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

5687 readers

465 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

How a ‘cow fart’ vaccine could help tackle climate change (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) by concrete_baby@sh.itjust.works to c/climate@slrpnk.net

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Some farms that feed cows in yards already use food additives that help reduce methane production in a cow’s stomach, but they have downsides, such as variable efficacy and the need to be constantly supplied, which is difficult if the animals are free to roam.

A vaccine could be an alternative, and the Pirbright Institute in the UK, a virology lab focusing on livestock, is leading a three-year study to develop one. “The appeal of a vaccine as part of the solution is that it’s a very well adopted, common practice, with infrastructure able to do this already, and people know about the benefits of vaccination for animal health generally,” says John Hammond, director of research at The Pirbright Institute.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I recently had an exchange where the other person was trying to argue that meat consumption had nothing to do with production because production occures before consumption. I was talking to them for like a day but uh yeah. at that point I blocked them.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

To an extent they're right but probably not in the way they intended to be. Government subsidies help ensure that animal ag can be profitable and incentivized regardless of consumption levels, and the ever-expanding amounts of land required for most animal ag and it's support infrastructure (eg feedstock production, a byproduct of industrial soy oil) literal fuel and are fueled by imperial expansion in a cyclic self-reinforcing fashion. If people stopped eating beef today without also protesting it's existence you'd probably see the animal ag industry continue to run on it's own fumes for years.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, to a certain extent that's true, but it's also the demand that creates the subsidies in the first place.

If all demand were to suddenly disappear (it won't), you're absolutely right, production would tend towards lingering on for quite a while. The best option in that sort of case would be for the producers to get paid to not produce. Governments shouldn't punish people for not being able to forsee every circumstance.

But that scenario is unrealistic. Transitions take time, and existing systems will have time to respond accordingly.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 6 hours ago

subsidies are one thing but I don't think its enough if it has to be thrown striaght into the trash.