Slashdot Mirror
Want To Fight Climate Change? Stop Cows From Burping
sciencehabit writes: A simple supplement to a cow's feed could substantially decrease a major source of methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas, a new study suggests. Each year worldwide, the methane produced by cud-chewing livestock warms Earth's climate by the same amount as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a little more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity. That makes cows tempting targets for methane reduction efforts. In a new study, researchers added the chemical 3-nitrooxypropanol, also known as 3NOP, to the corn-and-alfalfa-based feed of 84 milk-producing Holsteins and monitored their methane production for 12 weeks—the largest and longest such trial of its type in lactating cows, the scientists say. For cows whose feed included 3NOP, methane emissions dropped, on average, by 30%.
You are all cows! Cows burp. BUUUUUUUURP! BUUUUUUURP! Buurp cows BUUUUURP! Burp say the cows. YOU BURPING COWS!!
And if you take into account the problems of implementing this, then this becomes one of the most stupid ideas to reduce greenhouse emissions...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If we all went vegetarian and killed off the domesticated cattle, then we'd make a huge difference! Kill a cow today!
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If our war on any other imaginary enemy is any indicator, by eliminating freedom.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... this measure doesn't involve:
So how is that any fun, I ask you?!?
For cows whose feed included 3NOP, methane emissions dropped, on average, by 30%.
And what will that reduction mean in terms of temperature reduction? Is the answer zero?
Global warming is a complex issue, with many factors and no easy answer. Because of this complexity it makes it easy for someone to just not believe it is true, because the complexity it too much for any one person to handle. It is more complex than switching to solar panels, and electric cars, and stopping cows from having gas.
Fixing these issues requires changing culture, which is hard, and will create a lot of people resistant to changes, they will hire a lot of people to make their point across, to convince others.
We have a lot of science, and we need more... However I think one thing is needed isn't finding a silver bullet, is to counter the destructive marketing with more counter marketing. Many of the colleges and universities who are doing a lot of science on the topic, also have business schools and programs. Get a handful of those MBA and Public relation majors onto your grant, to help spread the information to help change the culture.
I have seen major cultural changes happen due to effective marketing. From 2004 - 2015 where there was talk to make a constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriages, to it being legal in all states. The rise of smart phones and mobile connectivity...
Marking isn't always bad and trying to sell you products, it is also used to explain ideas. They are actually a lot of MBA students who are not about being money grubbing capitalists, but are about trying to make the world better. (MBA with considerations in not-for-profit is a popular track). These grant for science, should also be allocated to students who are trained to sell the ideas to the general population.
Showing a graph doesn't have impact on those who don't know how to read graphs.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you look at the raw temp data for the U.S. we have been in a cooling trend for the past 115 years
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...
If you compare the adjustments to the trend the adjustments are actually bigger than the error bars and larger than the raw data's trend.
What is it we are supposed to be mitigating ?
Generally, yes, but Methane has a far stronger Greenhouse Effect (IR Radiation absorption rate) than Carbon Dioxide. If we can convert the methane into CO2, that's actually probably going to reduce overall global warming.
Eat what you like. If you want to be tired and suffer from malnutrition that is your own business.
I am a homo sapien. I am an opportunistic omnivore. I need a varied diet to remain healthy. A cow can sit there and eat grass all day and he's happy. Some bird can eat nuts all day and he's happy... wolves or sharks etc can eat nothing but meat and be happy.
I can't do that. I have to eat a little of everything.
And I will. You are welcome to do what you want. But don't come between the thinking ape and his meat... especially if you're tired and malnourished.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Why cows matter: https://xkcd.com/1338/
This space intentionally left blank
The whole idea that cow burps could produce enough carbon to destroy the planet is why so many people deny even the possibility that emitting industrial quantities of carbon can change the climate. It just makes the whole issue sound ridiculous. Methane may be 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, but because of its reactivity it does not persist in the atmosphere in the same way.
There's some insight in that comment-- compared to the 40 trillion kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by combustion of coal, the amount of warming by cows is small. However, although it is smaller effect, it is not negligible contributes. According to the original article:
Each year worldwide, the methane produced by cud-chewing livestock warms Earth’s climate by the same amount as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a little more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.
So, here's a way to affect 4% of the problem (not solve, but affect), with no effect on standard of living whatsoever-- it's a small step, but with essentially no cost: cow methane production is of no economically value.
What bothers me, however, is that the article is talking about burps, while the problem is cow emissions. Not all cow methane emissions are burps.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Don't climate "scientists" have a personal bias invested in a certain outcome?
No. That's the argument made over and over again, but it isn't actually the way science works. In the long run, scientists gain kudos by getting the right answer. Despite the arguments of deniers, scientists aren't idiots.
And in the scientific community, the standard is: the more sensational the claim, the more evidence is required. And climate "science" has made some pretty sensational claims
Again, wrong. In some ways, the problem with actual climate science (not what's in the press, real science) is that the effect isn't sensational. The climate scientists are claiming that anthropogenic carbon dioxide has warmed the planet by on the order of one degree-- far too little for anybody to actually personally notice, although well measurable on a statistical basis. That's only a few percent of the natural greenhouse warming (which is well understood, and not at all controversial, even though it's exactly the same physics).
The reason that denial is so easy is that the effect is so small. Over the long term, of course, it does built up-- but that's brings in the argument "why should we do anything for posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?"
that have a history if not coming true.
Again, wrong. I've been tracking the predictions to data for several years now, and climate modelling still seems to be pretty good; tracking to well within statistical error. The only people who say it isn't are saying so by cherry-picking data that isn't statistically significant.
But we knew that: if the greenhouse effect didn't exist, the Earth would be a frozen snowball.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com