
Methane rises to highest level on record - elorant
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/livestock-farming-and-fossil-fuels-could-drive-4c-global-heat-rise
======
perfunctory
This is not really a news anymore, is it. Methane levels are setting new
records, co2 levels are settings new records, total GHG emissions are rising,
temperature is rising, everything is rising, every freaking year. Year after
year. This news sounds a little bit like saying "The age of the universe rises
to the highest level on record. It got older. Again." The news will be when
global GHG levels stop rising and start decreasing.

~~~
kilroy_jones
Might not be a lot of people around to report the news when that happens.

~~~
wiz21c
not funny at all :-/

------
blackomen6
Interestingly, Burger King just announced that they're changing the diet of
their cattle to reduce emissions by 33% (of their cattle, not worldwide).
Apparently lemongrass leaves will accomplish this.

[https://www.smartenergydecisions.com/blog/2020/07/15/burger-...](https://www.smartenergydecisions.com/blog/2020/07/15/burger-
king-to-limit-cattle-methane-emissions-with-new-
diet?contact_id=158571&inf_contact_key=4fd3f3c05a4f6e3e154ff8def1c8149f842e902fbefb79ab9abae13bfcb46658)

------
varbhat
What is the solution though? I believe that the main reason for these problems
are population explosion.

~~~
perfunctory
Everybody knows what the solution is. There is no lack of solutions. There is
a lack of courage to implement them.

While population may be a concern, it's not the main problem.

> The richest 10% of people in the world are responsible for around 50% of
> global emissions

[https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-pub...](https://oi-
files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-
extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf)

~~~
ArkVark
The top 10% is people who earn over $18,000/year, which probably includes most
of HackerNews readers:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/business/global...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/business/global-
income-calculator/)

Keep in mind that this richest 10% contribute the majority of humanity's
value-added commerce and production, cultural output, and scientific output.

For example, Romania has an equal scientific output to Pakistan:
[https://www.natureindex.com/country-
outputs](https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs)

Despite Pakistan being 212 million people vs Romania 19 million. Pakistan
emits 178mt of Co2, vs Romania 79mt (2016). Pakistan's CO2 output is 2.2x
greater, but their total GDP is only 1.31x bigger.

When you look at emissions against output, its clear that the West and East
Asia are substantially more efficient than other regions on the planet.

~~~
karmakaze
Efficiency is something I can get behind, but of what? Forgetting dollars and
cents for a moment, what if we measured the health and happiness of a
population. Using those measures times the population would be the plus side
with environmental impact on the minus. This only works for a closed system
and import/export and sharing of scientific results plays a part.

I guess my point is if Pakistan were able to keep their population healthy and
happy with less GDP per capita, scientific input or output, and less
environmental impact per capita than Romania, I'd say they were doing alright.

~~~
selimthegrim
I don’t know if Pakistan is quite comparable with Romania on the healthy and
happy metrics, but the real efficiency comparison is between Pakistani and
Indian Punjabs on groundwater depletion and tube wells. Indian Punjab may be
better at getting the groundwater out and irrigation intensity but at what
cost to the aquifer? (This is not saying Pak doesn’t need to move away from
wasteful canals and build water storage for rain - they do)

~~~
karmakaze
I was only using Pakistan and Romania since they were in the original example.
The important bit was to not optimize a proxy for a thing without recognizing
that it's a proxy and may lead to undesirable conclusions or actions.

------
totetsu
bacteria in the wet rice farming system is also a big source of methane, with
a positive feedback loop for rising temperature.

------
christiansakai
I'd expect that this pandemic actually put a brake in emission acceleration.
What happened?

~~~
lambertsimnel
Fjolsvith suggests a possible answer in another thread: > With the meat
packaging plant closures and the "shortage" of beef, the cattle herds are
probably growing in numbers, which could cause the spike of methane.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858601](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858601)

------
spodek
We are not powerless against this.

We eat more meat than ever. We subsidize meat production at every level so
that all taxpayers pay for cheap meat, even vegetarians and vegans.

We can reduce subsidies, or even reverse them to accurately account for the
externalities of pollution and global heating.

While population growth rate is lowering, humans are still increasing in
population. We can make contraception and education more available globally.

The United States' science education has declined for generations so people
don't understand nature and how we affect it. We can improve science
education.

~~~
6d6b73
Meat is not the problem. Long before people there was more animals alive on
this planet and they pooped, farted and ate each other at a scale that we
can't imagine. Just think about the bison, or passenger pigeons.

~~~
gbrown
Citation needed? They ate grass instead of corn, and spread their waste over
vast areas of wilderness, ready to be incorporated back into the plantlife.

Also, a quick Google search says there were 30-60 million bison roaming the
plains. Today, there are 95 million cows, and another 70 some million pigs.

~~~
6d6b73
Not all cows are used for meat. Bison, and pigeons are just two examples, but
as you can imagine, all over planet there were billions of animals that are
not either extinct or close to being extinct. How about european bison,
aurochs, wild pigs, and many many more. Cows are just one example of the
bovine family.

I don't claim that farmed meat does not contribute anything, but it's not the
only, or even main problem of the climate change. Start a garden, and see for
yourself how much resources it takes to grow enough plant food to feed your
family,and compare that to a number calories you can get from one cow.

~~~
gbrown
No offense, but you appear to be just making up your numbers and inventing the
conclusions from whole cloth. Nobody would dispute that the biosphere was
richer and more diverse in the past, but all of those animals were part of a
global equilibrium (at least on the order of 10s of thousands of years,
nothing is permanent).

Currently, the animals in our food system are not. I do garden extensively,
and I know how difficult it is to produce food for a whole year. I also know
that feeding carbon intensive corn to cows to eat is a thermodynamically
loosing game calorie-wise. If you want to pay for regeneratively raised, grass
fed beef from farms with integrated waste management, good for you. If you
think your 99c hamburger at a fast food restaurant isn’t part of a climate and
ethical catastrophe, I think you’re being willfully ignorant.

Personally I’m a vegetarian, but the main thing I care about is that people
eat less meat, which was more sustainably and ethically raised.

[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C16&q=cow...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C16&q=cows+methane+contribution&oq=cows+methane+contri)

------
daneel_w
Overheard banter on this topic at work a few weeks ago: "yeah 'coz everyone's
sitting at home farting in the sofa every evening since the f __*ing corona
happened instead of going about their spare time as usual ".

~~~
selimthegrim
Maybe after dinner smoking will make a comeback.

