward is not a solution at all it becomes discouraging.
In my country for example our greens championing climate change want to phase out nuclear powerplants which provide the majority of power and phase em out all together.
Their proposed solution has been to build gas plants to provide variable output to encourage renewable investment however the plan requires it to be main output for a very very long time and even then cause a shortage. The massive subsidy contract to get companies to build these gas plants span decades with no scaledown.
Pointing out the likely fossil fuel use and/or land use implications that'll stem from what you champion is not me giving up. It's more like you don't want to address it.
>Yes, exactly, I'm glad we're on the same page. Quickly phasing out cattle would buy us a LOT of time, like decades.
The atmospheric halflife of methane is 9 years for one.
>Go back in time and keep all the hydrocarbons in the ground" is not an option, they've already been burned and they're already warming the planet and we're in a crisis now.
We are still doing it. We are still doing it on a massive. insane. scale. We are not stopping. Hell there's no clear indication we're slowing down nearly enough
When we will it will probably be because we reached peak oil. In the meantime we do a lot of bs revolving around it.[1]
And this is why i brought up things like the sequestration projects and plastics recycling scam that you considered totally irrelevant.
Because it feels to me like another non solution being popular because it is les opposed (because we don't want to touch actual ones too much and harm our standard of living drastically in the process, etc) making us all feel like we're doing something about the problem whilst long term it does little to nothing.
So does CO2 (to a much lesser extent per quantity yes) Yet the issue we have today is not due to countless forest fires for hundreds of thousands of years. Because that CO2 too is part of a carbon cycle. And if those trees rotted instead they'd still largely release that co2. It is still accurate to say the CO2 of those fires warms the planet. It is inaccurate to say it is part of the cause of global warming. It is thus inaccurate to claim that stopping those fires would have been a viable part of a solution to stopping global warming even if we could.
After all the co2 ppm has shot up insanely since the start of the industrial revolution. Those first engines on coal and oil contributed to our issue today and anything similar has done the same since. The large amount of cows and their farts back then did not.
So....If we stopped introducing new hydrocarbons, didn't set off feedback loops and kept the livestock and their farts and manure would temperatures go up due to the lifestock? We could reasonably assume no.
>Counterpoint: no we don't. Who is we? I challenge you to find a single person who both advocates for less cow consumption because of the climate impact and promotes more fossil fuel consumption. I don't think such a person exists.
I don't think they're advocating for more fossil fuel use. That's not what I said. The person you should challenge me to find is easily found in the majority of people. I've saw plenty of people at my previous workplace (recent job change) saying they tried to eat less meat. Few even stopped it. We were/are well off so no qualms about the price in that calculation i'd say. If you'd ask em a plain question like should we strive to stop using hydrocarbons altogether few might even answer yes without delving too deep into the implications They still drove to work every day and would continue to do so indefinitely. They still worked for a massively polluting corporation. Still traveled by plane and had a carbon footprint that's ridiculous in contrast to the situation or that of many people in less developed countries and they all patted themselves on the back for contributing their part in stopping climate change whilst contributing massively to it barreling onwards. The bit they did do not actually affecting long term results.
Now take the situation where we stop pumping up oil, gas and such and you get an even better sample because it's a lot more tactile of a matter when almost every damn industry heavily depends on fossil fuels in various ways leading to massive layoffs and degrowth, foodprices skyrocket, etc I dare say finding support for an actual solution among them given that case becomes difficult.
Is that me arguing for continued use of fossil fuels? No. Is that me giving up? No. But it does remind me of scenes in 'Don't look up' where they suggest trying alternative solutions first until it's too late ...and it's extremely frustrating.
>I mean, ok, if you want to give up I guess I can't stop you, but can you at least keep it to yourself and not try to bring everyone else down with you?
I don't want to give up in finding a solution but when a big part of the stuff put forward is not a solution at all it becomes discouraging.
In my country for example our greens championing climate change want to phase out nuclear powerplants which provide the majority of power and phase em out all together. Their proposed solution has been to build gas plants to provide variable output to encourage renewable investment however the plan requires it to be main output for a very very long time and even then cause a shortage. The massive subsidy contract to get companies to build these gas plants span decades with no scaledown.
Pointing out the likely fossil fuel use and/or land use implications that'll stem from what you champion is not me giving up. It's more like you don't want to address it.
>Yes, exactly, I'm glad we're on the same page. Quickly phasing out cattle would buy us a LOT of time, like decades.
The atmospheric halflife of methane is 9 years for one.
>Go back in time and keep all the hydrocarbons in the ground" is not an option, they've already been burned and they're already warming the planet and we're in a crisis now.
We are still doing it. We are still doing it on a massive. insane. scale. We are not stopping. Hell there's no clear indication we're slowing down nearly enough When we will it will probably be because we reached peak oil. In the meantime we do a lot of bs revolving around it.[1]
And this is why i brought up things like the sequestration projects and plastics recycling scam that you considered totally irrelevant. Because it feels to me like another non solution being popular because it is les opposed (because we don't want to touch actual ones too much and harm our standard of living drastically in the process, etc) making us all feel like we're doing something about the problem whilst long term it does little to nothing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimel...